Thursday, December 02, 2010

THE BASIN'S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ILLINOIS' NEW CIVIL UNION LAW

The Basin fully supports the right of all persons to collective bargain, irrespective of sexual preference.

3 Comments:

At 7:30 AM, December 02, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is collective bargaining the big issue here? Would that mean workers could include same sex partners in health insurance or pension benefits?

I would tend to agree with you, especially for private business. But when it comes to taxpayer funded benefits, I'd rather see some "antiquated" rules taken away from opposite sex partners rather than add a whole new batch of entitlement recipients.

I'm thinking of social security/Medicare benefits for spouses that never paid in. Why should a worker get double benefits just because they have a significant other (same sex or not)?

I think the original idea was to provide for the Mom that raised the kids while Dad worked. But even when no kids are involved, a marriage/union opens the doors to a wave of extra entitlements based simply on a private contract between two people.

As a single person, I'd like to receive the same extra benefits. Figure the cost to the state of carrying the significant other benefits, and give it to the single person as cash, so they are treated equally. Otherwise, singles are "disenfranchised".

Better yet, eliminate all marriage/union based entitlements.

Bill

 
At 8:08 AM, December 02, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I hate to break this to you but that was Emily Litella Humor, playing on the word "Union".

TYFCB

 
At 9:37 AM, December 02, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL ... then "nevermind"

... but those "entitlements" do seem to be a big taxpayer issue in this union thingy, regardless of how you breech birth the subject.

Bill

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home