Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama's signature legislation since June 17, 2011.
By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years.
(RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.
See the Daily Caller
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: More Mustaches?
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Obama's Union Goon Squad & the NLRB
ThoughtjustoffCenter: Dang, I just can get off the Obama subject today.
Excellent article if you have the time to read it. Boeing pulled their lawsuit against the NLRB and it was for a very good reason. The U.S. government have them over a barrel. All this has happened because no truthful justice is taking place in our over-reaching U.S. government agencies.
Washington Times.com
Excellent article if you have the time to read it. Boeing pulled their lawsuit against the NLRB and it was for a very good reason. The U.S. government have them over a barrel. All this has happened because no truthful justice is taking place in our over-reaching U.S. government agencies.
Washington Times.com
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
More Union Theft!
Thanks to an unnoticed provision legislators slipped into state law 20 years ago, almost two dozen union leaders in Chicago stand to walk off with a cool $56 million in pension money, the Chicago Tribune reported last week.
But only if the Illinois legislature does not repeal the provision, detailed in a lengthy report the Tribune conducted with WGN-TV. Three of the union leaders may earn as much as $5 million.
Legalized Theft
No one seems to know, the Tribune reported, who tweaked state pension law to permit the looting. Or at least no one will accept responsibility.
The change in the law was a small one. It permits the pensions of city employees to be based upon salaries earned after they retired from the city and went to work for unions, rather than basing those pensions on their much lower wages from the city.
According to the Tribune, the arrangement is a little unusual: “Pension experts from around the country say they’ve never heard of such a perk for union leaders.”
The story continues on: thenewamerican.com
ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: Now you know why I do not believe in public sector unions.
But only if the Illinois legislature does not repeal the provision, detailed in a lengthy report the Tribune conducted with WGN-TV. Three of the union leaders may earn as much as $5 million.
Legalized Theft
No one seems to know, the Tribune reported, who tweaked state pension law to permit the looting. Or at least no one will accept responsibility.
The change in the law was a small one. It permits the pensions of city employees to be based upon salaries earned after they retired from the city and went to work for unions, rather than basing those pensions on their much lower wages from the city.
According to the Tribune, the arrangement is a little unusual: “Pension experts from around the country say they’ve never heard of such a perk for union leaders.”
The story continues on: thenewamerican.com
ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: Now you know why I do not believe in public sector unions.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Wisconsin Union Council Bans Repulicans from Labor Day Parade
“A Wisconsin labor council that sponsors the Labor Day parade in Wausau is giving Republican lawmakers their walking papers — in the form of banning them from walking in the parade this year — saying they are unfriendly to union workers.”
Excuse me I’m a worker or was since I'm now retired. I’ve never belonged to a union.
The Unions are totally out of control and against the tax payer and even some of their own members only belong because they had to join in order to get a job. I remember that part very well, because that’s what my friends did in order to get work – back in the 1970’s. It’s still alive and well in that respect today in most of the areas of our great country.
In the past, the unions have done some good things for the American worker, yet they have gotten way out of control, as I learned when I got out of the Army back in 1977 and refused to join up, and the article by Newsmax shows.
I do not believe in unions within our government institutions and this article points out a very good reason that the Mayor and city council positions should NOT be political party affiliated.
We are slowly losing our country to the socialist’s. It makes me sick.
Luckily, I live in an Independent Stronghold, because that’s how I’ll always be.
I will bow down before no one other than GOD and his son Jesus Christ.
Excuse me I’m a worker or was since I'm now retired. I’ve never belonged to a union.
The Unions are totally out of control and against the tax payer and even some of their own members only belong because they had to join in order to get a job. I remember that part very well, because that’s what my friends did in order to get work – back in the 1970’s. It’s still alive and well in that respect today in most of the areas of our great country.
In the past, the unions have done some good things for the American worker, yet they have gotten way out of control, as I learned when I got out of the Army back in 1977 and refused to join up, and the article by Newsmax shows.
I do not believe in unions within our government institutions and this article points out a very good reason that the Mayor and city council positions should NOT be political party affiliated.
We are slowly losing our country to the socialist’s. It makes me sick.
Luckily, I live in an Independent Stronghold, because that’s how I’ll always be.
I will bow down before no one other than GOD and his son Jesus Christ.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Wisconsin and Ohio vs, the Unions - Right to Work at Stake
The Union's are on the attack again fighting against Wisconsin's union bargaining reforms and now against Ohio's new right to work law for the government sector.
How can any responsible person be against the concept of "right to work". Right to work simple means, having the right to work in a job your are qualified for without having a union "tax" (at best) or "extort" (at worse) part of your pay check to pay for, among other things, political ads overwhelmingly for liberal, socialist values?
Wisconsin and Ohio both righted a moral wrong by eliminating the union's power over government employees,...but as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation correct asserts, the union bosses won't relinquish their special legal privileges without a fight.
Right now union lawyers are scheming and working to overturn Wisconsin's monopoly bargaining reforms in the courts, union bosses and their allies in Ohio have launched a massive campaign in support of a ballot measure that would repeal Ohio's new government-sector Right to Work law.
This past week, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 Ohio school teachers filed a class-action suit demonstrating once again why the new Right to Work protections are so clearly needed. All 15 teachers who launched the lawsuit have exercised their right to refrain from membership in the Ohio Education Association (OAE) union and its affiliates, but nonetheless are forced to accept the "representation" of and pay tribute to union bosses as a condition of employment.
In the Foundation-won precedent Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guarantees that nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union-boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.
OEA union officials have unlawfully overcharged the teachers for costs supporting the union's political activism and electioneering, which of course is again over-whelmingly if not 100% in support of Democrats, Liberals, Big Government spending, anti-constitutionalists and Socialists,....ahh, but I'm being redundant.
One of big wrongs this Country has to fix is when workers can be compelled to support an unwanted union.
The above article was para-phrased in part from a report by The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/
Thoughts just off Center - "This article was stolen from my friend at:
How can any responsible person be against the concept of "right to work". Right to work simple means, having the right to work in a job your are qualified for without having a union "tax" (at best) or "extort" (at worse) part of your pay check to pay for, among other things, political ads overwhelmingly for liberal, socialist values?
Wisconsin and Ohio both righted a moral wrong by eliminating the union's power over government employees,...but as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation correct asserts, the union bosses won't relinquish their special legal privileges without a fight.
Right now union lawyers are scheming and working to overturn Wisconsin's monopoly bargaining reforms in the courts, union bosses and their allies in Ohio have launched a massive campaign in support of a ballot measure that would repeal Ohio's new government-sector Right to Work law.
This past week, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 Ohio school teachers filed a class-action suit demonstrating once again why the new Right to Work protections are so clearly needed. All 15 teachers who launched the lawsuit have exercised their right to refrain from membership in the Ohio Education Association (OAE) union and its affiliates, but nonetheless are forced to accept the "representation" of and pay tribute to union bosses as a condition of employment.
In the Foundation-won precedent Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guarantees that nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union-boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.
OEA union officials have unlawfully overcharged the teachers for costs supporting the union's political activism and electioneering, which of course is again over-whelmingly if not 100% in support of Democrats, Liberals, Big Government spending, anti-constitutionalists and Socialists,....ahh, but I'm being redundant.
One of big wrongs this Country has to fix is when workers can be compelled to support an unwanted union.
The above article was para-phrased in part from a report by The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/
Thoughts just off Center - "This article was stolen from my friend at:
If you're reading this you should read his at: http://cowboys-and-tea-parties.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Very Near to my Line of Thinking
Fairness or Unfairness - by John Hawkins
If one child complains that he didn't get as much food as his brother because his frankfurter was cut into four pieces, while his brother's hot dog was cut into five pieces, we laugh. What we often don't realize is that the definitions of "fairness" that adults use are often every bit as arbitrary as those of children. This is why politicians are so in love with the word "fairness." Using that word justifies their attempt to swoop in, ignore merit, overrule the market, and take something from one group of people to give it to another group of people who are more likely to vote for them. So next time someone starts talking about "fairness," put your hand over your wallet, put on your thinking cap, and consider that what is defined as "fairness" could look extremely "unfair" if you're open minded enough to take a look at it from another perspective.
1) Affirmative Action's only "fair?" The idea here is that we're going to discriminate against white Americans who have not done anything wrong in order to help black Americans who may not have been discriminated against so that we can make up for past discrimination against black Americans. That begs the question: Do we flip this around at some point and start deliberately discriminating against black Americans again to make up for the government's discrimination against white Americans? It may sound outrageous, but that ridiculous idea would be every bit as "fair" as Affirmative Action.
2) Making losers pay for legal costs would be "unfair" to the little guy! Because liberals get a lot of money from trial lawyers, they oppose a "loser pays" rule for lawsuits. They justify this by saying that system would be "unfair" to the people suing. Why, what if they couldn't afford to sue because their opponents’ legal fees would be too high? Of course, that's a really backward way to look at it. After all, how fair is it for someone to have to spend countless hours of their time and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from a meritless lawsuit without compensation? Surely, if it's "fair" for the plaintiffs to get money if they win, then it should be "fair" for the defendants to at least have their expenses covered if they triumph.
3) The rich aren't paying their "fair" share. It's easy to take shots at rich people. There usually aren't enough of them to swing an election with their votes, nobody really feels sorry for people who have a lot of money, and as often as not, they give contributions to both parties as "protection money." But here's a thought: How can the rich not be paying their "fair share" when the top 10% of Americans pay 69.9% of the money we take in from the income tax while 47 percent of Americans don't even pay a single dollar a year? Arguing that people -- who probably pay for all the services they'll get from the government in an entire lifetime over any given month -- aren't paying their "fair share" while so many people pay nothing at all, seems more than a bit....."unfair."
4) Cutting spending would be "unfair!" Any time you try to cut something from the budget, there are aliens in other galaxies who can undoubtedly hear the screams from space. We get rants about cruelty, Tea Party "terrorists," pushing old people off cliffs, balancing the budget on the backs of the less fortunate -- it goes on and on. However, there's no such thing as "free" government money. So, what we're actually doing is selling our children into debt slavery so that liberal politicians can borrow more money to buy votes today. What could be crueler or more "unfair" than a child who's born starting his life more than $176,000 in debt before he's ever opened his eyes for the first time?
5) Minimum wage laws make sure people get a "fair" wage. If you're making the minimum wage right now, it's entirely possible that the law benefits you by insuring that you get paid a higher wage than you otherwise would. Liberals would call this "fairness." But, how about all the people with low skills who either aren't worth the minimum wage or who could be hired for jobs that don't merit the minimum wage? It's all well and good to say that a job's not worth someone's time if it doesn't pay the minimum wage, but there are probably a lot of unemployed Americans who'd be grateful to make $7 an hour while they look for a better job. What's "fair" to those people about putting a law in place that prevents willing businesses from hiring willing workers who desperately need the money?
6) Not allowing illegal aliens to become American citizens is "unfair!" If we allow people who sneak across the border or overstay their VISA to become American citizens, then doesn't that make legal immigrants look like complete idiots? There are people who spent years in their home countries, paying thousands of dollars, and filling out endless paperwork while liberals want to give people who broke the law the gift of American citizenship? What's the message to people who became citizens the right way supposed to be other than, "You are a moron for following the rules?" How can it be anything other than grossly "unfair" to legal immigrants to give illegals a break? Additionally, how about all the American workers, including legal immigrants, who have less money to bring home in their paychecks each week or no jobs at all because illegal aliens who pay no car insurance, health insurance, or taxes can afford to do the job at a cheaper price and drive down wages? How "fair" is it to hurt American citizens to help people who didn't even come to this country legally?
7) Wal-Mart isn't "fair" to its employees. Liberals generally don't like big corporations and they especially don't like Wal-Mart because it's an enormous company that has successfully fought off unionization. This leads to cries that Wal-Mart's "unfair" because it doesn’t pay its employees enough or allow its employees to buy fancy health care plans. Of course, if Wal-Mart could be perfectly honest, its response would probably be, “We don't force our employees to work for us and if they decide they’re unhappy, they can always go somewhere else.” That being said, there's another group of people who aren't being "fairly" treated by the liberal push to unionize Wal-Mart – Wal-Mart customers. Wal-Mart employs more than 2.1 million people in America, but roughly 82% of American households shop at Wal-Mart each year. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay its employees more, then you're taking money out of the pockets of everyone who shops there to pay for it. Why should a dirt-poor widow with four kids who buys her groceries at Wal-Mart be forced to pay more money than she would otherwise to subsidize union salaries? That seems more than a little "unfair."
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
Thoughts just off Center comment: This article was originally published by Townhalldaily.com. I changed the title and edited one or two words that I found inappropriate.
If one child complains that he didn't get as much food as his brother because his frankfurter was cut into four pieces, while his brother's hot dog was cut into five pieces, we laugh. What we often don't realize is that the definitions of "fairness" that adults use are often every bit as arbitrary as those of children. This is why politicians are so in love with the word "fairness." Using that word justifies their attempt to swoop in, ignore merit, overrule the market, and take something from one group of people to give it to another group of people who are more likely to vote for them. So next time someone starts talking about "fairness," put your hand over your wallet, put on your thinking cap, and consider that what is defined as "fairness" could look extremely "unfair" if you're open minded enough to take a look at it from another perspective.
1) Affirmative Action's only "fair?" The idea here is that we're going to discriminate against white Americans who have not done anything wrong in order to help black Americans who may not have been discriminated against so that we can make up for past discrimination against black Americans. That begs the question: Do we flip this around at some point and start deliberately discriminating against black Americans again to make up for the government's discrimination against white Americans? It may sound outrageous, but that ridiculous idea would be every bit as "fair" as Affirmative Action.
2) Making losers pay for legal costs would be "unfair" to the little guy! Because liberals get a lot of money from trial lawyers, they oppose a "loser pays" rule for lawsuits. They justify this by saying that system would be "unfair" to the people suing. Why, what if they couldn't afford to sue because their opponents’ legal fees would be too high? Of course, that's a really backward way to look at it. After all, how fair is it for someone to have to spend countless hours of their time and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from a meritless lawsuit without compensation? Surely, if it's "fair" for the plaintiffs to get money if they win, then it should be "fair" for the defendants to at least have their expenses covered if they triumph.
3) The rich aren't paying their "fair" share. It's easy to take shots at rich people. There usually aren't enough of them to swing an election with their votes, nobody really feels sorry for people who have a lot of money, and as often as not, they give contributions to both parties as "protection money." But here's a thought: How can the rich not be paying their "fair share" when the top 10% of Americans pay 69.9% of the money we take in from the income tax while 47 percent of Americans don't even pay a single dollar a year? Arguing that people -- who probably pay for all the services they'll get from the government in an entire lifetime over any given month -- aren't paying their "fair share" while so many people pay nothing at all, seems more than a bit....."unfair."
4) Cutting spending would be "unfair!" Any time you try to cut something from the budget, there are aliens in other galaxies who can undoubtedly hear the screams from space. We get rants about cruelty, Tea Party "terrorists," pushing old people off cliffs, balancing the budget on the backs of the less fortunate -- it goes on and on. However, there's no such thing as "free" government money. So, what we're actually doing is selling our children into debt slavery so that liberal politicians can borrow more money to buy votes today. What could be crueler or more "unfair" than a child who's born starting his life more than $176,000 in debt before he's ever opened his eyes for the first time?
5) Minimum wage laws make sure people get a "fair" wage. If you're making the minimum wage right now, it's entirely possible that the law benefits you by insuring that you get paid a higher wage than you otherwise would. Liberals would call this "fairness." But, how about all the people with low skills who either aren't worth the minimum wage or who could be hired for jobs that don't merit the minimum wage? It's all well and good to say that a job's not worth someone's time if it doesn't pay the minimum wage, but there are probably a lot of unemployed Americans who'd be grateful to make $7 an hour while they look for a better job. What's "fair" to those people about putting a law in place that prevents willing businesses from hiring willing workers who desperately need the money?
6) Not allowing illegal aliens to become American citizens is "unfair!" If we allow people who sneak across the border or overstay their VISA to become American citizens, then doesn't that make legal immigrants look like complete idiots? There are people who spent years in their home countries, paying thousands of dollars, and filling out endless paperwork while liberals want to give people who broke the law the gift of American citizenship? What's the message to people who became citizens the right way supposed to be other than, "You are a moron for following the rules?" How can it be anything other than grossly "unfair" to legal immigrants to give illegals a break? Additionally, how about all the American workers, including legal immigrants, who have less money to bring home in their paychecks each week or no jobs at all because illegal aliens who pay no car insurance, health insurance, or taxes can afford to do the job at a cheaper price and drive down wages? How "fair" is it to hurt American citizens to help people who didn't even come to this country legally?
7) Wal-Mart isn't "fair" to its employees. Liberals generally don't like big corporations and they especially don't like Wal-Mart because it's an enormous company that has successfully fought off unionization. This leads to cries that Wal-Mart's "unfair" because it doesn’t pay its employees enough or allow its employees to buy fancy health care plans. Of course, if Wal-Mart could be perfectly honest, its response would probably be, “We don't force our employees to work for us and if they decide they’re unhappy, they can always go somewhere else.” That being said, there's another group of people who aren't being "fairly" treated by the liberal push to unionize Wal-Mart – Wal-Mart customers. Wal-Mart employs more than 2.1 million people in America, but roughly 82% of American households shop at Wal-Mart each year. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay its employees more, then you're taking money out of the pockets of everyone who shops there to pay for it. Why should a dirt-poor widow with four kids who buys her groceries at Wal-Mart be forced to pay more money than she would otherwise to subsidize union salaries? That seems more than a little "unfair."
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
Thoughts just off Center comment: This article was originally published by Townhalldaily.com. I changed the title and edited one or two words that I found inappropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)