PDA

View Full Version : SEIU...



eg8r
11-11-2011, 11:48 AM
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...dicaid-payments (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/seiu-siphons-dues-mich-medicaid-payments) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU...

“We're not even home health care workers. We're just parents taking care of our kids,” Robert Haynes, a retired Detroit police officer, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30. They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that's being sent to the union.”

Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., already ended a similar scheme to provide unions with new "public employees" in the area of child care. His predecessor, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had classified in-home daycare providers as public employees -- a designation that forced them to pay union dues but conferred no other benefits upon them. </div></div>You gotta love what the union does for you. These idiot Dems will stop at nothing to steal every last penny.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-11-2011, 12:16 PM
I think you forgot the other talking points that a conservative ought to bring to this fact set.

1) What business does this man have receiving retirement monies from the bankrupt city of Detroit, through their policemen retirement arrangements? Why doesn't he get a job, instead of feeding at the public trough? We cannot afford these lavish payments for people to do nothing. How dare he cash those checks?

2) How can Americans achieve freedom when shackled to the public trough through Medicaid payments? It's no wonder the guy refuses to work, and instead take his retirement benefits, when the state denies his family its dignity by sending them support checks for their disabled children. It's a scandal that this lazy man is forced into this kind of slavery to the state!

----------

The above is tongue in cheek, perhaps, but more seriously, consider this: SEIU is nationwide, and among the largest unions out there if not number 1 for membership. You allege they have an avaricious appetite, using this as an example.

But this is only 1 of 50 states. If they're so greedy, and admittedly fairly powerful (as unions go), wouldn't you think they would have instituted this in other states, and in fact, the MAJORITY of all states? And had it in place for years, now? (As this was put in place in '06?)

However, we don't have any evidence to indicate this exists OTHER than in this one instance, do we? So I guess they're not all that.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2011, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...dicaid-payments (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/seiu-siphons-dues-mich-medicaid-payments) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU...

“We're not even home health care workers. We're just parents taking care of our kids,” Robert Haynes, a retired Detroit police officer, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30. They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that's being sent to the union.”

Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., already ended a similar scheme to provide unions with new "public employees" in the area of child care. His predecessor, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had classified in-home daycare providers as public employees -- a designation that forced them to pay union dues but conferred no other benefits upon them. </div></div>You gotta love what the union does for you. These idiot Dems will stop at nothing to steal every last penny.

eg8r </div></div>

Some Christian you are.

But you have no problem with what Wall St. has stolen from us...you're such a good boy. The party will be proud.

As Herman the worm would say, "You don't have a job? Don't blame the banks, blame yourself!"

I'm sure that will overwhelmingly win him the black vote!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
G.

Soflasnapper
11-11-2011, 12:36 PM
Here's Bachmann, crystalizing the theory:


Nov 11 09:05
Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.”

Gayle in MD
11-11-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's Bachmann, crystalizing the theory:


Nov 11 09:05
Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.” </div></div>

Saw that, and found her just as repulsive as I've always found her.

Apparently the Repiglicans think there are more common, nasty, selfish, greedy and mean people in this country than empathetic, decent Americans, who care about their fellow Americans, who are suffering, through no fault of their own.

And then they call themselves Chritians. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bachmann has a nerve, after being on the dole for half a million dollars in government hand outs, herself, to date.

She's worked the system as hard as she could.

G.

eg8r
11-11-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some Christian you are.

But you have no problem with what Wall St. has stolen from us...</div></div>This isn't about Wall St Sherlock. Also, if you have a problem with Wall St stealing from you why wouldn't you have a problem with a union stealing from you. Your response is idiotic.

So, instead of acting stupid and opening your mouth before thinking, did you want a second shot at discussing the subject?

eg8r

eg8r
11-11-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You allege they have an avaricious appetite, using this as an example.

But this is only 1 of 50 states. If they're so greedy, and admittedly fairly powerful (as unions go), wouldn't you think they would have instituted this in other states,</div></div>I allege nothing. What I have done is given an example of them taking money from the mouths of those that need it. You say this is a 1 in 50 example but how do you know that to be true? You are just guessing since the article gives one example of their theft. Do other states have laws that allow this? I sure hope not.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, we don't have any evidence to indicate this exists OTHER than in this one instance, do we? So I guess they're not all that. </div></div>What do you mean they are "not all that?" Are you saying if they steal in one state only then we should ignore it since it is only 1 in 50? This has got to be the weakest defense you have ever come up with.

What is so tough for you to man up and admit this is not right and they should not be taking this money?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-11-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You allege they have an avaricious appetite, using this as an example.

But this is only 1 of 50 states. If they're so greedy, and admittedly fairly powerful (as unions go), wouldn't you think they would have instituted this in other states,</div></div>I allege nothing. What I have done is given an example of them taking money from the mouths of those that need it. You say this is a 1 in 50 example but how do you know that to be true? You are just guessing since the article gives one example of their theft. Do other states have laws that allow this? I sure hope not.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, we don't have any evidence to indicate this exists OTHER than in this one instance, do we? So I guess they're not all that. </div></div>What do you mean they are "not all that?" Are you saying if they steal in one state only then we should ignore it since it is only 1 in 50? This has got to be the weakest defense you have ever come up with.

What is so tough for you to man up and admit this is not right and they should not be taking this money?

eg8r </div></div>

You are truly repulsive.

So go cash your check, Sherlock, (BTW, stop stealing my stuff) that you wouldn't be cashing if not for the DOD, a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY....you are more on the government dole than they are.

Wall St. stole you blind, and you are nit picking about a poor couple trying to take care of their bed ridden grown children.

You make me sick!

G.

Soflasnapper
11-11-2011, 02:28 PM
These idiot Dems will stop at nothing to steal every last penny.

That's what you said. You could look it up if you've forgotten. Just above here, in fact!

So you have taken the unique circumstances of one state's one of many governmental body's negotiation with the union there and stated this shows the above conclusion, even though there does not appear to be any further example of this practice?

I'm saying that conclusion is a bit off, not that this practice makes any sense or is just. That's what 'they're not all that' meant. If they ARE 'not stopping at anything to steal the last penny,' how did they stop at one out of fifty states?

That aside, I agree the practice makes little sense and appears to be unjust, ESPECIALLY considering the Michigan state legislature defunded the original governmental body altogether.

How THAT is still taking place is perhaps the more interesting and troubling question, and that is likely, again, the vagaries and unique circumstances pertaining to Michigan law.

eg8r
11-11-2011, 08:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what you said. You could look it up if you've forgotten. Just above here, in fact!

So you have taken the unique circumstances of one state's one of many governmental body's negotiation with the union there and stated this shows the above conclusion, even though there does not appear to be any further example of this practice?
</div></div>You are the one trying to make this more than what it is. I did not say the Dems across the entire country. This article is very specific and refers to the Gov of one state. You can bet your butt that those union members voted for that idiot so it makes them idiots also. They were doing everything they could to steal every last penny possible. Don't make this more than what it is and don't try to put words into my mouth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm saying that conclusion is a bit off, not that this practice makes any sense or is just.</div></div>This is the problem, you were arguing a strawman. I said "these Dems", which means I am referring to the Dems in the article.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How THAT is still taking place is perhaps the more interesting and troubling question, and that is likely, again, the vagaries and unique circumstances pertaining to Michigan law. </div></div>Which the only state that was in question. Not sure why you chose to try and make it more.

eg8r

LWW
11-12-2011, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The above is tongue in cheek, perhaps, but more seriously, consider this: SEIU is nationwide, and among the largest unions out there if not number 1 for membership. You allege they have an avaricious appetite, using this as an example.

But this is only 1 of 50 states. If they're so greedy, and admittedly fairly powerful (as unions go), wouldn't you think they would have instituted this in other states, and in fact, the MAJORITY of all states? And had it in place for years, now? (As this was put in place in '06?)

However, we don't have any evidence to indicate this exists OTHER than in this one instance, do we? So I guess they're not all that.</div></div>

That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard of.

LWW
11-12-2011, 05:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's Bachmann, crystalizing the theory:


Nov 11 09:05
Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.” </div></div>

Are you that far gone?

Did you really get that interpretation from that quote?

Qtec
11-12-2011, 06:30 AM
After some research, it looks like this basically comes down to who is a public worker and who isn't.
It seems these people are classed as <u>in-home child-care providers</u>. A group that includes licensed workers ,<u> paid by the state,</u> who operate from home or other homes, taking care of people. ie public employees. Basically, in this case, the state is paying parents to look after their own children.

I wonder who fought for that right?

This mob?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP Targets Fragile Gains of Home-Based Caregivers

GOP Targets Fragile Gains of Home-Based Caregivers
By Steve Early

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is not alone in bashing public workers these days. In the view of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, collective bargaining has transformed civil servants into “a new privileged class.” For many newly elected Republican governors and legislators, the solution to the budget problems of state and local government is to strip public employees of negotiating rights while cutting their existing pay and benefits.

Teachers, social workers, public safety officers and many other white-collar and blue-collar employees are clearly the main target of this multi-state assault. Decades of union bargaining in a majority of states has provided millions of public sector workers with the kind of job-based health insurance and retirement coverage that all Americans should enjoy, but that most don’t.

<u>Meanwhile, there’s another group of public employees — only recently arrived at the bargaining table</u> — who are not “privileged” by any standard. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>These are the hundreds of thousands of direct-care providers who work with children, the aged or disabled <u>in their own or other families’ homes. </u>These caregivers are mainly low-income, non-white, female and, in some states, foreign born. Their contingent labor is largely invisible as well as undervalued.<u> Even with union representation, these jobs pay little more than the minimum wage and lack significant benefits.</u>
</span>
Since 1999, political action and organizing by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and four other unions has helped more than 600,000 home-based workers win collective bargaining rights. Previously, home healthcare aides and childcare providers were classified as “independent contractors” <u>and had little or no organizational voice in their “non-traditional” workplaces.</u></div></div>

or the unions?

Q


link (http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7164/gop_targets_fragile_gains_of_home-based_caregivers/)

Gayle in MD
11-12-2011, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some Christian you are.

But you have no problem with what Wall St. has stolen from us...</div></div>This isn't about Wall St Sherlock. Also, if you have a problem with Wall St stealing from you why wouldn't you have a problem with a union stealing from you. Your response is idiotic.

So, instead of acting stupid and opening your mouth before thinking, did you want a second shot at discussing the subject?

eg8r </div></div>

Not with you.

You post this BS, and don't even bother checking out what they get in return from:

The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU...

Another desperate attempt to twist the facts for partisan purposes.


G.

eg8r
11-12-2011, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After some research, it looks like this basically comes down to who is a public worker and who isn't.
</div></div>You needed to research this? That is the subject of the article. These people are trying to raise their children and the union feels they should get paid. A trajedy.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2011, 04:33 PM
The discussion is not about who is doing the deduction (as you can clearly see it is going to SEIU, hello McFly). The discussion is about the SEIU stealing money from these people.

When will you ever learn to shut up when you are ahead?

eg8r

Qtec
11-13-2011, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After some research, it looks like this basically comes down to who is a public worker and who isn't.
</div></div>You needed to research this? That is the subject of the article.

eg8r </div></div>

Yes. Unlike you, I don't automatically believe everything I read. As you yourself have said, there is always another side to every story.

Paying parents to look after their own kids is a socialist policy. Certainly not something today's GOP would vote for. In fact, as I showed, they want to slash funding for this kind of thing.

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since 1999, political action and organizing by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and four other unions has helped more than 600,000 home-based workers win collective bargaining rights. Previously, home healthcare aides and childcare providers were classified as “independent contractors” and had little or no organizational voice in their “non-traditional” workplaces. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
11-13-2011, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what you said. You could look it up if you've forgotten. Just above here, in fact!

So you have taken the unique circumstances of one state's one of many governmental body's negotiation with the union there and stated this shows the above conclusion, even though there does not appear to be any further example of this practice?
</div></div>You are the one trying to make this more than what it is. I did not say the Dems across the entire country. This article is very specific and refers to the Gov of one state. You can bet your butt that those union members voted for that idiot so it makes them idiots also. They were doing everything they could to steal every last penny possible. Don't make this more than what it is and don't try to put words into my mouth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm saying that conclusion is a bit off, not that this practice makes any sense or is just.</div></div>This is the problem, you were arguing a strawman. I said "these Dems", which means I am referring to the Dems in the article.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How THAT is still taking place is perhaps the more interesting and troubling question, and that is likely, again, the vagaries and unique circumstances pertaining to Michigan law. </div></div>Which the only state that was in question. Not sure why you chose to try and make it more.

eg8r </div></div>

Why one would say Dems in Michigan, or the SEIU only in Michigan, have these characteristics, only in Michigan, and stipulate they do not have (or at least do not display) them in 98% of the states (those remaining), escapes me.

But if you ARE limiting your assertion to Michigan Dems and only Michigan SEIU membership, you've reduced my complaint by 98%, and I know how to take 'yes' for an answer. The best I've done around here in quite a while. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Soflasnapper
11-13-2011, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's Bachmann, crystalizing the theory:


Nov 11 09:05
Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.” </div></div>

Are you that far gone?

Did you really get that interpretation from that quote? </div></div>

Sure. What other interpretation would you care to bring to the discussion? I don't even see any wiggle room exception area for private charity to feed those who 'will not work.'

Including the retired.

eg8r
11-13-2011, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes. Unlike you, I don't automatically believe everything I read. </div></div>Quite the contrary it is exactly what you do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paying parents to look after their own kids is a socialist policy. Certainly not something today's GOP would vote for. In fact, as I showed, they want to slash funding for this kind of thing.
</div></div>Maybe you are right, maybe you are not but it is a strawman nonetheless. This is about a union stealing money from people who are obviously NOT union workers. Is it so tough for you to admit that an almighty union might be doing something wrong? Is it really that hard or have you put them up on a pedestal so high you just cannot fathom them ever coming down?

eg8r