What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Service Employees International Union (1 Viewer)

BeaverCleaver

Footballguy
:shrug:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-local...ago-chapter-wa#

Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement

Monday, January 24, 2011 By Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) – Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)

The SEIU, with more than 2 million members nationally, includes health care workers, janitors, security guards, and state and local government workers.

The three SEIU locals, covering a total of 36,064 enrollees, are covered by the federal waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third -- 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.

SEIU Local 1199’s health plan put a $50,000 cap on medical expenses for its New Jersey nursing home workers, according to 1199 SEIU spokeswoman Leah Gonzalez. That’s $700,000 under the 2011 limit stipulated by HHS regulations.

In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

Local 1199, SEIU's Greater New York Benefit Fund, requested the waiver specifically with respect to its separate plan for New Jersey members, according to Gonzalez. This waiver primarily affects low-wage New Jersey nursing home workers whose health care plan provides medical, hospital, prescription, dental and vision benefits.

The New Jersey members now have an annual maximum health care benefit of $50,000. Gonzalez said fewer than 1 percent of members have ever reached that cap, and that those members who did received additional help.

“The members’ health benefits are paid for by the employer and are negotiated through collective bargaining,” Gonzalez said in a written statement to CNSNews.com. “Several years ago, facing limited dollars from the employers for this small group, the members themselves chose how to shape their health plan to get the most out of their coverage.”

Gonzalez added that prescriptions are excluded from the cap. “For example, if a member maxes out from a hospital stay, she/he can continue to get their life-saving medications throughout the year while accessing alternative coverage at low-cost community clinics.”

Neither SEIU Local 25 nor Local 1, nor the national organization responded to CNSNews.com’s request for comment.

The SEIU's Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. SEIU-affiliated groups in Illinois have long supported Obama’s campaigns and endorsed him for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004. In 2008, the national union backed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. (See earlier story.)

 
You get what you pay for.
:goodposting: Any evidence to support this, or just the usual knee-jerk hatred w/o any supporting facts?
:shrug: Yes, Democrats went out of their way to make unions happy in the bill and unions just happen to be one of the biggest areas of support for the party and I need evidence. We really need a head in the sand emoticon.
So just knee jerk hatred. Thanks for being honest.
You mean, your knee jerk love that prompts you to protect and defend at a moments notice? Please explain why a union would get such an exemption if not for the support unions provide to Democrats? I would love to see this.
 
You get what you pay for.
:rant: Any evidence to support this, or just the usual knee-jerk hatred w/o any supporting facts?
:mellow: Yes, Democrats went out of their way to make unions happy in the bill and unions just happen to be one of the biggest areas of support for the party and I need evidence. We really need a head in the sand emoticon.
You read the part where this new waiver covers 3 locals and somewhere less than 2% of the SEIU's entire membership, yes? It's hard to tell because it's poorly written and obviously meant to sensationalize this particular waiver, but as far as I can tell, this waiver isn't anything unusual and is available to any organization, union, for-profit business, or otherwise, that can show cause. Furthermore, it seems like the total number of waivers given to all SEIU locals amounts to somewhere around 4% of their membership. I'm not sure what the grounds are for declaring that they are going out of their way to make the unions happy.
 
You get what you pay for.
:rant: Any evidence to support this, or just the usual knee-jerk hatred w/o any supporting facts?
:shrug: Yes, Democrats went out of their way to make unions happy in the bill and unions just happen to be one of the biggest areas of support for the party and I need evidence.

We really need a head in the sand emoticon.
So just knee jerk hatred. Thanks for being honest.
You mean, your knee jerk love that prompts you to protect and defend at a moments notice? Please explain why a union would get such an exemption if not for the support unions provide to Democrats? I would love to see this.
:mellow: Where were you with this shtick when the waivers were granted to the other 221 companies and organizations so far? I guess McDonald's, Jack in the Box, and Waffle House are all getting the kickbacks from Obama too.

 
You mean, your knee jerk love that prompts you to protect and defend at a moments notice? Please explain why a union would get such an exemption if not for the support unions provide to Democrats? I would love to see this.
Probably b/c like Cigna, McDonalds, and a few other large groups, HHS has determined that these 3 SEIU chapters would be unfairly burdened by having their benefit caps banned before 2014 when exchanges are in place to give these folks a choice. Was Cigna a big Obama contributor? How many employers are there in the US? 500,000? And there have been 222 temporary, 1 year waivers thus far?Again, more out-of-context outrage from you, with no facts to support your knee jerk bashing. Par for the course.
 
Even for something that came from a CNS News item, this has been a particular swift and brutal one-sided beatdown. I actually feel bad for the OP and Chad. Jim_11 threads were more even than this.

 
:lmao:Where were you with this shtick when the waivers were granted to the other 221 companies and organizations so far? I guess McDonald's, Jack in the Box, and Waffle House are all getting the kickbacks from Obama too.
:shrug: Yes, because corporations don't ever support Democrats. It is all politics and you know that because of special exemptions for special organizations. Otherwise you would not have particular organizations called out but just exempt a certain group of people or type of organization. 221 organizations is extremely picky. How do you think that they came about? Someone has leverage and they pushed that leverage. This is not a Democrat thing, it is a politics thing. To act like it is not is a complete joke. Those who come running to defend it just show their own bias just as much as they try to point out mine.
 
Those who come running to defend it just show their own bias just as much as they try to point out mine.
I've got to give it up to your side for mastery of the false-equivalency trick. When you don't have facts, logic, or coherence on your side, just scream that "BOTH SIDES DO IT" and most people fall for it. :lmao:
 
:cry:Where were you with this shtick when the waivers were granted to the other 221 companies and organizations so far? I guess McDonald's, Jack in the Box, and Waffle House are all getting the kickbacks from Obama too.
:cry: Yes, because corporations don't ever support Democrats. It is all politics and you know that because of special exemptions for special organizations. Otherwise you would not have particular organizations called out but just exempt a certain group of people or type of organization. 221 organizations is extremely picky. How do you think that they came about? Someone has leverage and they pushed that leverage. This is not a Democrat thing, it is a politics thing. To act like it is not is a complete joke. Those who come running to defend it just show their own bias just as much as they try to point out mine.
Good to see that you aren't backing down from your implication that all 222 organizations that were granted waivers only have them based on their contributions to Democrats despite the ridiculousness of it.
 
Those who come running to defend it just show their own bias just as much as they try to point out mine.
I've got to give it up to your side for mastery of the false-equivalency trick. When you don't have facts, logic, or coherence on your side, just scream that "BOTH SIDES DO IT" and most people fall for it. :cry:
Why do SPECIFIC organizations get exemptions while others don't? Why are you trying to act like unions don't have sway in the Democratic party? Do you really believe that politics as usual does not happen just because you like Democrats and you like unions? I am sure you would jump to defend a piece of Republicans legislation that had specific exemptions for organizations like Focus on the Family and NRA. Of course you would because you are the defender of truth and justice.
 
Chad, you should really quit while you're behind. With each subsequent post, you're showing your ignorance on the issue, and it's making you look ridiculous.

Read up on the subject (from sources other than Fox and Malkin) and then when you want to discuss details that you have a problem with, come back.

 
Why do SPECIFIC organizations get exemptions while others don't?
Because they applied for the exemption, and HHS determined that they met the necessary standard.
Why are you trying to act like unions don't have sway in the Democratic party?
:lmao: I never said anything remotely like this. Here's a clue: "having sway" does not automatically = corruption. Again, if you have evidence of undue influence, I'd love to see it.
Do you really believe that politics as usual does not happen just because you like Democrats and you like unions?
WTF are you talking about? I never stated nor insinuated any such thing.
I am sure you would jump to defend a piece of Republicans legislation that had specific exemptions for organizations like Focus on the Family and NRA. Of course you would because you are the defender of truth and justice.
This shows that you don't have a clue about the issue. The exceptions being granted allow the employers to (temporarily) skirt the legislation - the exceptions were not part of the legislation. And you still haven't produced any evidence that suggests the exceptions are being unfairly granted. If the situation was reversed and knee jerk liberals were making the same bogus arguments you're making, then yes, I'd defend the Republican legislation.
 
Isn't a law a law? Why should some be exempt and others not? I don't care if it is unions or McDonald's or Citi or anyone. Who decides? Who plays favorites? Anyone should be condemning any exemption no matter who it goes to.

 
Isn't a law a law? Why should some be exempt and others not? I don't care if it is unions or McDonald's or Citi or anyone. Who decides? Who plays favorites? Anyone should be condemning any exemption no matter who it goes to.
oof. This post makes Chad's posts appear well thought out.
 
Isn't a law a law? Why should some be exempt and others not? I don't care if it is unions or McDonald's or Citi or anyone. Who decides? Who plays favorites? Anyone should be condemning any exemption no matter who it goes to.
oof. This post makes Chad's posts appear well thought out.
Really? If it were Republicans making exemptions would you be saying the same thing? Of course you wouldn't, because you're a partisan hack and a fool to boot.
 
Isn't a law a law? Why should some be exempt and others not? I don't care if it is unions or McDonald's or Citi or anyone. Who decides? Who plays favorites? Anyone should be condemning any exemption no matter who it goes to.
oof. This post makes Chad's posts appear well thought out.
oooooooooooofffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff......You ripped Bush for far less. All the Halliburton stuff had less to it than this. At least in Halliburton case, they performed a service for money. Here SEIU is getting a special benefit with no tangible return to the government. As far as special interest groups getting back room dealing goes, this is as bad as it gets. Group pays money to campaign, those politicians give benefit to said group for no apparent reason.
 
Haven't seen this discussed much.

It turns out the USSC had another big decision this past week:

In a decision that undercuts the financial and recruiting power of government employee unions, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a state may not force “partial public employees” to pay fair-share dues to a labor organization.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said employees who are not full-fledged government workers enjoy First Amendment protection against being compelled to financially support a union as a condition of employment.

In reaching its decision, the high court embraced an argument by a group of homecare workers in Illinois that being forced to support a labor union through compelled dues payments violates their right to free speech and association.

“The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in [illinois’ Rehabilitation Program] who do not want to join or support the union,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the majority opinion.

...
...the decision marks a setback for public unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)....

The decision is also significant because it represents a continuation of a trend in the high court’s jurisprudence of enforcing a robust reading of the First Amendment’s protections in the face of government policies that the court concludes undercut those freedoms.

...
There are an estimated 26,000 homecare workers in Illinois. They are represented by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana.

According to analysts, the union has taken in between $3.6 million and $10.4 million a year in dues.
Public unions view such workers as a promising source for new members and financial support. Proposals to unionize them in Illinois had been repeatedly rejected in the 1980s and 1990s, in part because state officials concluded that homecare workers were not, in fact, state employees.

That changed in 2003 when then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an executive order declaring that homecare workers are state employees. The state legislature also amended Illinois law to recognize them as public employees.

The workers later approved SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as their exclusive representative. Critics complained that the union was too heavily engaged in politics.

Mr. Blagojevich’s executive order designating homecare workers as eligible for unionization came two months into his first term as governor. During his election campaign, Blagojevich received more than $821,000 in campaign contributions from the SEIU. The union was the second-largest contributor to his campaign.

During his reelection campaign in 2006, Blagojevich received at least $908,000 in campaign contributions from the SEIU. That year the union was his largest contributor.

In total, Blagojevich received more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from the SEIU.

Blagojevich’s second term as governor was cut short by federal corruption charges. He was removed from office and convicted for allegedly running pay-to-play schemes providing jobs, contracts, and appointments in exchange for personal benefits and campaign contributions. Chief among the charges was that he sought to “sell” an appointment to President Obama’s vacant US Senate seat in exchange for a job and other personal rewards. He is serving a 14-year prison term in Colorado.

In 2009, after Blagojevich’s removal from office, the new governor, Pat Quinn, signed a similar executive order designed to expand union representation to a larger group of homecare workers.

In his campaign for governor in 2010, Quinn received $1.86 million in campaign contributions from SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana.

Two unions vied for the right to exclusively represent the workers. They were SEIU Local 73 and AFSCME Council 31. The workers voted to reject both unions.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0630/Supreme-Court-Quasi-public-workers-can-t-be-forced-to-pay-union-dues-video

For one thing the court has again expanded individual civil rights.

For another the corruption involved in these decisions by Blagojevich is staggering. Does it get any more quid pro quo than this?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top