St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
That's why I listed the infrastructure cost first.
That's why I listed the infrastructure cost first.
USCHO Fan Forum
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!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Yeah, but those costs don't prevent telecom from being profitable they just prevent them from being super profitable. Everything is at warp speed nowadays in finance. No one wants long term cost liability on the books even if that means future profit down the road.
I should have said max profit cause that's the true driver.
Yeah, but those costs don't prevent telecom from being profitable they just prevent them from being super profitable. Everything is at warp speed nowadays in finance. No one wants long term cost liability on the books even if that means future profit down the road.
I should have said max profit cause that's the true driver.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Another showdown hits SCOTUS docket on the limits of government power.
In Harris v Quinn, SCOTUS will determine whether governments can force people into a union against their will.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...9329061630708436?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
Another showdown hits SCOTUS docket on the limits of government power.
In Harris v Quinn, SCOTUS will determine whether governments can force people into a union against their will.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...9329061630708436?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
unofan
Well-known member
... when acting as an employer, the biased one forgot to add.
Based on SCOTUSblog, it'll come down to Scalia's vote, since he seemed skeptical that governments should be treated differently than other employers as a constitutional matter.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these employees are not forced into a union against their will. Rather, the employees must pay a fee to the union because the union represents them (Agency Shop theory).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these employees are not forced into a union against their will. Rather, the employees must pay a fee to the union because the union represents them (Agency Shop theory).
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
This is really an interesting legal issue. There is a similar issue in Minnesota.
In Minnesota it involves child care workers. People leave their kids with daycare. It might be a mom operating out of her home, or a more formal setting. But the parents might also be eligible for certain state benefits to help pay childcare costs.
Based upon that, Minnesota's democratic governor determined that he had the authority to basically declare that a certain union was the "exclusive representative" of these child care workers, even though many of them are self employed, or are independent companies. The union isn't going to negotiate on behalf of the child care workers with anyone, since the party they work for is the parents of the children. Instead, they will "negotiate" with the state for more tax dollars to be allocated to help subsidize child care. Of course, the union wants union dues from each child care worker, or daycare center for this service, even though none of them are "employed" by anyone, but instead are independent contractors for the parents. And even though none of the child care workers got to vote on this union representation.
I think the Minnesota litigation was basically put on hold pending a Supreme Court resolution of this Illinois case.
I apologize if I've recited the basic facts of the Minnesota case incorrectly since I'm doing it strictly from memory of what I read in the paper a number of months ago, but I think I have the basic premise correct.
This is really an interesting legal issue. There is a similar issue in Minnesota.
In Minnesota it involves child care workers. People leave their kids with daycare. It might be a mom operating out of her home, or a more formal setting. But the parents might also be eligible for certain state benefits to help pay childcare costs.
Based upon that, Minnesota's democratic governor determined that he had the authority to basically declare that a certain union was the "exclusive representative" of these child care workers, even though many of them are self employed, or are independent companies. The union isn't going to negotiate on behalf of the child care workers with anyone, since the party they work for is the parents of the children. Instead, they will "negotiate" with the state for more tax dollars to be allocated to help subsidize child care. Of course, the union wants union dues from each child care worker, or daycare center for this service, even though none of them are "employed" by anyone, but instead are independent contractors for the parents. And even though none of the child care workers got to vote on this union representation.
I think the Minnesota litigation was basically put on hold pending a Supreme Court resolution of this Illinois case.
I apologize if I've recited the basic facts of the Minnesota case incorrectly since I'm doing it strictly from memory of what I read in the paper a number of months ago, but I think I have the basic premise correct.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
They are not "employees" at all in any conventional sense of the word. Many of them are family members who receive money from the state to pay for the care of a relative; many others are self-employed people. The State of IL decreed by executive order that because they receive Medicaid payments, the receipt of payments makes them an "employee" of the state, even though they do not receive wages from the state and the state doesn't pay its share of FICA tax.
EDIT: Monsieur Hovey nailed it in his reply.
They are not "employees" at all in any conventional sense of the word. Many of them are family members who receive money from the state to pay for the care of a relative; many others are self-employed people. The State of IL decreed by executive order that because they receive Medicaid payments, the receipt of payments makes them an "employee" of the state, even though they do not receive wages from the state and the state doesn't pay its share of FICA tax.
EDIT: Monsieur Hovey nailed it in his reply.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
I agree that it is a really interesting legal issue.
In the case in front of the Supremes, the employees are paid by the State under Medicaid. Of course, the Supremes could overturn Abood, but my guess is that they will either decide against the 8 employees, or distinguish this case from Abood. It would be a huge blow for labor proponents if Abood were to be overturned.
The Supremes could also go for the extremely narrow ruling that these employees are not state employees despite getting paid by the state. I just don't see Scalia buying into this rationale.
I agree that it is a really interesting legal issue.
In the case in front of the Supremes, the employees are paid by the State under Medicaid. Of course, the Supremes could overturn Abood, but my guess is that they will either decide against the 8 employees, or distinguish this case from Abood. It would be a huge blow for labor proponents if Abood were to be overturned.
The Supremes could also go for the extremely narrow ruling that these employees are not state employees despite getting paid by the state. I just don't see Scalia buying into this rationale.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
No one is forcing them to take Medicaid money, especially when caring for family members. If they don't want to be considered employees, they should stop mooching off taxpayer money.
No one is forcing them to take Medicaid money, especially when caring for family members. If they don't want to be considered employees, they should stop mooching off taxpayer money.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
So what if you take a child care tax credit? Does that also make you an employee of the state? What about tax deductions? Are the mooches who take that money from the state employees, too?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Doctors receive payments from health insurance companies: how does that make them employees of the health insurance company?
Same logic applies: people are providing service to Medicaid patients and are paid by the state. how does that make them state employees? If anything, the patients are the employers, not the state.
Doctors receive payments from health insurance companies: how does that make them employees of the health insurance company?
Same logic applies: people are providing service to Medicaid patients and are paid by the state. how does that make them state employees? If anything, the patients are the employers, not the state.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Isn't the money earmarked for the folks needing care, they in turn pay someone to take care of/help them. I find it interesting that folks needing help are now moochers.
Isn't the money earmarked for the folks needing care, they in turn pay someone to take care of/help them. I find it interesting that folks needing help are now moochers.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Please. We all know Medicaid patients are using state money to get unnecessary treatment like boob jobs and liposuction. Why just the other day I was waiting at my dentist's office and saw a person talking about getting lobster with their food stamps while driving a Ferrari and paying for their dentist with Medicaid.
Does that help calibrate your sarcasm meter?
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Perhaps this hypothetical will help clear things up for people...
A couple with 3 children are going to enjoy a night out on the town, but need a babysitter to watch over their children. They have to leave by 5:00pm, and arrange to have a babysitter come over from 5pm-11pm. An incident comes up requiring the parents to leave at 4:50pm. The babysitter cannot arrive until 5, so the parents leave the cash for the babysitter on the table, giving instructions to their 11 year old to make sure that the babysitter gets the money. The parents then call the babysitter to explain that they need to leave 10 minutes before the scheduled time, but that their neighbor will watch the kids until the babysitter gets there. The babysitter arrives, the neighbor leaves, and Ella, the 11 year old gives the cash to the babysitter.
Is the 11 year old daughter the employer?
Perhaps this hypothetical will help clear things up for people...
A couple with 3 children are going to enjoy a night out on the town, but need a babysitter to watch over their children. They have to leave by 5:00pm, and arrange to have a babysitter come over from 5pm-11pm. An incident comes up requiring the parents to leave at 4:50pm. The babysitter cannot arrive until 5, so the parents leave the cash for the babysitter on the table, giving instructions to their 11 year old to make sure that the babysitter gets the money. The parents then call the babysitter to explain that they need to leave 10 minutes before the scheduled time, but that their neighbor will watch the kids until the babysitter gets there. The babysitter arrives, the neighbor leaves, and Ella, the 11 year old gives the cash to the babysitter.
Is the 11 year old daughter the employer?
unofan
Well-known member
If the law defines it as such, yes. You may be shocked to realize the line between an independent contractor and an employee/employer relationship is constantly being tested, argued, and redefined.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
So what this tells me is that this is a giant power and money grab by the SEIU to get all Medicaid recipients into the union, or more to the point, paying union dues, regardless of the reason why they're receiving this government subsidy. Isn't the union supposed to be looking out for the little guy and not squeezing him for every last dime?
So what this tells me is that this is a giant power and money grab by the SEIU to get all Medicaid recipients into the union, or more to the point, paying union dues, regardless of the reason why they're receiving this government subsidy. Isn't the union supposed to be looking out for the little guy and not squeezing him for every last dime?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
I think my initial post was slightly off. I had it correct, but in that case I think the courts just overturned the Governor's decision. Then, last spring, the legislature basically passed a law. Here is that law. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.52
It makes the child care workers employees of the state for this limited purpose only. Another case was started and I think that one is at the court of appeals pending a Supreme Court decision in the Illinois case.
I think my initial post was slightly off. I had it correct, but in that case I think the courts just overturned the Governor's decision. Then, last spring, the legislature basically passed a law. Here is that law. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.52
It makes the child care workers employees of the state for this limited purpose only. Another case was started and I think that one is at the court of appeals pending a Supreme Court decision in the Illinois case.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
But they have the right to inject their views into the political process and to encourage their members to vote for candidates that best represent the views of the union. However, I think this case crosses the line and the plaintiffs should prevail.
No. They collect the dues, buy off the politicians to pass rules / laws like this which increase the dues which allow them to buy off more politicians who .... well, you get the picture.
But they have the right to inject their views into the political process and to encourage their members to vote for candidates that best represent the views of the union. However, I think this case crosses the line and the plaintiffs should prevail.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Goddammit, that's the corporations' job!
Goddammit, that's the corporations' job!
- Status