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.
posted by UMRBlog @ 03:15
3 comments
UMRBlog
The Upper Mississippi River Basin:Life, Worship, Sports, Transportation, Golf, Politics and other bizarre behaviors in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Quincy area has a history of tolerance. We seem to suffer fools gladly.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
About Me
- Name: UMRBlog
- Location: Upper Mississippi River Basin, Tri-State, United States
Christian, Father, Husband, Brother, Uncle, Veteran, Threat Assessor, Both Illini and Hawkeye Grad, Democrat, "Sticker", Friend, Neighbor, Cub Fan, Bear Fan, Outside the box thinker, Multitasker, Golfer, Believer in Civility and Good Manners until some butt makes it impossible, Throws Right, Bats Left, Good Power, Good Arm, Good Glove, Bad Speed, Hold Doors and Chairs for women,
Previous Posts
- THE BASIN'S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF GAYS IN THE MI...
- WIKI WHACKY: OATH-BREAKING CROOK IS NEVER A HERO
- WILL THIS TIME BE DIFFERENT???
- HEALTH CARE BILL: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
- WHO'S THAT WHACKY LEFTY PROPOSING A REDUCTION IN S...
- RACY CAUCUS--WHERE "INTEREST GROUP" MEETS RACISM
- OUTTA HERE: ROAD TRIP
- YOU CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL
- HERE'S A GOP WIN THAT LIGHTS MY FIRE
- SCREAMIN' A. SMITH NAILS IT!
3 Comments:
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
I hate to break this to you but that was Emily Litella Humor, playing on the word "Union".
TYFCB
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
<< Home