The OTHER SC Ruling...Union Slap Down - page 2.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 03, 2014, 10:14:07 AM

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?

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

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

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 10:06:22 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 09:05:25 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 08:37:49 AM

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.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 03, 2014, 08:59:30 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

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.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 09:05:25 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 08:37:49 AM

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.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 08:37:49 AM

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.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

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

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 03, 2014, 08:46:23 AM

Well, let's assume that you're right and the Medicare check covered her 'wages' for taking care of her son. That's a round the clock, 7 days per week job. If she get's 'paid' $1210.00 a month ($90 is taken out for SEIU!), that's less than $3 per hour. Is that the SEIU union scale? If not, where's her fucking SEIU union wages? If she paid dues to SEIU (and she did!), why didn't they demand she be paid union scale?

And since when do union members also have to foot the bill for all the other patient needs, like housing, food, medicine, clothes, etc.?

The Supreme Court obviously ruled correctly. Just admit it and move on.

No, Umair, the stipend from Medicare is NOT supposed to be for 24/7 care. That's why I wonder why they're even allowing it to be paid to the mother. it's meant to provide for payment to an assistant to take a little pressure OFF the mother. What part of "Home Health Care ASSISTANT" boggles you so very much?

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

This is one of the problem with both entitlements and an aging population. It is very expensive to hire someone for invalid/eldercare through an agency ($25 to $50/hr here...and they usually only get minimum wage or so), so it is mutually beneficial all the way around to exploit the system and pay someone $10-$15 under the table. SEIU taking their cut from entitlements is just one more element.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 08:49:25 AM

Ms. Harris was contracted by her son to be his caregiver...and yes, it is perfectly legal under Medicaid and in fact encouraged. What better situation than for the mother to be the caregiver for such a low wage...it isn't likely to attract the best quality workers. Ops point about this "not covering his expenses" is true in that sense...the REAL cost of caring for his kid is not covered by this but rather offset somewhat by paying his mom.

Essentially SEIU was profiteering off poor folks and tax payer dollars, to put money into the pockets of Dems in their endless circle jerk, as per usual.

Also, for the record, this set up is ripe for fraud at all levels. One could, for example, become a caregiver for an aging parent on SS at night during the sleeping hours, and still work as a caregiver for someone else during the day under the table. This would also make the caregiver eligible for Obamacare through Medicare subsidies.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Ms. Harris was contracted by her son to be his caregiver...and yes, it is perfectly legal under Medicaid and in fact encouraged. What better situation than for the mother to be the caregiver for such a low wage...it isn't likely to attract the best quality workers. Ops point about this "not covering his expenses" is true in that sense...the REAL cost of caring for his kid is not covered by this but rather offset somewhat by paying his mom.

Essentially SEIU was profiteering off poor folks and tax payer dollars, to put money into the pockets of Dems in their endless circle jerk, as per usual.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Well, let's assume that you're right and the Medicare check covered her 'wages' for taking care of her son. That's a round the clock, 7 days per week job. If she get's 'paid' $1210.00 a month ($90 is taken out for SEIU!), that's less than $3 per hour. Is that the SEIU union scale? If not, where's her fucking SEIU union wages? If she paid dues to SEIU (and she did!), why didn't they demand she be paid union scale?

And since when do union members also have to foot the bill for all the other patient needs, like housing, food, medicine, clothes, etc.?

The Supreme Court obviously ruled correctly. Just admit it and move on.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

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

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

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.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Yes, there is that:
SEIU Union Is Top Spender for Democrats - WSJ
Big Labor's Investment in Obama Pays Off | RealClearPolitics
yet another example, just like Hobby Lobby, how Big Money is the beneficiary of Big Gov every time but the leftwing sheep just chew the cud.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: BBQcopter on July 03, 2014, 08:22:46 AM

The understatement of the year. This isn't even about corporations and wages blah blah blah. This is a PUBLIC SECTOR union sucking money from Medicaid checks.

I swear, these sheeple must enjoy being screwed by their sacred cows.

And not just any public sector union! This is Obama's own SEIU, the same one that he represented as a lawyer, and the same one that his buddy Wade Rathke (creator of Obama's ACORN) founded! This is the same criminal union that beat up the black guy who was handing out 'Don't tread on Me" flags in St Louis during Obama's first campaign. This is the sort of low class, unskilled thug union (like the Teamsters) that gives a bad name to the skilled union trades like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.

BBQcopter

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

The understatement of the year. This isn't even about corporations and wages blah blah blah. This is a PUBLIC SECTOR union sucking money from Medicaid checks.

I swear, these sheeple must enjoy being screwed by their sacred cows.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 08:02:00 AM

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.

Now do any of you still think the Court made a bad call after reading the real story? Should an unpaid mom taking care of her very ill son in her own home have to join a fucking thug union like SEIU and pay them dues?

Since it was such an obvious union abuse of power, the mainstream media either said nothing about it at all or omitted the real reasons for the suit. That's what people get for relying on the liberal media...half-truths and cover-ups.

BBQcopter

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Alito cited a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

I laughed when I heard that on the news. Now that corporations have religion as part of their speech. Can it be said that no one can be compelled to subsidize that speech?

So if you don't agree with that religion, you could quit working for that corporation, and go draw unemployment benefits???

Laugh out Fn loud.

RAREST CIRCUMSTANCE ALERT!!

DrG

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 1035

Quote from: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 08:02:00 AM

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.

Unions haven't left... how can they be back?

They are still the single largest contributor to the Democratic ticket. With money comes power...Trumka is more powerful than most Congressional reps. He goes to the White House every 3 days on average, almost as much as Beyonce! Grin

Topic: The OTHER SC Ruling...Union Slap Down - page 2. (Read 1647 times)