Congress must stop union scheme siphoning funds from Medicaid

Feb 2011
17,063
6,094
Boise, ID
Congress must stop union scheme siphoning funds from Medicaid

By Trey Kovacs, opinion contributor — 11/06/17 01:20 PM EST

Congress created Medicaid to exclusively fund care to the elderly and disabled, not fund labor unions. But powerful labor unions like the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employee union have turned this publicly funded assistance and other programs into effectively their own personal slush fund.

In at least 11 states, unions have siphoned off an estimated $200 million from Medicaid and other government assistance programs that was supposed to go to paying for patient care, according to a Mackinac Center for Public Policy report.

Over the past decade or so, Big Labor urged states to pass laws or Executive Orders deeming home care providers and child care workers public employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. That means union dues are automatically deducted from Medicaid checks, and other government assistance programs, of people who care for Medicaid patients.

But what does a family caregiver taking care of a parent or child need a union for? Normal benefits a union may negotiate, like overtime or days off, for members do not comport with caregivers taking care of family. There is no good reason to impose a union between a family caregiver and a Medicaid patient.

But that’s what has happened. Unions went ahead and “organized” these workers, despite the fact that many, maybe even most, home or child care providers did not even realize a union election was underway.

It continually amazes me how much excruciating moaning the left does about some people get rich selling things others want to buy voluntarily, even going so far as to characterize them as figuratively stealing from the poor and middle class, yet these same assholes are mum and complacent, if not outright happy about Big Labor literally siphoning money from the poor against their consent.
 
Last edited:

NiteGuy

Former Staff
Jul 2011
17,044
13,694
Teardrop City
But what does a family caregiver taking care of a parent or child need a union for? Normal benefits a union may negotiate, like overtime or days off, for members do not comport with caregivers taking care of family. There is no good reason to impose a union between a family caregiver and a Medicaid patient.

But that’s what has happened. Unions went ahead and “organized” these workers, despite the fact that many, maybe even most, home or child care providers did not even realize a union election was underway.
I don't know about the other ten states, but in Illinois, family members were never subject to the legislation, because it was generally recognized that family members don't get paid for what they do.

The legislation was intended for home healthcare nurses, etc., and later expanded to home health technicians. The union argument was that they were being denied their "fair share" dues money, even though these people weren't actually employed be the state, or any other organization that this union serviced.

But one of those home health techs sued, and a year later, the US Supreme Court ruled that since the patient hired and fired the nurses and techs, no payments were due the union, because the state didn't hire, fire and supervise these employees.

That's one for the good guys.
 
Last edited: