Posted on 02/28/2008 8:49:49 PM PST by SmithL
Don't look now, but the Democrats in the California Legislature want to unionize Grandma. Really.
A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state so that mothers can work outside the home. The measure already has passed in the Assembly.
The child care providers – grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings – would pay dues and be represented collectively in negotiations with the state over pay, benefits and working conditions. Child care providers who did not want to join the union would still have to pay fees – likely in the same amount as the union dues.
A Democratic staff analysis of a similar bill last year estimated that the measure could cost taxpayers $60 million a year, which would probably mean cuts to subsidized child care for poor working single moms. Each grandma would get more money, in other words, but that would mean the money the state spends on child care would not go as far, and some families would have to go without.
The only alternative would be to spend more money on the child care subsidies – and less on something else.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed last year's bill, as he had two other attempts to accomplish the same thing. But now Democrats in the Capitol seem to think the governor might change his mind.
One reason for their optimism: The bill to unionize grandmas came up late last year during Schwarzenegger's discussions on health care reform with Andy Stern, national leader of the Service Employees International Union. Stern's intervention helped turn around SEIU's California chapter on the governor's health care bill, and the union's support was crucial to getting the bill through the Assembly, though it still died...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Here I go again. The function of government is to govern. There is nothing outside their lust for control and power.
Sacramento is like a bad idea factory.
In ten years, the only jobs left will be barbers and salons. Everyone cutting each other's hair.
It soon became clear that many of them could not work because they could not afford to pay for child care. The state then began a massive expansion of subsidized child care, including care provided by family members in their homes. Today, the system serves nearly 700,000 California families at a cost of more than $3 billion a year.
It's $3 billion in welfare, under a different name.
Dare I ask if one must be in the state legally to receive such benefits?
When is the government going to pay people to wipe their own ass?
There was a story yesterday from Vallejo California where the city is going bankrupt because they kept paying off public union pensions and now don’t have the tax revenues to pay for city functions. People have to realize that there is no free lunch. We all love and respect the police but it costs everyone millions of dollars to pay the guy 90% of his salary when he retires at 51 for the rest of his life. Some scumbags even falsely claim disability so they get 70-90K per year tax free. WE have to pay for that, and if you’re like me, you don’t get a dime of a pension when you retire.
And it has a Holland Tunnel sized pipeline leading to Seattle. Where the stupidest ideas are immediately adopted by our city council.
The daycare workers can go on strike. Cripple the parents, grind many businesses to a halt, and screw with the kids. A leftist hat trick. What could be more debilitating to a society than to be able to abandon their children across a wide area on a moments notice.
$60 million that will end up in the pockets of cigar-chomping union bosses, with a nice skim of cream for the Democratic Party and another for the Mafia.
-ccm
I have a follow up question.
If one does not have to reside in California to receive those benefits, is is possible to collect benefits retroactively?
I provided childcare for my granddaughter when my daughter returned to work for two years, believing that it was my duty as far as possible to be of assistance to my own family. But according to the thinking in California, the rest of you people need to fork over your hard earned money to pay me for caring for my own grandchild.
Pay up! LOL
This one blew me away.
Those Union dues will go to pay for DemcRats campaigns and for soft jobs for party hacks.
Sometimes I think they only way to fight them is to agree to everything..in fact increase it and let the state go down in a sea of red ink.
Just think..how many illegal aliens are collecting money on this deal. There are lots of illegal single mom’s with anchor babies..and their illegal kin are getting paid to baby sit. The mind boggles.
It's demographic war.
And for that matter, SEIU.
All unions should be banned. It’s the only way to make America competitive again.
As with every government program, this will come with intrusive conditions, and have the effect of “welcoming” the state into the home. And, like the proverbial vampire, once invited inside, it’s there to stay. Look for mandatory monthly reports on time spent caring for the children, endless questions related to “quality of care,” mandatory home inspections for “health and safety,” (aka: search for and confiscate guns), and exact disposition of funds with emphasis on what percent was actually spent on the kids. And, oh yeah, affirmative action rules the day; non-ethnos need not apply.
Just imagine the repercussions if the caregiver, or someone in her house, smokes or owns a gun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.