SEIU siphons 'dues' from Mich. Medicaid payments

[waggy]

hmm guess those bitching about wanting to get tough on unions have nothing to say about thieft.

ohwell. i was hoping for a actual discussion. but if people are afraid to talk its no use.

 

[cybrsage]

Yep, no union supporter is capable of supporting this, so they ignore it like the plague it is.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Union supporters lack of condemning this practice shows they actually support this practice and know a portion of the union dues will be used to support politicians they also support.

 

[michal1980]

The Union supporters lack of condemning this practice shows they actually support this practice and know a portion of the union dues will be used to support politicians they also support.

But if some republican went after this pratice, the Union supporters would be screaming its an attack on workers.

 

[KK]

But if some republican went after this pratice, the Union supporters would be screaming its an attack on workers.

Because the union knows that the sheep that support them are stupid fucks, that's why they can get away with this.

 

[waggy]

Because the union knows that the sheep that support them are stupid fucks, that's why they can get away with this.

im starting to agree.

you would think union supporters would be condemning shit like this. With backlash (i feel just starting) against unions they would want to stomp out such behaver.

instead keeping quite allows it to continue and anti-union feelings to fester. Don't get me wrong. i'm not anti-union they still have there place.

 

[soundforbjt]

Are unions perfect? No. There is corruption anytime big money or power is involved. But you'd be far worse off today if unions never existed, period.

 

[actuarial]

The Union supporters lack of condemning this practice shows they actually support this practice and know a portion of the union dues will be used to support politicians they also support.

And Glen Beck must have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 since he didn't deny it.

I believe unions should exist, and much like those who criticize OWS I believe it is the politicians who you should be angry at, not the unions (or the corporations). They created the current problems by agreeing to contracts with the union that were not sustainable long term.

It is also the taxpayers fault, for continually showing at the polls that they will support politicians who can gain short term political capital (such as avoiding a strike) even if it means long term financial pain (such as the deferred costs of the union contracts they agreed to).

In this specific instance, it is ludicrous that the union be collecting dues from these people. But who is to blame for this? Who is it that defines these people as employees of the state?

 

[cybrsage]

Are unions perfect? No. There is corruption anytime big money or power is involved. But you'd be far worse off today if unions never existed, period.

True, but just like Affirmative Action, their need is vastly diminished and yet their power is continuing to grow.

 

[cybrsage]

In this specific instance, it is ludicrous that the union be collecting dues from these people. But who is to blame for this? Who is it that defines these people as employees of the state?

It is the fault of two parties. The primary party at fault is the union for even requesting it during contract negotiations. The secondary party at fault is management for agreeing to it.

 

[soundforbjt]

True, but just like Affirmative Action, their need is vastly diminished and yet their power is continuing to grow.

Actually you're wrong. Unions power is at a low.

 

[waggy]

It is the fault of two parties. The primary party at fault is the union for even requesting it during contract negotiations. The secondary party at fault is management for agreeing to it.

exactly. there is a lot of blame for this happening. the union for being a greedy fuck and the government for caving in to the union and allowing it.

 

[waggy]

Actually you're wrong. Unions power is at a low.

at this moment in time yes it is. but 5+ years ago it was not. thats when most of this bullshit stuff is put in.

right now many are turning against unions. Shit like this is partly the cause. well this and willing ot shut down a business instead of takeing a 10% pay cut..

 

[soundforbjt]

at this moment in time yes it is. but 5+ years ago it was not. thats when most of this bullshit stuff is put in.

right now many are turning against unions. Shit like this is partly the cause. well this and willing ot shut down a business instead of takeing a 10% pay cut..

Taking a 10% pay cut wouldn't be so bad if management was willing to do so also. Usually they raise the pay of top management right after cutting pay and laying off workers.

 

[waggy]

Taking a 10% pay cut wouldn't be so bad if management was willing to do so also. Usually they raise the pay of top management right after cutting pay and laying off workers.

many cases you are right. but again shutting down a business and everyone being unemployed instead of taking the reduction is insane.

while unions don't have the power they did in the 90's they need to change how they think and do business.

things like this is not going to help them. There is no reason for it besides a greed.

 

[soundforbjt]

many cases you are right. but again shutting down a business and everyone being unemployed instead of taking the reduction is insane.

while unions don't have the power they did in the 90's they need to change how they think and do business.

things like this is not going to help them. There is no reason for it besides a greed.

And as we all know, neither management, nor unions will willingly change the way they do business. Both are easily corrupted by greed and power.

 

[actuarial]

It is the fault of two parties. The primary party at fault is the union for even requesting it during contract negotiations. The secondary party at fault is management for agreeing to it.

