Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You take a paycheck from the state, you are a state worker in the eyes of the court that ruled against these people. Why is that so hard to understand?
Actually, I think it's you who's not understanding. They aren't taking paychecks. These are private businesses that have clients who are subsidized by the government. They may get checks, but not paychecks.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Have to disagree with you there.
The post office is far from efficient when it comes to delivering mail. These people should have been required to sign a contract proving informed consent regarding the unionization. In this manner they would have known what price was being paid in return for the government subsidy. In this manner they could have made the choice on a case by case basis whether they wanted to be unionized.
Failure of the government or union to prove informed consent (registered mail-return signature receipt required) with a signature approving unionization for their specific facility, is evidence indeed that the government & unions were pushing this through by means of deception, IMO.
This kind of under-handedness makes "card-check" look like child's play.
I totally agree. This was a sneaky, underhanded approach as many of these types of mailings look like junk mail and often not taken seriously. There should have been informed consent which includes information about the ramifications and costs associated with joining a union. I really cannot stand how unions and our government are in bed with each other. Personally, it is all a racket.
Not sure it works that way in Michigan. Don't they have a voucher system?
What's the difference how it works. Like I said the government sent me check for my customers on the LIHEAP program. I don't get paid they don't get any coal.
In this particular case, the day care providers are paying in dues 1.15% of their state checks. Hardly a huge amount of money.
Irrelevant and that 1.5% adds up to 3.7 million.
Quote:
Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies. The money should be going to home-based day-care providers—themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is "self employed and wants nothing to do with the union."
The union claims it is working for Ms. Berry and others like her by pressing the legislature to increase child-care payments. But lobbying is not an activity that requires compulsory unionism
The days of Jimmy Hoffa are long gone. Every dime a union takes in and spends is now open to the public and independent audits are required.
In this particular case, the day care providers are paying in dues 1.15% of their state checks. Hardly a huge amount of money.
40,000 daycares, you have to think that there are at least 2 children per daycare, that's 80000 kids. Even if the union is only taking 23 cents per child per week, that's just shy of a million dollars a year. Um, I think that's a lot of money.
OOPS! Sorry Coalman, you beat me to it and got better numbers.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 02-12-2010 at 03:26 PM..
They didn't DO it to day care workers. All 40,000 were asked via the U.S. mail to vote on whether or not to unionize. Of those who bothered to vote, 92% were in favor of doing so and paying the 1.15% union dues out of their state provided checked.
They most certainly did DO it to the workers. If they never implicity agreed to join a union with their signature agreeing to join, then they should not be part of the union. I don't know how you can defend their actions. So if you don't mail back the postcard (which to many looked like junk mail), then you are automatically enrolled, signed-up, and unionized? That's a bunch of BS.
I don't care if it's $.002 that they are deducting, it's wrong. What's next? Doctors that accept patients with medicare, because that is a government subsidy too. Grocers? They accept food stamps so why not force them to unionize too. Anyone, who in the course of their work, accepts payment from a customer that has been government subsidized in any way could fall victim to this same sham. IT'S DISGUSTING!
I would be willing to bet that many of these daycare providers will simply stop accepting kids whose parents receive government day care subsidies. Who will that hurt? The kids.
I think it bears pointing out that just because they receive a check from the state does not make them state employees. The parents can remove those children from the daycare at will, so the daycare providers subsidy payments are actually more like commission checks paid to free agents, rather than anything resembling a paycheck. The commission is for taking on poverty-level children, and the subsidy levels are actually determined by the state legislature when it votes on the state budget. Each daycare would still determine for itself what its rates are, a matter that is altogether separate from the subsidy which, according to the union's website, is a flat amount rather than a percentage amount. Is that right?
I would be willing to bet that many of these daycare providers will simply stop accepting kids whose parents receive government day care subsidies. Who will that hurt? The kids.
That would depend on how many of their clients are subsidized and/or how many of their fellow day care providers take the same route. If their business includes a substantial amount of subsidized kids and there is enough other day cares wiling to absorb the dues then they have no choice to to continue with it.
I can tell you how this would have effected my clients and it depends on how it is applied. If the Union due is taken out and not counted towards the clients credit then I'd continue with it and the client would simply pay more because of the lost revenue going to the union.
If the union due is counted towards the client credit I would either have to raise rates across the board for everyone or drop the clinets being subsidized. Since very little of my clients were subsidized I'd drop them because I'm not going to punish people paying out of pocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
