Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#21 May 16, 2013
You do realize, you're a proven liar, right cantgetitup ??

Oh right, who know if this is another moniker, anyway... LMAOROTFU~!!

Was sure funny, when you got caught. tried to lie, then got bYtchie....

Remember the confederate thread, racist ??

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#22 May 16, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
The obvious next step will be trying to force the private in-home providers to join the union. No doubt that would include picketing in front of their homes, egging their homes, harassing any one who tries to cross the picket lines, etc. No one should be forced to unionize in order to preserve their state funding. Given the option, maybe. Forced, no.
Payback to the unions for getting out the vote in 2012.

And it is a 2-fer! As I understand it, the SEIU gets the daycare side of the business. And AFSCME gets the in-home care provider side of the business.

Who is going to pay for the increased costs? That's right. The Minnesota Taxpayer.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#23 May 16, 2013
Typical uneducated republican rebuttal.... ZERO substance.

How's that made up Benghazi 'scandal' working out for you FalseNews drone??

How's that Beck/Limbaugh Shit Koolaid taste to you tools?

That's funny.... Don't care who ya are.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#24 May 16, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Payback to the unions for getting out the vote in 2012.
And it is a 2-fer! As I understand it, the SEIU gets the daycare side of the business. And AFSCME gets the in-home care provider side of the business.
Who is going to pay for the increased costs? That's right. The Minnesota Taxpayer.
This has been hashed out before. Most in-home providers will simply quit before unionizing. That's because they won't be able to implement all of the so called improvements that would be required in order to pad the pockets of other unions like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. Quite the little racket they have.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25 May 16, 2013
Yeah, according to your rules, we're going to need some proof, beside senile blather....

I'm Moniker/SL The Eighth, I am!
Moniker The Eighth I am, I am!
I'm pretending to fly next door
But actually, I'm ALWAYS a lying whore
And every one was Pure BS
You never had Willie, NOT A MAN (no Man)
I'm her eighth moniker, I'm TrashMN
TrashMN The Eighth I am!

Second verse, same as the first!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#26 May 16, 2013
Follow the Money, AFSCME is 7 million dollars in debt. They spent 2 million on DFL candidates and estimates are, this will benefit them to the tune of 5 million per year.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#27 May 16, 2013
Similar legislateion passed in Michigan, from an article there:

The goal

To get about $6 million per year of that money transferred into union coffers.

The mechanism

Michigan's employment relations structure, which is designed to resolve disputes between public employers and public employees. This structure was created with seemingly logical assumptions. They included:
1.The assumption that employees would know whether or not they were employed by the employer.
2.The assumption that employers would generally be working to prevent unionization, not trying to make it happen.
3.The assumption that employees would be informed about unionization elections through word of mouth or bulletin board postings at shared work sites. Because of this assumption, it wasn't clear whether or not a public notice was required to alert the news media about upcoming unionization elections.

Secrecy

A quick scan of the above information shows that the system might not have technically required that the general public and the news media be informed about what was happening. For the plan to work, keeping it below the radar was an absolute necessity.

Pulling it off

Create a dummy employer

A state agency could not be used as the public employer because this would bring the matter before the state's Civil Service Commission and there it would have drawn attention and significant political fallout for increasing the state work force by 40,000-plus in an election year. But while a state agency could not be used to pull off the scheme, the employer would need to “employ” all of the providers. Therefore, in the case of the home health care scam, the dummy employer was the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3).

Get the dummy employer recognized

An attorney representing the union certified that MQC3 was the employer. The so-called home health care workers had to fill out cards asking for a unionization election and a portion of them did. The cards listed MQC3 as their employer. It's probable that many, or most, of these people were told they were signing for a chance to get health care coverage and a wage increase.

(Note: MQC3 now says it is not not the employer.)

Since no one ever foresaw a situation where the basic status of employer to employees would be questionable, the Michigan employment relations structure simply accepted MQC3 as employer and the workers who signed cards as MQC3 employees.

Had this portion of the plan taken place in a public forum, with the news media present, several issues would likely have been raised. For example, whether or not the workers were legally qualified to be public employees. Also, there is the issue of whether home health care workers who considered themselves as independent contractors or family members taking care of their own relatives should be considered as government employees. Subsequent developments indicate that the large majority of these people had no idea any of this was even going on.

The election

The Michigan Bureau of Employment Relations sent out 43,000 election ballots.

Fewer than 20 percent of those affected by the election voted. This indicates that the vast majority of home health care workers and family members who care for disabled relatives had no idea what was happening. It seems likely that they tossed the ballots away as junk mail that didn't apply to them.

How many more would have voted if the process had been done publicly, with the news media covering the election?

Zac Altefogt of SEIU Healthcare Michigan (the branch of the SEIU directly involved) and Sen. Kahn both were offered the opportunity to comment on this article but did not respond.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#28 May 16, 2013
Unions vs. Self-Employed Day-Care Providers
AFSCME looks to government benefits to fill its coffers.

In Michigan, for example, Medicaid reimburses people who care for their disabled relatives at home. This helps parents look after their disabled children while saving taxpayers from paying for more costly care at state-run facilities. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) decided to organize these at-home health-care providers.

Former governor Jennifer Granholm allowed the SEIU to mail out ballots for an “organizing election.” Over 80 percent of the ballots were never returned — either discarded as junk mail or ignored. Nonetheless, union supporters made up a majority of those few who voted, and the state recognized the SEIU.
Soon parents of disabled children saw their reimbursement checks cut by hundreds of dollars a year. The union provided families with no benefits for these dues. As one frustrated parent complained:

We’re not getting anything from them [SEIU]. We’ve tried to contact them, and they don’t even bother to respond. I don’t even know what they could do to help. Considering the dues money we’re sending them, maybe they should come over and babysit our kids so we could have one night out.

After Governor Rick Snyder’s election in 2010, the Michigan legislature put a stop to the program. By then the SEIU had skimmed more than $34 million in “dues” from these families.

Now unions in Minnesota are trying to organize at-home day-care providers with a similar scheme. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is lobbying for a bill that would let them create one statewide union of approximately 11,000 licensed and unlicensed day-care providers who qualify for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) subsidy. The subsidy helps lower-income families pay for day care.

Unlicensed providers include self-employed in-home-care providers, those who run short-term programs such as summer camps, and relatives providing what is termed “relative care.” Grandparents who watch their own grandchildren can fall into that last category, but they must obtain recognition as legal non-licensed providers in order to receive CCAP assistance.

The legislation would authorize AFSCME to collectively bargain with the state on behalf of day-care providers and (of course) collect mandatory union dues. Day-care providers would not even get a secret ballot vote on unionizing — AFSCME would merely collect publicly signed cards, making possible this type of fraud:

Shaffer [a Minnesota child-care provider] said in 2011, she was approached by part of a door-knocking campaign for forming a childcare union in Minnesota. Shaffer said she was asked to sign a card to receive more information on the campaign, but she later learned it was actually a union authorization card.

It is hard to see how self-employed in-home day-care providers benefit from union representation, much less representation without a secret-ballot vote. AFSCME, however, would skim millions in dues off of CCAP checks.

These tactics inspired the vice president of Minnesota AFSCME Local 3400 to resign in dismay earlier this month. Kathy Stevens, a lifelong union member and vice president of Minnesota Child Care Providers Together local, told Watchdog.org ,“I am not anti-union and I don’t want anybody to think I am, but I am anti what [AFSCME’s] purpose is and their mission is right now. I’m not okay with that.”

“This isn’t the way we want our profession to look,” said Stevens.“We don’t want to use people just to get what we want. This is a respectable profession, and we need to have it maintained as a respectable profession, and I don’t think that’s what’s happened.”

Ms. Stevens has a good point. Unions shouldn’t look to government benefits for children, the sick, and the disabled to fill their coffers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343416...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#29 May 16, 2013
non-starter wrote:
Similar passed in Michigan, from an article there:
"legislateion"

If that's how you spell legislation, perhaps you found an article smarter than you and unbiased....

Naw... Smarter OBVIOUSLY, but I don't need a biased moron's help with reading matter.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#30 May 16, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
Follow the Money, AFSCME is 7 million dollars in debt. They spent 2 million on DFL candidates and estimates are, this will benefit them to the tune of 5 million per year.
Unions do NOT spend their money, the accept donations, so any debt is both unproven & immaterial... Sadly, you blather...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#31 May 16, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Unions do NOT spend their money, the accept donations, so any debt is both unproven & immaterial... Sadly, you blather...
Spell correcting others typos while making your own, classic slewchebag style.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#32 May 16, 2013
"legislateion"

TYPO ??? Of course, more moron excuses... Tell your family to accept you, the rest of us are simply amused.

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Tell me again how the 787 isn't FLYING !!! LMAOROTFU~! Typo, right ???
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#33 May 16, 2013
Legislation.

Unions vs. Self-Employed Day-Care Providers
AFSCME looks to government benefits to fill its coffers.

In Michigan, for example, Medicaid reimburses people who care for their disabled relatives at home. This helps parents look after their disabled children while saving taxpayers from paying for more costly care at state-run facilities. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) decided to organize these at-home health-care providers.

Former governor Jennifer Granholm allowed the SEIU to mail out ballots for an “organizing election.” Over 80 percent of the ballots were never returned — either discarded as junk mail or ignored. Nonetheless, union supporters made up a majority of those few who voted, and the state recognized the SEIU.
Soon parents of disabled children saw their reimbursement checks cut by hundreds of dollars a year. The union provided families with no benefits for these dues. As one frustrated parent complained:

We’re not getting anything from them [SEIU]. We’ve tried to contact them, and they don’t even bother to respond. I don’t even know what they could do to help. Considering the dues money we’re sending them, maybe they should come over and babysit our kids so we could have one night out.

