The OTHER SC Ruling...Union Slap Down

[zolace]

Read all about it in the only news coverage I could find that tells us the whole story!


I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about but what the decision refers to is privately contracted PAs (Personal Assistants) that Medicaid pays for working poor to hire to help them out with child care. That's from the actual Supreme Court web site on the decision. Or do you think FOX News knows more than the Court about their ruling?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf\

I read the FOX report. When one reads the decision and all the background, it's clear that what this family essentially did was to 'hire from within". Again, the check from Medicaid is not ostensibly for the care of the child - or in this case, an disabled adult - but rather a specific amount provided to pay for a home health care assistant. In this case, the family actually hired the mother, herself to do the job (I guess it's legal, since the state didn't tell them they couldn't do it).  Like I said, I read the actual decision, and it's very clear what it is about - hired assistants. I can't even see that as being applicable to The Harris family unless they did what I described - hired the mother. I could have missed something and I welcome someone pointing it out if I did.

Maybe she would end up with more wages -- substantially more than the $90 union dues -- if she joined the union.

She evidently doesn't have to.   And that's fine with me as long as she doesn't benefit from freeloading off the dues paying members.
 
She is certainly free to negotiate her own reimbursement, as a party of one and all the negotiating power that entails (guffaw) but she should not in any way benefit from the work done on behalf of the dues paying members by their union in negotiating better pay and benefits.

[sana8410]

You don't say...you mean like we just said?    And that has what to do with blubberings about corporate abuse and wages?   

I'm going to answer your question with another question. Trust me, the answer is in there - Do you (or most right wing conservatives) support ANY worker being mandated to join a union?

OK, go ahead - pretend that doesn't answer your question.

[noviapriani]

You don't say...you mean like we just said?    And that has what to do with blubberings about corporate abuse and wages?   

I'm going to answer your question with another question. Trust me, the answer is in there - Do you (or most right wing conservatives) support ANY worker being mandated to join a union?

OK, go ahead - pretend that doesn't answer your question.

I'm pretending his hidden clue isn't there in his answering a question with a question, because trust him, it is.  Lol.


Predictable as the sun rise.   

[umair127]

Read all about it in the only news coverage I could find that tells us the whole story!


I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about but what the decision refers to is privately contracted PAs (Personal Assistants) that Medicaid pays for working poor to hire to help them out with child care. That's from the actual Supreme Court web site on the decision. Or do you think FOX News knows more than the Court about their ruling?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf\

I read the FOX report. When one reads the decision and all the background, it's clear that what this family essentially did was to 'hire from within". Again, the check from Medicaid is not ostensibly for the care of the child - or in this case, an disabled adult - but rather a specific amount provided to pay for a home health care assistant. In this case, the family actually hired the mother, herself to do the job (I guess it's legal, since the state didn't tell them they couldn't do it).  Like I said, I read the actual decision, and it's very clear what it is about - hired assistants. I can't even see that as being applicable to The Harris family unless they did what I described - hired the mother. I could have missed something and I welcome someone pointing it out if I did.

Maybe she would end up with more wages -- substantially more than the $90 union dues -- if she joined the union.

She evidently doesn't have to.   And that's fine with me as long as she doesn't benefit from freeloading off the dues paying members.
 
She is certainly free to negotiate her own reimbursement, as a party of one and all the negotiating power that entails (guffaw) but she should not in any way benefit from the work done on behalf of the dues paying members by their union in negotiating better pay and benefits.

Seriously, it is obvious don't even know what you are talking about.   Why don't you actually read the back ground and understand the facts regarding this case and the law (including the ruling) before you comment.   

[sana8410]

You don't say...you mean like we just said?    And that has what to do with blubberings about corporate abuse and wages?   

I'm going to answer your question with another question. Trust me, the answer is in there - Do you (or most right wing conservatives) support ANY worker being mandated to join a union?

OK, go ahead - pretend that doesn't answer your question.

I'm pretending his hidden clue isn't there in his answering a question with a question, because trust him, it is.  Lol.


Predictable as the sun rise.   

And yet..... you didn't even acknowledge the answer. Predictable as the sunrise.

[zolace]

They don't care to learn the particulars of the case because the particulars don't matter to them.  They'll side with the unions anyway, no matter the details.
So who thinks that workers should be FORCED to pay union dues? I surely do not. And the Unions themselves say they represent everyone regardless of whether the are union members or not.

