Posted on 10/23/2012 6:06:17 AM PDT by MichCapCon
When Richard Nottage of Kingley agreed to help out his ex-wife after she broke her leg, he had no idea that doing so made him a dues-paying member of a union.
"My ex-wife needed help and asked if I could help her," he said. "She'd called adult services, which did an interview and said she qualified for assistance. I helped her out for a couple of months and received one check that covered two pay periods (from May 16 to June 30). When I looked at the check I noticed it had union dues taken out of it. All I did was help out my ex-wife a few weeks and suddenly I was in a union."
Nottage said he had no idea how that happened.
"It was a surprise," Nottage said. "I didn't want to be in a union. I couldn't believe it. I couldn't figure out how this union was tied to the state. It seems pretty unfair. What did I get from the union? What could I get from the union? Nothing."
Nottage, however, was roped into the forced unionization scheme the Service Employees International Union created when Jennifer Granholm was governor. To date, more than $32 million has been taken by the SEIU from tens of thousands of people helping the disabled, elderly or injured in Michigan.
And, if the SEIU gets its way, the scheme will be locked into the state constitution if voters approve Proposal 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Supporters of the union-backed plan are hoping voters don't know what it's really all about. They're promoting the ballot measure as something that will allow people to be cared for at home. However, this federal Home Help Services Program has already been in existence for 31 years.
They also are claiming that Proposal 4 would create a registry to do background checks on so-called home-based caregivers. A registry for background checks has existed since 2006 and has generally been a flop because most of the caregivers take care of family or friends and there is little real need for it. The only thing not being talked about by Prop 4 supporters is the continuation of the forced unionization.
Nottage scoffed at the notion that a background check was needed for him to help his ex-wife.
"A background check? I can't imagine why," Nottage said. "My ex-wife knows as much about my background as I do."
Nottage said he helped out his ex-wife by taking her to the doctor's office and delivering meals to her, among other things.
"There wasn't anything involved that you'd normally think of when you talk about a union," he said. "It had nothing to do with things like hours or working conditions. Being put in a union for helping her was ridiculous."
It has been difficult to attach an exact number as to how many home-based caregivers are in Michigan. The Nottage situation shows why. Earlier this year the state said more than 61,000 caregivers had dues taken out of their checks. It is now clear that this number included those who participated in the program on a temporary basis.
Language in Proposal 4 would ensure that Michigan's home-based caregivers will remain unionized with a newly created dummy employer, the Michigan Quality Home Care Council. An "employer" is necessary to bolster the forced unionization with a collective bargaining agreement.
The idea that the union ever represented or will represent the home-based caregivers at the collective bargaining table is a charade. The employers are the people receiving care and the union has no way to truly bargain on their behalf. Additionally, Proposal 4 explicity states that the home-based caregivers are not eligible for any state benefits, but they would continue watching their money taken by the SEIU nonetheless.
Nottage said he recently received a letter from SEIU, urging him to vote for an inner-union proposal to reduce the amount of dues taken out of the Medicaid checks.
"When I read it, I wondered what it was all about," Nottage said. "Then I remembered — of course, the election is coming up."
Nottage said he's not sure why he'd still be considered as a union member, now that his ex-wife has recovered.
"It makes me wonder if they have some reason for wanting to claim a high number of members,” Nottage said.
Dohn Hoyle, treasurer and co-chairman of the group supporting Proposal 4, did not respond to a request for comment on this story and has ignored numerous other requests for comment.
The union thugs are desperate and dying. And it shows.
Ha! Ha! Ha! That's the company you joined when pulled off your money grabbing scheme.
Real "help" for his ex-wife would have been done for free.
Nailed it!
Excellent point. I was curious about how driving his ex-wife to the doctor or taking her meals got him involved with a government program and the SEIU. I do things like that for people in my church and the homeschool association all the time, and I’ve never seen a paycheck nor a union-dues deduction.
No, these days the state pays for people to care for family memebers. I remember a totally disabled girl whose parents received a stipend and hourly wages for travel as well as milage. Cheaper than keeping her in a nursing home was my guess.
That's nice that you can take up the cross like that but we don't know the full extent of what this man has gone through helping his ex-wife.
No, these days the state pays for people to care for family memebers. I remember a totally disabled girl whose parents received a stipend and hourly wages for travel as well as milage. Cheaper than keeping her in a nursing home was my guess.
When family or friends expect "the state" - i.e. other people - to pay them to "help" their own, the meaning of family and friendship is totally corrupted.
I'd starve before I insulted anyone I care for or lowered myself by having others pay me to "help" them. "These days" can go to hell!
We know that he - whoops! - ended up an SEIU member.
It’s not about me, or anyone else who has pointed out that there’s something squirrelly about becoming a government employee by assisting a family member. This is the trend of our whole society - nobody is supposed to just help someone else (or themselves), it all has to be through the government and paid for by the taxpayer.
This is why the Final Economic Collapse (aka the Zombie Apocalypse) is more likely, in my opinion, than any meaningful benefits reform, no matter who wins this election.
NO?”
When family or friends expect “the state” - i.e. other people - to pay them to “help” their own, the meaning of family and friendship is totally corrupted.
I’d starve before I insulted anyone I care for or lowered myself by having others pay me to “help” them. “These days” can go to hell!
__________________________
You are not getting an argument from me. Heckk I am a person who is trying to turn down medicare, one cannot because one has to also turn down SS.
There were programs set up to help people and I know there are people who abuse that. But who gets hurt when someone actually needs the help? What’s killing this country is when you have a president throwing billions of tax payer dollars to his campaign donors. I agree that people, churches should step up and help out but in some instances, people may not be able to get that kind of help. The liberals have raided the piggy bank and the average person is getting hurt for it.
I disagree. Once you get government involved, forceably taking from some to pay off others, with no matter what generous motives, then everything that results is “not a bug, but a feature.” Person-to-person or privately organized assistance to people in need is not perfect, but there’s no other way to avoid the proliferation of “clients,” the bureaucracy whose main goal is to keep their jobs, and the use of the system for political ends.
He may not even be a member of the union, despite those dues being deducted. Last thing I knew you had to sign an official union enrollment card to be a member. Dues are automatically deducted by the employee, usually based on contract agreements. As far as I know, it’s up to the Union to sign you up officially.
Oops, meant to say dues are automatically deducted by the employer, not employee.
Unions == Organized Crime == Democrat Puppet Masters
Mark
Both SS & Medicare are programs you are forced to pay into for years before you become eligible to receive benefits. And like insurance policies, they were designed and sold to the public as programs in which the premiums would pay for the benefits and solvency would be assured in perpetuity.
If that is no longer so, it is because whore politicians turned it into a Ponzi scheme for votes - rather then doing their job to assure that premiums and benefits were always adjusted according to sound actuary principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.