Let home care workers unionize

  • Article by: Chris Eaton and Mike Nelson
  • Updated: February 20, 2013 - 9:14 PM

Allowing them to unionize would benefit patients and taxpayers, too.

  • 14
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
basia2186Feb. 20, 13 9:32 PM

No. Taxpayers cannot afford another public union of any kind. These people are caring for their own family member! If they can make more in the private sector they should go for it. Ludicrous vote buying by the bottom feeding progressives.

24
26
lordhawhaw1Feb. 21, 13 2:37 AM

Being a 24 year member of a public employee union member myself I can tell you from experience that these public employee unions do not benefit the taxpayer and will not benefit the patient. If anything the union will make it much more difficult to rid yourself of a bad health care worker. Let the free market set the wages of health care workers, not Democratic politicians trying to buy votes with our tax dollars. And here's a question for these Democratic legislators. If we do wind up with a shortage of health care workers what do you think in a free market economy will happen to health care workers wages and benefits until the shortage is filled?

30
22
elmore1Feb. 21, 13 5:01 AM

This will just raise costs for all involved. Why do we need more unions? The govt should stay out of this...

22
22
northhillFeb. 21, 13 6:58 AM

Many of the clients are on fixed incomes.Today there are things that patients can do for themselves such as monitoring their own blood pressure.Blood pressure cuffs for home use are relatively inexpensive.Also many of these services are done by family members for free.Ms Eaton and Mr Nelson have many more questions to answer before I would support this,I am a retired union member.The big question is who will pay for these services? The insurance carrier(Medicare)or the client directly?

20
17
hitch22Feb. 21, 13 8:53 AM

If the teachers union is any example then MN should run away from any public employees union that is proposed. All they do is stifle reform and reward longevity at the expense of productivity.

19
21
jpcooperFeb. 21, 1310:21 AM

Who is the employer of these workers? A Union contract is between the Union and the employer not the State! Not the State Senate!

21
16
davehougFeb. 21, 1311:43 AM

If home care workers are allowed to form a union, they will have the opportunity to gain access to training and education opportunities, reduce turnover, improve stability and enhance the overall quality of their workforce. - - - NOT seeing what a union can do that a professional association could not. If it is about pay rate, convince MN to pay more and private sector would also rise.

12
20
tranqwhlFeb. 21, 1312:26 PM

what are the training and education opportunities that are not available now? Are you saying the union would provide them? So you're going to pay a union for training and education opportunities? How about cut out the middle man, just go pay for training and education?

16
16
supervon2Feb. 21, 1312:40 PM

This is just another move to collect money for the DFL and force the public to suffer even more. They really don't care about you. After a union arrives they will care even less. Detroit. A shining example of unions in action.

14
18
palsarFeb. 21, 13 1:10 PM

Nothing more than the DFL paying back the unions for political contributions.

13
18

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT