Economy

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

gypsy — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:37:37 GMT

Landlords? Renters?

No taxpayers are forced into unions with this bill. This bill actually wants to ban so-called "stealth" unionization of workers paid with government funds.

But I do join you in opposing this bill. These workers who are paid with government money should receive the benefits of union membership.

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

slam — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:23:15 GMT

Landlords get "direct" pay from both the Federal and State Government. But, the money belongs to the person "receiving the benefit". Therefore they are being paid not by the State but by the renter. This is the same concept for day care workers. They get "direct" pay from the Government, but the money belongs to the person receiving the benefit. In essence the person receiving the benefit is the taxpayer. Should all taxpayers be "forced" into Unions also? This piece of legislation was very poorly thought out and is just one more attempt at forcing all of Michigan, and the United States, into a progresive society based upon social programming. Someone needs to understand that we have become slaves to the Government and it is time to declare our liberty.

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

gypsy — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:09:33 GMT

It is illegal, or was until the recent SCOTUS ruling, for union dues to be used as political contributions.

These are not private contractors who bid and are paid a fee to do a job. These are employees paid wages by the State.

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

jdee — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:10:56 GMT

The thing is, they are not employees. They are private contractors. Under this logic, grocery stores that accept WIC checks and welfare debit cards should be required to deduct state employee union dues, because the money comes from the state. Any contractor that does any work for the state in any fashion must pay same dues. Any college researcher who receives a state grant should pay said dues. The home daycare workers do not receive salaries from the state. They receive subsidies. So if one must pay, all must pay.

There isn't anything wrong with belonging to the union, if you choose that. These people are forced into it. And then most of their union dues are used for political purposes that like are different from their own.

It's wrong and should be banned.

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

gypsy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:54:56 GMT

Doesn't seem too stealthy to me. These people are being paid by the government, in essence working for the government, therefore according to the closed shop agreement, they are now in the union, and should receive benefits and pay union dues accordingly.

Re: 2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

truckingal — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:38:23 GMT

This 'stealth unionization' should definitely be against the law and all of those so far affected by it should be removed from union roles. Their unwillingly withheld dues should be returned-with interest, payable by whatever ' union' collected them!

2010 House Bill 5771 (Ban “stealth" unionization of employees paid with government assistance money)

Votes Admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on January 27, 2010

Click here to view bill details.