Latest Breaking News

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

the picket line (we didn't raise hell with them, but we knew who they were) and when we all came back to work, saving their benefits and pay, they ran to us when management began to treat them the same as union members.

They'd enjoyed being treated like managers and given perks while we were on strike, but when we came back, the honeymoon was over.

They didn't pay dues (this was a RTW state, so being in the union was optional) but we had to represent them anyway. We just weren't enthused about it, but it really was about maintaining good working conditions for all of us, not them. So we had to do so, and they were more than aware they were getting free ride off the dues paying union members but still resented us.

I'm not sure what the ruling really said. I've seen the home health care issue in the state I live in now, which is not a RTW state. SEIU sought to organize the caregivers in private homes, but not necessarily the kind of case this was, into a union to get wages and benefits that many do not get, resulting in poor care in some cases.

It was fought tooth and nail by some families. They felt it was an intrusion on their family, and that they didn't want to have to accept who the union sent out, follow discrimination laws, etc. They had good and bad points, and only a few places were unionized, AFAIK.

There is a difference with Medicaid laws that may apply to this, but I didn't read the case, have only seen it through the union lens, but there is another view that may have applied here. I think it is about a mother caring for her child at homea and being paid. Feel free to correct me on this.

Being paid to take care of a family member is a thing I envied friends in the UK for getting under the Thatcher changes to care, so a child could stay at home with a parent and not have to be put into state care in order to access care. Those I knew were able to keep from being in poverty, worn out, worried about keeping their home and paying for health care.

One person I knew well said his position was that of a 'Carer' and the UK paid him to take care of his own son, his son's health needs and supplies, prescriptions, ambulance rides and care when his son had seizures and all of that. He was given control over where his son was cared for so he could take 2 weeks off a year as a vacation, and had respite care every month of his choosing. Because it is a 24 hour a day job.

In the USA, the parents of disabled children have been essentially been on their own, and caretakers break down from the hours and financial strain. If one loses one's job and or insurance that cares for the child and parent, or other social and economic factors come into play, the only way for the child to get health care for a long time in some states was to put the child in state care. The help of a paid home health care assistant or a parent being able to qualify for rigid Medicaid standards was dependent on what rules by the state lived in.

Which meant children with great needs had to be put in state care, breaking up the family, and often leading to the deterioration of the child and the loss of all the other things that one has from family and their community.

When a person becomes by contract a Medicaid service provider, all the money must be for direct care of the disabled person. It is a big deal for some parents to get this payment, but it is still dependent on the whims of state legislatures.

The way I read this case, an impoverished parent was being paid for direct care. It was at a minimum level and she felt she could not afford to pay union dues out of the meager wages or stipend paid as if she was a worker in the regular labor market. But the child could not live without her care.

I am unfamiliar with that kind of arrangement. It may have been one where she was paying for help out of the Medicaid money, and felt she was unable to pay the union wages, benefits and dues out of the amount she was given by her state's Medicaid program.

The rigid eligibility rules create a lot of distress on those already hurting. I can't tell exactly what went on here and am ready to be informed. I support union workers doing this because good working conditions and wages lead to keeping better workers which gives stability in taking care of vulnerable people, in theory.

That's all I can offer here.