Tag Archives: state employee unions

Taking Advantage Of Those Who Can Least Afford It

Posted on by

The Daily Signal posted an article today about another battle in the war on the involuntary taking of union dues.

The article reports:

Sally Coomer of Seattle, who cares for her disabled adult daughter at home, doesn’t like the fact that union dues are deducted from the Medicaid payment she gets for her services under a Washington state policy.

“The money that is taken out in union dues, if it was not siphoned off, could be used to provide for more care,” Coomer told The Daily Signal about the Medicaid stipend given to home care providers.

“A lot of family members forgo careers to take care of family members and are working in situations where they are really financially struggling,” she said.

Washington is one of 11 states where the state governments work with public-sector unions to automatically deduct a portion of the Medicaid stipend and divert it to unions representing state employee unions.

The other states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, according to the State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that focuses on state issues.

Nine states take money from Medicaid home child care workers: Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Taking care of your child at home should not result in having union dues taken out of money you receive for the care of that child.

The Trump administration agrees:

However, the states face pushback from the Trump administration and, potentially, the courts in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling striking down mandatory payments to public employee unions by employees who don’t belong to the union.

The rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would eliminate states’ ability to divert part of Medicaid payments from providers to a third party.

The article continues:

Caregivers may pay up to $1,000 per year in union dues, according to the State Policy Network, which says state governments are “dues-skimming” an estimated $200 million per year from home health providers and $50 million from child day care providers to give to unions.

Coomer’s daughter Becky, almost 28, has cerebral palsy and a disorder that causes seizures. She is blind and developmentally disabled.

Coomer, who has become an advocate for other families who don’t want to be forced to pay union dues, said many home care providers are not aware they have a choice in joining a union.

To qualify in Washington state, family members are required to go to an orientation run by the Service Employees International Union, which represents state government employees.

“At the orientation, they would tell people they are required to sign up,” Coomer said. “I don’t know what benefit we get from the dues. The only time I hear from the union is when they inundate me with a political agenda.”

The proposed new Medicaid regulation, announced July 10, is open for public comment.

Let’s hope that the practice of taking union dues from people caring for family members is ended quickly.

 

The Voters In Illinois Are Being Hoisted On Their Own Petard

Posted on by

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal posted an article about what is happening with public employee pension funds in Illinois. To quote a Chicago pastor, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”

The article reports:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact—except maybe in Illinois. On Friday the Illinois Supreme Court struck down modest pension reforms as a violation of the state constitution in a decision that tees up state taxpayers for years of tax increases.

The Court stated that the pensions were a contract “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

So where did this begin? It began with a very cozy relationship between unions and Democrat politicians. Politicians promised the unions benefits that could not be sustained in exchange for the support of the unions.

The article explains:

Less than 40% of the increase in the state’s unfunded liability since 1995 is due to inadequate payments. The rest is due mainly to benefit growth and faulty actuarial assumptions such as investment rate of return.

The 2013 reforms at issue capped salaries of current workers that are used to calculate pensions at $110,600 (with a carve-out for collectively bargained increases) and raised the retirement age for workers in their 20s to the ripe, old age of 60. Compounded 3% annual cost-of-living increases were also tweaked for younger workers, a modification that courts in nearly every other state have upheld.

The article concludes:

All of this means that Illinois and its municipalities may soon have little choice but to raise taxes or restructure debts to pay for pensions. Chicago, whose credit rating is two notches above junk, faces a $20 billion unfunded liability for pensions and $1.1 billion balloon payment next year. Unions (and perhaps investors) were counting on a state bailout, but now they will probably beg Washington for a rescue.

Republican Governor Bruce Rauner has floated an alternative: a state constitutional amendment allowing pension modifications, which would require a public referendum and two-thirds vote of the legislature. Barring that, Illinois taxpayers may want to start contemplating Indiana or Florida residency.

The voters of Illinois have brought this upon themselves. In case you are in another state and laughing at their plight, don’t laugh too hard–this may be coming to your city or state soon. Most states and cities have unfunded mandates involving pensions for public employees which were given in union negotiations with politicians in exchange for union support. There has been a very unhealthy alliance between public employee unions and Democrat politicians for years in many cities and states. Although the Democrats and unions share a good part of the blame for this mess, the ultimate responsibility rests with the voters.

A representative republic needs informed voters. If voters are not informed, they are at the mercy of alliances such as these.

Unionization of Home Based Family Care Providers In Massachusetts

Posted on by

The following letter is reprinted with the permission of the writer. It originally appeared in the Community Advocate which covers Hudson, Marlboro, Northboro, Southboro, Westboro, and Shrewsbury.

Dear Editor,

I’m writing to set the record straight about the recently passed legislation forcing family care providers into a state employee union if they accept one child on a state voucher.

Rep. Carolyn Dykema has claimed that is untrue. As a family care provider who is living with the situation, Dykema is wrong. We are home based businesses that care for children. We are the ultimate small business.

For the past eight years, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has tried to recruit us into their union. No one joined. That should be an indication that we don’t want to be part of a union. Unfortunately, the legislature did not pay attention to what we wanted and they passed the bill anyways.

Dykema will say there were hearings and testimony. The people who testified were connected to the SEIU. The rest of us were working managing our small business. How were we supposed to know about this legislation being forced upon us?

Unlike the big corporate centers which are exempt from being forced into a union, we don’t have a lobbyist. We are just normal people trying to run a home based business. We expect that our legislators will protect us not betray us for a big powerful labor union.

Dykema will also say that this legislation was passed to help us providers get an increase in our reimbursement rates from the state. That’s untruthful as well. The legislature can increase those rates without forcing us into the union. The Senate took a vote on increased rate in July and it was rejected.

If this can happen to home-based family care providers like us, then it can happen to your business. I urge voters to hold Rep. Dykema accountable for this very anti-small business vote.

Kathy D’Agostino
Kathy’s House Family Child Care and PreSchool
Watertown

Just for the record, Marty Lamb is opposing Carolyn Dykema in the 2012 House of Representatives election in Massachusetts. He does not support this legislation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta