Excuse me but Freedom Works and these other creeps busted up the union with
state support a few years back on in home service providers, or personal
care assistants. And they depressed the wages of these folks to the point
where they working full time earn under the poverty level annually.
These are the most critical supports for PWD with severe disabilities in
living in their communities rather than in more costly, and more
restrictive institutional settings. And the requirement for integretation is
a civil rights (ADA) mandate.
Regardless the personal care assistants are at the front line of freedom and
yet, again live often in poverty.
By the way,since this was done here and since Snyder gave the "Quality
Control Council" over to agencies these agencies charge the state and
Medicaid aproximately $15 to place a PA in the home, yet the in home wworker
gets less than ten dollars per hour and often minimum wages with no
benefits.
He or she must also pay his/her travel costs.
Just another Snyder victory for PWD and the working class here.
I have to go back to other battles. But I will say that ultimately the
person recieiving the services is in charge, or supposed to be so. And the
PWD does have the power to fire at will any PA, not the state and not the
agencies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Wick" <wickps@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:44 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Miriam,
But the worker (we call them personal support workers in Oregon) doesn't
want to be represented. Isn't it classist of you to presume that she must be
represented? Just like taxes, when people don't see the tangible benefit in
their lives of sucking money out of their paycheck it's human nature to want
to save money.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My feeling is that workers like this one should definately be represented by
public unions so the original court decision was flawed. And I suspect that
there are more facts that aren't being reported in the story.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] What's wrong with unions?
To those of you who think trading unions are the greatest thing since sliced
bread.
Worker quits union but union won't quit (charging) her .
The Oregonian Feb. 17, 2016
Harris v. Quinn gave home care workers the ability to cancel union
memberships and dues. Maybe the Service Employees International Union hasn't
heard As offensive as this scheme may be to those who believe government
should operate transparently and in good faith, some observers might be
inclined to shrug and point out that it also ended up helping workers. After
all, the addresses of home care workers are no longer subject to public
disclosure thanks to the passage of House Bill 3037. But those who take such
a charitable view of events should consider the experience of a single home
care worker, Maryann Rose, who has tried to disentangle herself (and her
wallet) from a union that sought the passage of HB3037. Sticking up for the
little guy, indeed. Both events - the stalling and the attempted
disentanglement - occurred in the wake of a June 2014 decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court. In Harris v. Quinn, the court determined that personal
assistants like home care workers aren't full-fledged public employees in
that they are hired and fired by their private-sector clients. For that
reason, the unions that represent their bargaining units cannot charge
nonmembers fees in lieu of dues, as is common practice in public employment
in many states, including Oregon. The practical effect of this decision is
that home care workers can now save money by either dropping their union
memberships or not joining in the first place. Gurney is the Oregon
coordinator of the Washington state-based Freedom Foundation, which dislikes
public employee unions about as much as Cookie Monster likes cookies. Gurney
requested the names and addresses of home care workers in order to explain
their rights under Harris v. Quinn. One such worker is Rose, who in February
2014 - months before the Supreme Court's decision - signed a Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) membership application that permits the
deduction of dues from her paycheck, according to a federal lawsuit filed on
her behalf last week by the Freedom Foundation. So far, no problem. But the
application contained a provision making the deduction authorization
"irrevocable for a period of one year from the date of execution and from
year to year thereafter. To revoke her authorization, Rose was required to
send the union a written notice during a 15-day window that opened only once
a year on the anniversary of her authorization's execution. Given the ease
of signing up for membership and the difficulty of stopping dues payments,
you have to wonder whether the SEIU consulted the playbook used by people
who peddle cellphone contracts. Or maybe it's the other way around. Anyway,
at the time Rose joined the union, the financial reason for doing otherwise
wasn't very strong. After all, the SEIU still had the ability to charge
nonmembers in-lieu-of fees that were comparable to union dues. But Harris v.
Quinn gave home care workers like Rose the ability to save money by
canceling their union memberships and ceasing dues payments. And that's
exactly what Rose tried to do, according to the suit, which was filed in
federal court Friday. In November 2015, Rose sent the union a letter
resigning her membership and asking that deductions for dues cease. She
received a letter from the union in December confirming the resignation of
her membership in SEIU. However, the letter continued, "deduction of dues
will continue until such time as you revoke the dues check off authorization
you signed ... in the manner and in the time periods set out in that
authorization. According to Freedom Foundation attorney Nick Dagostino, the
deductions had not ceased as of early February, notwithstanding the fact
that Rose is no longer a member of the union. This behavior is illegal, he
argues. If unions may not collect fees in lieu of dues from nonmembers, why
would it be OK for them to collect dues from nonmembers? Heather Conroy,
executive director of SEIU Local 503, declined in an email to discuss the
lawsuit, except to call the Freedom Foundation "an organization dedicated to
dismantling unions like SEIU" and to dismiss its chances in court. Time will
tell whether Conroy's legal prognostication is correct, but her union's
treatment of Rose (and, according to Dagostino, many other workers like her)
speaks volumes about its respect for the very workers it represents.
Shouldn't it be just as easy to quit a union and stop paying dues as it is
to join and start?
Sent from my iPhone
