What’s Kamala Harris all about? As Attorney General of CA, Harris took care of a union — the SEIU — at the expense of patients, doctors, nurses and the public who were served by six Catholic hospitals.
Kamala Harris used her authority to block a hospital rescue to help a union that supports her — the SEIU — and punish a business she did not like.
The year was 2014. Six Catholic hospitals were going broke. Due to inflexible labor contracts and miserly payments from Medicaid. Prime Healthcare, the only bidder, agreed to buy and had the support of nurses, doctors and public which supported the deal.
The AG in California, Kamala Harris, had to approve the deal. AG Harris opposed the deal in order to support her political supporter, the SEIU And Kamala Harris attached heaps of poison pills to the deal. Prime Healthcare walked away and sued Harris. Harris was protected under ‘qualified immunity’.
Expect more of same if Harris gets a chance to use her power to punish opponents and protect her supporters such as the union SEIU. For more of the story click HERE.
You must pay union fees to get & keep a govt job? Your money spent to support political views you fundamentally disagree with? That’s wrong. This violates your freedom of speech rights.
For example, the SEIU supported Obama in 2008 & 2012 and supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. The SEIU pours millions of dollars into the Democrat Party each election cycle. Why should union dues you must pay to keep your job be spent for politics you disagree with?
The Supreme Court hears a case on this issue starting Monday, February 26. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
“Across the U.S., more than 500,000 state and local workers have objected to funding union advocacy but are nonetheless required by law to pay “fair share” fees to labor unions they have refused to join. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in a 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, reasoning that otherwise workers could “free ride” on the union’s collective bargaining. Prohibiting unions from charging nonmembers directly for political speech, it believed, would protect their First Amendment rights.
“On Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a challenge to that 1977 decision brought by Mr. Janus. They should heed Justice Felix Frankfurter’s observation, in an earlier case on mandatory union fees, that it is “rather naive” to assume “that economic and political concerns are separable.” As Mr. Janus argues, bargaining over wages, pensions and benefits in the public sector involves issues of intense public concern and thus core First Amendment-protected speech. A state law that forces public employees to fund that speech violates their rights, no less than compelling them to speak. ( Janus v. Afscme doesn’t consider these questions for unions in the private sector.)
Stop taking money from government workers’ paychecks. People are smart and can decide for themselves what politics they want to support.