As frequent visitors of this site know, we have been focused like a hawk on Michigan’s Proposal 4- the SEIU’s heavy-handed attempt to unionize all home caregivers in the state of Michigan, often parents of adult children with disabilities.
In one overwhelmingly positive election result, the SEIU’s Proposal 4 has been defeated, and by a wide margin- winning almost every single county and by a margin of over 500,000 votes. Now, the SEIU’s contract will end in February and not be renewed. This is great news for families directly impacted by the dues skim- families like the Glossop family, who rely on the checks to help defray the costs of home healthcare:
Steven Glossop provides care for his mother, Linda, who lives with medical complications following heart surgery and a stroke. Through the Home Help Program, Glossop receives a monthly Medicaid check to help defray the costs involved with the home care.
“I think the fact that this (Proposal 4) was defeated is terrific,” Glossop said. “Especially after they (the SEIU) had all of those ads on TV that made it look like something good. It’s just great to know that the people of Michigan don’t believe everything they see in commercials like those. At some point, they began to understand that if something looks too good, you need to look closer and find out more about it.”
Unfortunately, until that time comes, the SEIU will still be making money off of these families- by current publication count, the SEIU has skimmed just under $33,000,000 from them. They will continue to collect this money until February 25, 2013, driving that sum even higher.
The SEIU spent tons of money to promote Proposal 4- and the Michigan voters proved themselves to be smarter than their advertising. It is clear that despite SEIU’s best efforts, the people of Michigan have rejected their attempts to force unionization on home caregivers who neither want nor need the SEIU’s intrusion and involuntary dues.
To make things right, the SEIU should be paying back the families whose money they took without their permission. Rather than spending more money to take money out of the hands of those who need help the most, they should be returning the money to those who may have had to go without the money they had previously come to expect to help take care of those with disabilities.
For the SEIU to not only take that money out of the hands of the disabled, but to then use that money to prevent them from ever getting it back, is beyond reproach. Unfortunately, we can only expect to see this issue resurface elsewhere- from the SEIU’s previous efforts to double down on dues skimming, they do not give up easily.