It is much cheaper for loved ones to be caregivers for family members that are incapacitated. These folks could be institutionalized at a cost of tens of thousand each year, or a stipend can be given to family members, under supervisor and inspection, to take care of their sons, daughters, wives and uncles. Now the unions in Pennsylvania are so desperate for money, in conjunction with the State government, they arranged for a secret election, to steal at least2% from the stipends, money meant to give care to the disabled. Unions stealing form the sick—expect different?
“Only 2,663 of the state’s estimated 20,000 home care providers were eligible to vote in that election — about 13 percent total — backed United Home Care Workers by the April 23 mail-in deadline. But it still won because only 2,970 voted overall and the majority of votes cast determined the election.
Euston has had two contacts with United Home Care Workers since then. Once when she received an automated call announcing their win and later when it hosted a conference call for the providers. During the latter call, she learned that it planned to press the state for 2 percent of all providers’ subsidy checks as a “representation fee.”
So, we have a Democrat Party that supports Planned Parenthood killing 13 million black babies since 1973, stealing from the disabled, death panels for Americans—this is a political party that maybe the most unethical, immoral organization in America. What do you think?
Big Labor trickery on display in effort to unionize home care
By Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner, 10/31/15
Connie Euston, of Moon Township, Pa., did not even know an election was happening until the day her ballot arrived in the mail. It was marked: “Urgent: Ballot Enclosed for Pennsylvania Homecare Attendants Election. Deadline approaching: Vote Today!”
Euston takes care of her quadriplegic son, Greg, with help from a state-run program that provides funded subsidies to offset the cost. The ballot asked whether she wanted United Home Care Workers as her state representative. She could check yes or no. The ballot said nothing else regarding the election or United Home Care Workers.
“There was precious little information available,” she told the Washington Examiner.
In fact, the ballot was about whether homecare providers would get what amounted to a union. United Home Care Workers is a joint project of the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. They were petitioning the state to represent the caregivers.
Euston learned this only after she read a newspaper op-ed on the matter. She voted “no.” Many other providers, who, like Euston, care for family members at home, presumably threw the ballots out, assuming they were junk mail.
Only 2,663 of the state’s estimated 20,000 home care providers were eligible to vote in that election — about 13 percent total — backed United Home Care Workers by the April 23 mail-in deadline. But it still won because only 2,970 voted overall and the majority of votes cast determined the election.
Euston has had two contacts with United Home Care Workers since then. Once when she received an automated call announcing their win and later when it hosted a conference call for the providers. During the latter call, she learned that it planned to press the state for 2 percent of all providers’ subsidy checks as a “representation fee.”
She’s not worried so much about the money, though. “I would take care of my son regardless. My primary concern is with what work rules it would institute and how far they would go to enforce them,” she said. For example, would it have the right to inspect her workplace, i.e., her home?
“We’ve gotten a lot of calls from homecare workers and the people they represent. All of them cannot believe that this is happening. They barely knew about the election,” said David Osborne, general counsel for the Fairness Center, a Pennsylvania-based libertarian nonprofit legal group that is challenging the governor’s executive order.
The center claims that unionizing the caregivers violates state law. A preliminary injunction was granted in May. The case is working its way through court and isn’t expected to be resolved until late this year at the earliest.
A spokesperson for United Home Care Workers did not respond to a request for comment.
A carefully planned-out strategy
The situation in Pennsylvania isn’t unique. Over the past decade, organized labor has run a largely overlooked state-by-state effort to get friendly governors and legislators to have them represent state-subsidized home care providers for the ill and the elderly. Child day care providers were also targeted. In most cases, the subsidies are partly or entirely funded through Medicaid.
The unions did it by getting the states to declare that the providers were public-sector employees because they received state subsidies. This enabled the states to sign contracts with the unions on the providers’ behalf, contracts that obligated the providers to either join a union or at least pay it regular fees.
About Stephen Frank
Speak Your Mind