Massachusetts is the latest in a string of states to transform private home health care providers into government employees. The disingenuous legislation will raise the cost of in-home care, while disrupting the personal work relationship between health care workers and patients.
On July 24th, the Massachusetts State Senate passed a bill to allow independent in-home child care providers to form collective bargaining units over vouchers they receive from the state. This follows the passage of the bill in the House, 115-32, in late May.
Massachusetts has no place interfering with business between an independent caregiver and a private individual receiving care. All independent caregivers are hired or fired by the patient. This bill, however, would allow Massachusetts to enter in as a third-party member and collectively bargain with the caregivers. If Governor Deval Patrick signs this bill, it will hurt all citizens of Massachusetts–the caregivers, children receiving care, and taxpayers.
Caregivers will likely end up paying more, as money is taken from their paychecks to support a union which has little to no control over their job situation. The bill explicitly states the caregivers will not be able to bargain for pensions or health care through the union. At present, the caregivers can already voice their opinions and advocate for higher voucher rates at the State House if necessary.
Further, this bill hurts the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in society—the at-risk and low-income children. If this bill passes and a collective bargaining unit forms, a union–acting as an unnecessary middleman–will be able to deduct a fee from the vouchers to pad their coffers. These vouchers help pay for child care and keep children out of more expensive institutional settings that come at an even higher price for taxpayers.
[click to continue…]
Before current San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders assumed office, the city faced a massive fiscal crisis. The previous mayor, Dick Murphy, had just resigned in the wake of a pension scandal. Consequently, the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation, San Diego’s bond rating was suspended, and the city couldn’t borrow money on public markets.
When Sanders ran for mayor in 2005, he ran on a platform of stabilizing the city’s ailing finances. With the passage of Proposition B in June, he was able to deliver on that promise. The proposition converts new government employee pension plans into 401(k)-style plans and ends pension spiking for all government employees.
The initiative had earned its place on the ballot via a petition that received over 94,000 signatures from registered voters and citizens of San Diego overwhelmingly supported Proposition B with two-thirds of the vote. It is expected to save $950 million over the next 30 years for San Diego taxpayers and free up that money to support services.
The nearly $1 billion in taxpayer savings is a welcome relief for San Diegans. Currently, $231.2 million — or 20 percent — of the city’s total budget is devoted government employees’ retirement-related expenses. In 1999, the city only had $43 million in pension liabilities. Not only do these costs affect taxpayers, they also threaten government workers. The government was forced to compensate for the huge pension price tag with cuts in services and job security. San Diego recently cut its workforce by 14 percent.
[click to continue…]
Unions were originally created to protect workers and fight for their rights. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), however, has lost sight of this principle. In the past decade, the union has unrelentingly manipulated Michigan home health care providers.
Seven years ago, the SEIU craftily teamed with the State of Michigan to form a government agency that acted as a dummy employer for home health care providers in Michigan. This “employer,” the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), created an imaginary relationship between these self-employed workers and the SEIU. Even though it did not bargain on their behalf or provide any tangible benefits, the SEIU hoped to skim union dues from the wages of these workers.
Home health care providers generally receive Medicaid payments for the care they provide. Often those receiving Medicaid are the least fortunate in society: low-income adults caring for their disabled family members. Thanks to SEIU, these impoverished adults are now forced to pay union dues without any reciprocation.
[click to continue…]
The definition of a con man is “a dishonest person who uses clever means to cheat others out of something of value.” Nowadays, a fitting synonym for “con man” may very well be “union boss.”
The good news: con men get caught.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled against union bosses in Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000. The court explained the basis for the case:
In June 2005, respondent, a public-sector union (SEIU), sent to California employees its annual Hudson notice, setting and capping monthly dues and estimating that 56.35% of its total expenditures in the coming year would be chargeable expenses. A nonmember had 30 days to object to full payment of dues but would still have to pay the chargeable portion.
After this 30 day opt-out period, however, the SEIU imposed an additional surcharge to fund its political activism surrounding the 2006 election. This left non-members powerless, and many were forced to fund political positions with which they did not agree. Like con men, SEIU was cleverly circumventing the law in order to cheat non-union members of their first amendment rights.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to unions looking to take advantage of non-union members. Now unions must allow workers to opt-in to special short-term assessments for political advocacy, rather than opting out. Additionally, employees can no longer be charged with “interim assessments.”
Sadly, SEIU is not the only union using tactics typically reserved for con men.
[click to continue…]
The UAW and its President Bob King recently targeted Nissan to be their first union-affiliated foreign automobile factory, despite the fact that Canton, Mississippi, plant employees brushed off the UAW in 2005 and again in 2010. Yet once more, Bob King is attempting to organize these very same workers.
Why does King think he can succeed this time? Because he is trying to organize the boardroom, not the employees. Knowing if he gives employees a confidential choice they will reject him, King is trying to pressure Nissan to take away the secret ballot from their workers — by implementing card check — so he can bully them into joining his union.
What does UAW bullying look like? In 2011, Mr. King threatened that he would label automakers that resisted his card check scheme as human rights violators. Thus, plants who attempt to protect the privacy of their workers through secret ballots face unwarranted attacks on their reputations for disregarding UAW’s Principles for Fair Union Elections.
One central objective of the Principles is to impose the card check method on dissenting automakers. Card check takes away voter privacy and opens the door to union coercion as employee anonymity disappears; this process makes an employee’s opinion visible to both the union and the employer.
[click to continue…]
Derek Thompson from The Atlantic recently wrote an article titled “Are unions necessary?” In this article, he poses the following questions:
If our goal is a strong middle class, are unions the right place to focus our energy … or are they bad for the country? Has America passed the Rubicon when it comes to organized labor … or do we still have a reason and opportunity to pass laws that protect skilled and unskilled workers?
The way to strengthen the middle class, and the population as a whole, is through innovation and competition. Unions protect inefficiencies in markets and limit innovation and progress; these limitations hinder everyone from the upper class to the lower class.
The emergence of capitalism and the push towards innovation has catapulted the quality of living for nearly every American. Two hundred years ago, American’s were living without electricity and had to go to the bathroom in an outhouse.
Unions are not responsible for this increase in wealth and standard of living.
[click to continue…]
The past 15 months in Wisconsin have been tumultuous to say the least. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is facing a recall after labor unions and Democrats mustered nearly 1 million signatures from Big Labor activists to pursue their agenda which included the endorsement of union backed Kathleen Falk. This follows the recent recalls of two state senators; a third recall would solidify the power of labor unions in using giant cash reserves to manipulate state offices and swing control to the Democrats.
Despite the price tag for the gubernatorial recall reaching an estimated $18 million it appears the labor unions efforts will be in vain.
Scott Walker is being challenged because he stood up to Big Labor and implementing Act 10. The Budget Repair bill increases contributions by employees towards health care and pensions, places more restrictions on collective bargaining, and requires unions to be recertified every year. The law empowers city councils and school boards to cut labor costs without union approval which has enabled Wisconsin cities to address crippling wage mandates.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
DriveInnovation.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 