This is where you and I disagree. I don't see someone asking for something as the one who is primarily at fault, but rather the person agreeing - they are the gate keeper.

I'm also not even sure the union specifically asked for this, or if it was just that they had in their agreement that they collect from all state employees, and the state designated those people as employees. In that case, is it the fault of the union for collecting what their agreement says they can, or the government for not closing the loop hole?

It seems to me most people sit on both sides of the fence with this (to note I'm not talking about you specifically), especially when it comes to private companies. As easy as it is to get mad at the people exposing and utilizing the loop holes, it's the people that create the system to use the loop holes that are to blame. It's also those people who have the power to change that system.

 

[cybrsage]

They asked for something they knew was wrong. It started with them asking for it. That is why they are the primary offender.

 

[actuarial]

They asked for something they knew was wrong. It started with them asking for it. That is why they are the primary offender.

a) Do we have any proof they asked for this specifically?
b) Does that make wall street the primary offender when a law is passed in their favour? (it was asked for through lobbying)

 

[cybrsage]

a) Do we have any proof they asked for this specifically?

No proof of things said in closed door negotiations is able to shown. However, it does not make sense for management to offer unions the ability to take money from non-union members. Only a union would press for that.

b) Does that make wall street the primary offender when a law is passed in their favour? (it was asked for through lobbying)

Yes, specifically the company who paid the lobbyists. I would not blame company A for the lobbying efforts of company B anymore than I would blame the Electrical Workers union for the efforts of the Teamsters union.

 

[actuarial]

No proof of things said in closed door negotiations is able to shown. However, it does not make sense for management to offer unions the ability to take money from non-union members. Only a union would press for that.

It also doesn't make sense for management to accept a union proposal to take money from members who aren't in their union. So if we're going with what makes sense, this never would have happened directly. Unless of course they just asked for money from all government health care workers, or something of that nature, and this has happened indirectly due to other legislation.

I'm not saying it's impossible that they asked for something as asinine as money from unconnected people, and then the government agreed to let them collect said money, it just doesn't seem logical from either side. Do you have anything else to support that 'only a union would press for that' other than just conjecture? It seems to me government has been far more efficient over the years of pushing for things that make zero sense than unions have.

Yes, specifically the company who paid the lobbyists. I would not blame company A for the lobbying efforts of company B anymore than I would blame the Electrical Workers union for the efforts of the Teamsters union.

Fair enough, at least you're consistent (though many aren't). Do you agree with OWS protesting the large financial institutions who funneled money to lobbyists to get the current legal environment?

 

[ericlp]

This is just the tip of the iceberg...

I'm surprised they don't have people on food stamps or section 8 joining the union and paying dues to get on another loop hole.

Hey! Where is my share of corruption money?????? can I have some too?

 

[cybrsage]

It also doesn't make sense for management to accept a union proposal to take money from members who aren't in their union. So if we're going with what makes sense, this never would have happened directly. Unless of course they just asked for money from all government health care workers, or something of that nature, and this has happened indirectly due to other legislation.

WIth the confusing way laws are written, who knows. All I know is that both sides know it is wrong.

Fair enough, at least you're consistent (though many aren't). Do you agree with OWS protesting the large financial institutions who funneled money to lobbyists to get the current legal environment?

If that was their message, I would support it. If they protested the people who have the power to change it (and the desire to make the common person happy), I would give them far more kudos...but they are not in DC (at least not yet). They are not protesting unions, who also funnel mnoey to lobbyists.

They do not really have a message...they are fractured so badly about the only thing they have in common with each other is their lack of bathing.


I think we should remove all private funding of elections.

 

[LunarRay]

Seems to me that IF the two 'children' were being cared for by some facility that provides for their needs the folks working there might not be considered State Employees because they are employees of the facility but probably paying union dues. So... if the parents are care givers from another venue it seems reasonable that they are employees of some entity and perhaps self employed and should have the option to elect joining the union applicable.
I can sorta see how they could be classified as state employees given they receive funds from the state in the form of a remuneration for the service provided...

 

[Zebo]

Government workers should not even be allowed to unionize. Their pay is decided democratically in the first place so what's the purpose? Not only that, gov't workers can put undue leverage on politicians private workers can't by manning phone banks and televised electioneering for their bosses. In many cases gov't workers play a significant role on choosing their bosses and thus their pay unlike private industry.

Obviously I feel the same about those receiving govt benefits.

Surprisingly the Federal Govt is smart enough not to allow union workforce. To bad cities & states arnt that smart. It will break them. Look up almeda Ca. Where they spend 75% of budget just on retirment and can't even hire cops.