[sana8410]

They don't care to learn the particulars of the case because the particulars don't matter to them.  They'll side with the unions anyway, no matter the details.
So who thinks that workers should be FORCED to pay union dues? I surely do not. And the Unions themselves say they represent everyone regardless of whether the are union members or not.

if the union is responsible for getting your position the pay and benefits you will receive, why should you NOT be required to join the union there? Why should you receive the BENEFITS of union membership if you refuse to pay your dues? Isn't that freeloading off all the other employees who DO pay their dues?

[noviapriani]

They don't care to learn the particulars of the case because the particulars don't matter to them.  They'll side with the unions anyway, no matter the details.
So who thinks that workers should be FORCED to pay union dues? I surely do not. And the Unions themselves say they represent everyone regardless of whether the are union members or not.

Bingo.  Meanwhile union money feeds Dems who feed entitlements which feeds Dem unions and WS which feed Dems and so on and so on...all on the backs of the 99%.

[sana8410]

Read all about it in the only news coverage I could find that tells us the whole story!


I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about but what the decision refers to is privately contracted PAs (Personal Assistants) that Medicaid pays for working poor to hire to help them out with child care. That's from the actual Supreme Court web site on the decision. Or do you think FOX News knows more than the Court about their ruling?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf\

I read the FOX report. When one reads the decision and all the background, it's clear that what this family essentially did was to 'hire from within". Again, the check from Medicaid is not ostensibly for the care of the child - or in this case, an disabled adult - but rather a specific amount provided to pay for a home health care assistant. In this case, the family actually hired the mother, herself to do the job (I guess it's legal, since the state didn't tell them they couldn't do it).  Like I said, I read the actual decision, and it's very clear what it is about - hired assistants. I can't even see that as being applicable to The Harris family unless they did what I described - hired the mother. I could have missed something and I welcome someone pointing it out if I did.

Maybe she would end up with more wages -- substantially more than the $90 union dues -- if she joined the union.

She evidently doesn't have to.   And that's fine with me as long as she doesn't benefit from freeloading off the dues paying members.
 
She is certainly free to negotiate her own reimbursement, as a party of one and all the negotiating power that entails (guffaw) but she should not in any way benefit from the work done on behalf of the dues paying members by their union in negotiating better pay and benefits.

Seriously, it is obvious don't even know what you are talking about.   Why don't you actually read the back ground and understand the facts regarding this case and the law (including the ruling) before you comment.   

I read the background. I read the actual decision - have you?  You also can't even participate in this discussion without pretending that at least SOME of the background (the conservative position that NO ONE should be required to be a member of a union) doesn't exist. You want to lay down specific parameters in which this must be discussed. Well, sorry, Umair, but that doesn't hold water. The main plaintiff here happens to be a woman who was essentially paying herself as her home health care assistant for caring for her son (still not sure how that's legal, but hey - that's between her and Illinois). But the decision is way more far reaching than her particular circumstance. That silliness you spoke of, of hiring someone under the table doesn't apply here either - clearly, if someone is applying for assistance from the state to pay someone - and if the union is insisting that because they negotiated the standardized rate and conditions for it, you should pay dues - it's not under the table. 

[zolace]

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/municipal-cities-counties-bankruptcies-and-defaults.html

LOL, the cities and the Unions are stuck within the domain of the government location. Meanwhile, taxpayers, Employers simply pack up and leave. That beneficially shrinks the tax base and leaves the government entity with no source of income. The NON-Union, Red State RTW states are gaining Employers and the Blue Union Thug owned states are losing them.

The American Enemy Liberals just can NOT understand why companies and tax payers have packed up and left them with empty shell communities. They apparently believed these entities were ignorant and would therefore tolerate all the Tax Punishment needed to feed their Union Thugs.

Then add the oppressive gun laws and we have a major blue state exodus! Its fun to watch these Anti-American Unions crumble beneath American workers' feet!

[noviapriani]

she was not paying herself wages.  She was essentially contracted by her son who is the actual Medicaid recipient and yes it is legal  And no one is "laying down specific parameters blah blah blah" just because you are flailing to try to make this about private unions when it is not. 

[umair127]

This is a clear case of SEIU/Illinois Democrat party collusion, intended to rip off those who are just trying to take care of a family member in order to fund the union and eventually, the Democrat Party. The Supreme Court ruled correctly.

[commandrix]

What I say is that these workers will be singing a different tune down the road when they discover REAL thuggery in the form of corporate abuse of workers and an inability for them to get fair salaries and working conditions even though they have distinct skills. The pendulum has swung too far back. Unions were created because American industrialists treated workers like shit, and they banded together. Eventually, the Unions became the same kind of monster they started out to fight - full of corruption and greed, and there was a backlash. Now we're starting to swing back toward the conditions that existed when they got started. Unions will be back. Unions will be back. Bet on it.

I am inclined to agree, but no one should be forced to pay a union if they didn't want to join in the first place and the union does not represent their individual interests. Unions are due for a reality check in the sense that they've just turned into a way to bully both corporations and workers -- and even state governments in a lot of cases unless the government is willing to stand up to unions like they did in Wisconsin. Doesn't mean that the basic idea behind unions won't still exist, it just means they need a decent sense of their proper place in the relationship between employees and employers.

[umair127]

 I have the utmost respect for skilled trade unions, but I have nothing but contempt for the semi-skilled or unskilled thug unions, like the Teamsters, the Laborers, and SEIU. They are nothing more than gangsters, and when the Mafia was in its heyday, they and the thug unions were one and the same.

[zolace]

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

[umair127]

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

If dues only went to fund collective bargaining agreements for wages and benefits you might have a point, Bees. But many workers do not join a union (yours truly for instance) because they do not subscribe to the political leanings of the unions and do not wish to pay for support of candidates for office and other political lobbying they disapprove of. Dues go for lots of things, including outrageous "CEO" salaries that liberals never seem upset over, that have nothing to do with improving the conditions of the member-workers.

[sana8410]

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason that folks join a union shop or seek work in a union workplace is for the increased wages and benefits, and that they view their dues as a small price to pay for substantially increased wages over the non-union shops.     And part of those dues are sometimes used to support pro labor candidates, pro labor legislation, and generally looking out for the interests of labor, just like any group of like-minded or like-employed folks do.  For example, I am a court reporter, self-employed.  Part of my membership dues to the National Court Reporters Association and the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and Captioners goes for lobbying efforts to look out for the interests of our members.  Without unions or private organizations like the ones I belong to, how does the working man have any voice other than their single vote?

And believe me, in a volunteer situation, like my state and national association, the members carry the burden and everyone gets the benefit, which is, on its face, patently unfair, IMHO.

But that aside, whatever their reason for not wanting to pay the union dues, they are free to do that.   The Supreme Court made that clear here, and you evidently also are working that way at your employer.  All I'm saying is then those non-union employees should have to negotiate their own salaries and benefits, and if the union happens to negotiate a better wage for their dues-paying members, well, that's part of the reward those dues-paying members are reaping for their dues.  Why should dues-paying members fund that representation and allow those who choose to not participate in paying the dues to get the same benefit nonetheless?

[noviapriani]

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason that folks join a union shop or seek work in a union workplace is for the increased wages and benefits, and that they view their dues as a small price to pay for substantially increased wages over the non-union shops.     And part of those dues are sometimes used to support pro labor candidates, pro labor legislation, and generally looking out for the interests of labor, just like any group of like-minded or like-employed folks do.  For example, I am a court reporter, self-employed.  Part of my membership dues to the National Court Reporters Association and the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and Captioners goes for lobbying efforts to look out for the interests of our members.  Without unions or private organizations like the ones I belong to, how does the working man have any voice other than their single vote?

And believe me, in a volunteer situation, like my state and national association, the members carry the burden and everyone gets the benefit, which is, on its face, patently unfair, IMHO.

But that aside, whatever their reason for not wanting to pay the union dues, they are free to do that.   The Supreme Court made that clear here, and you evidently also are working that way at your employer.  All I'm saying is then those non-union employees should have to negotiate their own salaries and benefits, and if the union happens to negotiate a better wage for their dues-paying members, well, that's part of the reward those dues-paying members are reaping for their dues.  Why should dues-paying members fund that representation and allow those who choose to not participate in paying the dues to get the same benefit nonetheless?

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason is because they have to.  That is being evidenced by the exodus from unions whenever it is possible, and why unions like SEIU tried for force Ms Harris to pay and why they are attempting to establish themselves offshore. 


Unions are dying because their love affair with Dems and mutual greed has trumped their usefulness to workers. 

[Wilikon]

[Man I missed the Dank - Void fights, when Dank had those horrible giant red XXX. But the chess tournament between sana and unmair do bring more intellectual values...

Don't mind me, I am just passing by ]

[Lethn]

No employee should be forced to pay any union fees if they don't wish to, I used to respect unions until they started using these kind of tactics, like with most of these civil rights movements they've gone from equal rights to favouritism.