The government arbitrarily decided that these caregivers were government employees,
Weird how they might think that about people being paid by the government to provide government services.
and then put them into a union and/or charged them union dues.
More, "the government's contract with their employee union required that they either not hire scabs, or make the scabs pay into the union that got them the current deal".
The ruling favored the caregivers who weren't government employees and didn't want to be dealing with the union. You seem to think the facts favor the government, right?
Ah, I see the disconnect. The ruling favoured the scabs who wanted to benefit from the collective bargaining but didn't want to pay for it. It ALSO favoured the government who didn't want to pay for the outcome of the collective bargaining and wanted to hire unqualified scabs. The ruling disfavoured the UNION, which is why I called it "union-busting", and why I was so confused when you were all about "FACTS FAVOUR GOVERNMENT" when they obviously don't.
Also not sure how forced unionization/union representation is a favorable scenario, but that's a bit of a fiversion.
Fiversion: Like a diversion, but 250% more effective.
The government said "screw your religious beliefs, you have to offer contraception." The company said "our religious beliefs are important, and the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" protects us. You appear to believe that the facts favor the government in this scenario and not the company.
Try "You're a corporation of a certain sort, you're legally required to treat your employees in a certain way, you cannot force your employees to conform to the religion of the owners". Combined with the owners "but we don't WANNA obey the law, even though we offered all that coverage before it was legally required", and the concomitant "now that it's legally required that we not enforce our religion on employees, we want to force our employees to obey the restrictions of our religion."
Being a corporation does not negate one's Constitutional rights.
So, tell me, if a corporation is a "person" with constitutional rights, what rights does it have to disagree with the owner?
How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?
And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?
None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees, but I'm curious to see how deep down the concern-troll rabbithole you're willing to keep digging.
Simply receiving public money does not make someone a public employee,
Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-30 08:15 pm (UTC)Weird how they might think that about people being paid by the government to provide government services.
and then put them into a union and/or charged them union dues.
More, "the government's contract with their employee union required that they either not hire scabs, or make the scabs pay into the union that got them the current deal".
The ruling favored the caregivers who weren't government employees and didn't want to be dealing with the union. You seem to think the facts favor the government, right?
Ah, I see the disconnect. The ruling favoured the scabs who wanted to benefit from the collective bargaining but didn't want to pay for it. It ALSO favoured the government who didn't want to pay for the outcome of the collective bargaining and wanted to hire unqualified scabs. The ruling disfavoured the UNION, which is why I called it "union-busting", and why I was so confused when you were all about "FACTS FAVOUR GOVERNMENT" when they obviously don't.
Also not sure how forced unionization/union representation is a favorable scenario, but that's a bit of a fiversion.
Fiversion: Like a diversion, but 250% more effective.
The government said "screw your religious beliefs, you have to offer contraception." The company said "our religious beliefs are important, and the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" protects us. You appear to believe that the facts favor the government in this scenario and not the company.
Try "You're a corporation of a certain sort, you're legally required to treat your employees in a certain way, you cannot force your employees to conform to the religion of the owners". Combined with the owners "but we don't WANNA obey the law, even though we offered all that coverage before it was legally required", and the concomitant "now that it's legally required that we not enforce our religion on employees, we want to force our employees to obey the restrictions of our religion."
Being a corporation does not negate one's Constitutional rights.
So, tell me, if a corporation is a "person" with constitutional rights, what rights does it have to disagree with the owner?
How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?
And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?
None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees, but I'm curious to see how deep down the concern-troll rabbithole you're willing to keep digging.
Simply receiving public money does not make someone a public employee,
Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.