archer wrote: I guess if you can justify drug tests for welfare recipients, you can justify medicaid recipients being subject to the laws that cover state workers, they are, after all being paid by the state. I don't agree with either one, but some will support the former while being outraged by the latter.
This is Deflection 101. She just tried to change the subject from union stealing from medicaid recipients to drug testing of welfare recipients. This is deflection and obfuscation.
I believe Archer explained it pretty well... And since I am pro-union, I have no heartburn with it. Medicaid/Medicare is not "public charity"... Although, to you, I'm sure they are.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: How else can a union screw people? Perhaps if you were to win the lottery but are a union member they are entitled to dues also? The point I'm working towards it that a recipient of support , be it health, food, or whatever ought not be subject to union dues. Are the not supposed to be collected on income instead of benefits. Yes, I understand the technicality of the situation. It is the principle that is out of whack. If such a law exists it needs to be changed.
Since it's a Michigan law, voted on by Michigan's representatives, it's really none of your business whether it "needs to be changed" or not...is it.... If you believe in changing it that strongly, I suppose you could donate some money to the Michigan GOP to help them overturn it.
Lord knows, I've donated money to overturn bad GOP laws in at least three different states.
Once again an empty devoid of thought, but loaded with personal attack. I think I am entitled to my opinon, regardeless of where I live, just like you are entitle to you mindless prattle.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: How else can a union screw people? Perhaps if you were to win the lottery but are a union member they are entitled to dues also? The point I'm working towards it that a recipient of support , be it health, food, or whatever ought not be subject to union dues. Are the not supposed to be collected on income instead of benefits. Yes, I understand the technicality of the situation. It is the principle that is out of whack. If such a law exists it needs to be changed.
Since it's a Michigan law, voted on by Michigan's representatives, it's really none of your business whether it "needs to be changed" or not...is it.... If you believe in changing it that strongly, I suppose you could donate some money to the Michigan GOP to help them overturn it.
Lord knows, I've donated money to overturn bad GOP laws in at least three different states.
Once again an empty devoid of thought, but loaded with personal attack. I think I am entitled to my opinon, regardeless of where I live, just like you are entitle to you mindless prattle.
So it is the law. People make laws and people can change laws that are wrong. We may differ on what we consider right and wrong as I'm definitely not pro union. No longer do they serve the workers first and foremost a tenant of their founding. I take it that you merely support such union demands is because IT IS THE LAW. Screw the law. If one goes by that line of reasoning, should not any other funding members of the state union be subject to union dues? And did any of these people ever get hired? NO, They got adopted as state employees through a quirk in the way the law was written. For the life of me I can not see were such a measure can be deemed responsible. It is a shister move by unions period to even take advantage of the loophole.
Edited to remove innocent bystanders archer and Kate, to correct my mistake
I never, ever, posted anything like that Rockdoc. You are certainly in attack mode...but making up things about me you can then attack me about is dishonest.
Rockdoc, you used to be a pretty reasonable and fair poster. But lately you have switched to attack mode, including personal attacks
What's up with that?
archer wrote: I never, ever, posted anything like that Rockdoc. You are certainly in attack mode...but making up things about me you can then attack me about is dishonest.
Archer, I owe you an apology. I apologize and will edit my post to reflect Kate instead of you. It was my mistake.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: So it is the law. People make laws and people can change laws that are wrong. We may differ on what we consider right and wrong as I'm definitely not pro union. Screw the law.
That's how I feel about the voter-suppression laws; the anti-union/anti-collective-bargaining laws, (see: Ohio, Wisconsin); the "fertilized egg = personhood" laws; the anti-abortion laws, ad nauseum... SCREW the law... "People make laws and people can change laws that are wrong."