After Governor Rick Snyder’s election in 2010, the Michigan legislature put a stop to the program. By then the SEIU had skimmed more than $34 million in “dues” from these families.

Now unions in Minnesota are trying to organize at-home day-care providers with a similar scheme. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is lobbying for a bill that would let them create one statewide union of approximately 11,000 licensed and unlicensed day-care providers who qualify for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) subsidy. The subsidy helps lower-income families pay for day care.

Unlicensed providers include self-employed in-home-care providers, those who run short-term programs such as summer camps, and relatives providing what is termed “relative care.” Grandparents who watch their own grandchildren can fall into that last category, but they must obtain recognition as legal non-licensed providers in order to receive CCAP assistance.

The legislation would authorize AFSCME to collectively bargain with the state on behalf of day-care providers and (of course) collect mandatory union dues. Day-care providers would not even get a secret ballot vote on unionizing — AFSCME would merely collect publicly signed cards, making possible this type of fraud:

Shaffer [a Minnesota child-care provider] said in 2011, she was approached by part of a door-knocking campaign for forming a childcare union in Minnesota. Shaffer said she was asked to sign a card to receive more information on the campaign, but she later learned it was actually a union authorization card.

It is hard to see how self-employed in-home day-care providers benefit from union representation, much less representation without a secret-ballot vote. AFSCME, however, would skim millions in dues off of CCAP checks.

These tactics inspired the vice president of Minnesota AFSCME Local 3400 to resign in dismay earlier this month. Kathy Stevens, a lifelong union member and vice president of Minnesota Child Care Providers Together local, told Watchdog.org ,“I am not anti-union and I don’t want anybody to think I am, but I am anti what [AFSCME’s] purpose is and their mission is right now. I’m not okay with that.”

“This isn’t the way we want our profession to look,” said Stevens.“We don’t want to use people just to get what we want. This is a respectable profession, and we need to have it maintained as a respectable profession, and I don’t think that’s what’s happened.”

Ms. Stevens has a good point. Unions shouldn’t look to government benefits for children, the sick, and the disabled to fill their coffers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343416 ...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#34 May 16, 2013
Did I thank you for GOOG ?

Perhaps, when you're done kneeling, you could help Trashy find a stock pick to present...

I know neither has that nifty "site" to use. Make the return 100% in 3 months, like I did...

THANKS ~!

You're telling me how smart you are about money, so I'm sure you'll welcome a little challenge.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#35 May 16, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Spell correcting others typos while making your own, classic slewchebag style.
There are already a good number of in-home daycare providers that are underground/under the table. This kind of government nanny state collusion with the unions will send even more of them off the books. That means reduced tax revenue for MN as they become more willing to accept cash, barter, trade, etc.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#36 May 16, 2013
You don't mean to say, you encourage people to perform illegal acts and cheat to avoid their fare tax burden ??? Sad, you're killing our country, from within, teabagger......

Will you be donating money to the Hostess workers, who were cheated outta money, by management ???

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#37 May 16, 2013
Keep an eye out for those R.I.F. trucks in the neighborhood.

Reading (comprehension) Is Fundamental!

It has become a serious challenge for low information, no integrity posters.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#38 May 16, 2013
Yeah, according to your rules, we're going to need some proof, beside senile blather....

I'm Moniker/SL The Eighth, I am!
Moniker The Eighth I am, I am!
I'm pretending to fly next door
But actually, I'm ALWAYS a lying whore
And every one was Pure BS
You never had Willie, NOT A MAN (no Man)
I'm her eighth moniker, I'm TrashMN
TrashMN The Eighth I am!

Second verse, same as the first!

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#39 May 16, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
There are already a good number of in-home daycare providers that are underground/under the table. This kind of government nanny state collusion with the unions will send even more of them off the books. That means reduced tax revenue for MN as they become more willing to accept cash, barter, trade, etc.
Cigarettes - black market.
Liquor - black market.
Daycare - black market?

Way to go Gov GoogleyEyes. Pop another couple of pills, down another quart of vodka, and then ask your dogs what you should do.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#40 May 16, 2013
Look like you're admitting you hate our country and contribute to it's downfall, by not paying your share... 47%, huh ???

Now, for that stock pick, prick...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bye bye Betsy...Bye bye Betsy 6 hr Bad COP No dognut 16
News Warrant: Woman 'slapped' squad car before polic... 7 hr Bad COP No dognut 2
Liberals are trying to destroy america 9 hr Bad COP No dognut 66
Trump Derangement Syndrome TDS 9 hr Space ace 37
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 13 hr John 37,131
Somalian Refugees 15 hr cowboy chris 2
Somali brutaliy beats Woman 16 hr Bubba 89

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages