Re: Speaking of misinformation - the corporate mouthpiece


"John A." <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pc56b5tifrk4n18kf56h3i5ipv1i643c95@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:03:46 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
<secret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"David Ruether" <d_ruether@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h8u3na$t8v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Neil Harrington" <secret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:M_CdnZWifcYMTCzXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Of course that would mean they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the
union bosses in it, along with other special-interest treats. The
inability to do that would make Obama and a lot of congresscritters on
the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.

This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?

It's all buried in the 1,018-page monstrosity, bunky. Why do you think the
union bosses are pushing so hard for a "public option," DEMANDING it in
fact? The way the scheme is supposed to work is that the "public option"
will set up the FORCED unionization of workers. The Washington Times had
an
article detailing all of this a week or so ago. THAT is why the union
leaders are so adamant about it, so insistent that it is the one item they
will not yield on. Why else would they care?

Did they detail which page(s) that appears on? Or did they just lay
out some web of relationships and campaign contributions and imply
that that meant there was something for the unions in the bill?

Or could it be that the unions just want the public option on its own
merits?

The union bosses spent hundreds of millions of dollars getting Obama
elected. They now (not unreasonably, machine politics being what they are)
regard him as bought and paid for, and they want their payback.

So *naturally* part of a health care bill forces unionization of
workers. No need to even read it, you just *know* it's gotta be there.

Here's the Wall St. Journal article:

_______________________________

Read the Union Health-Care Label

Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals.

By MARK MIX

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being
paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions-or to
the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about
the forced unionization of the health-care industry.
Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and
mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating
consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes
pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis
of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy
Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying
state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state
employees-and forcing them to pay union dues.

Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants
workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to
qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and
support (class)" reimbursement plan.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further.
Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen
Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers
"under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and
compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in
potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country
being forced into unions.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union
officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as
the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending
health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing
federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors,
surgeons and nurses.

Consider Kaiser Permanente, the giant, managed-care organization that has
since 1997 proudly touted its labor-management "partnership" in scores of
workplaces. Union officials play an essentially co-equal role in running
many Kaiser facilities. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the Kaiser
plan "a framework for what every health care delivery system should do" at a
July 24 health-care forum outside of Washington, D.C.

The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union
health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development
grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion
medical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program
must be administered jointly with a labor organization-a scenario not unlike
the U.S. Department of Labor's grants for construction apprenticeship
programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union
officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested
that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing
American workers' existing health-care benefits-but he would exempt
union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the
government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion
businesses already struggling to afford health care plans.

Mr. Baucus's proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure
employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than
provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a
union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be
required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.

Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they
already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could
abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and
strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their
patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed,
Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.


Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A21
September 10, 2009




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT ~ Stampede Death at Walmart
    ... a union tried to get in. ... The management motto was "If your employees even think about unionizing, ... They let the workers vote on whether they wanted to work more hours, or divide the profit more ways. ... They were remarkable for their benefits -- health, dental, life insurance, sick time, day care, after school care, summer camp, sick bay for sick kids, parenting leave, elder care leave. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Read the Union Health-Care Label
    ... Read the Union Health-Care Label ... Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals. ... In the heated debates on health-care reform, ... the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: OT ~ Whip Count: Dems Lack The Votes
    ... Just like the powers the faceless employees of the private health ... Read the Union Health-Care Label ... In the heated debates on health-care reform, ... political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... :> Scott Hedrick wrote: ... :>: I wouldn't care if they have their own social club or not. ... I'm not hiring the union. ... :> Then you would have no employees... ...
    (sci.space.history)