Mass layoff at Premier Health Tuesday- seemingly unreported

When you layoff more than 50 people, according to State law, you have to report it.

Using Mass Layoff Procedures Ohio Revised Code, Section 4141.28 c requires employers to notify the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ODJFS at least three working days prior to the first day of a mass layoff. To be considered a “mass layoff” employers must have a separation of 50 or more employees within a seven-day period. This allows ODJFS staff to obtain advance information from employers regarding the“lack of work nature” of the separation. When payments such as severance pay, vacation pay, or holiday pay are involved, employers submit a list of workers that will be laid off to expedite processing.

via Microsoft Word – Mass Layoff Procedures May232007 HA.doc – masslayoff.pdf.

Sources tell me that there were mass layoffs at Miami Valley Hospital/Premier Health Partners on Tuesday.

Of course, when the powers that be claim our economy to be based on Meds/Eds and Feds this is bad news, and not something we want to tell anyone.

It is interesting that the top folks at Premier Health had plenty of money to donate to the Whaley primary campaign feast. I may have missed a few names on her campaign report, if someone wants to double cross check Premier Senior management with her report.

  • Mary Boosalis Check 4/8/13 $750.00
  • Thomas M. Duncan Check 4/8/13 $750.00
  • Bobbie L Gerhart 4/8/13 Check $500.00
  • James R. Pancoast  4/8/13 Check $2,000.00
  • James R. Pancoast  4/8/13 Check $500.00
  • Barbara A. Johnson  4/8/13 Check $500.00
  • Eloise P. Broner 4/8/13 Check $500.00

All from her pre-primary report: Whaley, N – 2013 Pre Primary

So, they can afford to pay for wildly expensive primary campaigns, pay themselves 7 figure salaries, but, get out of paying property taxes, but, when push comes to shove- laying off a lot of people is not news in Dayton?

Note- the last time I had a bunch of people donating to the same campaign, from the same company, the same week- it was a violation of election law and the company was doing pay to play politics- read about it: Qbase

 

 

 

FBI does nothing about ‘illegal’ campaign donations

Using the same rationale that the Toledo Blade used last August identifying a company CEO handing out money to his employees, or forcing employees to donate as a requirement for employment, I identified and reported a similar instance at Qbase in Beavercreek back in February of 2008. The spate of 17 donations of $1,000 each to Steve Austria’s (R) congressional campaign- by a group of QBase managers, all but 1 had never given over the reporting threshold of $250 in the past (one had donated $250 to a Democrat previously) in addition to donations by the CEO and his wife (who were frequent donors) all in one week should have set the alarm bells ringing.

The FBI did nothing.

Now, they are in the process of “investigating” the Suarez Corporation- oddly enough, the number of donors is 17 as well.

The Toledo Blade reported in August that 17 Suarez Corporation Industries employees and some of their spouses gave a combined $100,000 to the Mandel campaign and $100,000 to the Renacci campaign. Some had never given to political campaigns before, lived in modest neighborhoods, and held job titles such as copy writer. It raised questions about whose money was being contributed and whether it was an attempt to steer around the $5,000 contribution limit. Giving campaign money in the name of another is illegal.

via FBI looks at ‘illegal’ campaign donations.

The thing that bothers me even more than this circumvention strategy to funnel money to candidates is that for the life of me, I’m confused about how one of Congressman Mike Turner’s prime supporters is able to give to him at all. The Greentree Group in Beavercreek was his leading donor, giving over $18,000 in 2010. Yet, every time I’ve run, or donated to a candidate for federal office, I’ve had to put a disclaimer on the donation form- that the donor discloses that he is not a federal contractor- which Greentree clearly is.

Considering that campaigns are now handicapped by the media based on their campaign war chests more than on if the candidate actually stands for anything, if the FBI doesn’t do its job policing the donation pipeline, why do we even bother with having campaign election rules and the FEC?

Making matters even more difficult, the FEC database has no way to assist researchers to find all illegal contributions – since candidates self report donations and clerical errors by campaign treasurers can make correlating data difficult. Did the donor file as Randy or Randall? Did they list their employer as GE or General Electric? When searching to find patterns of corruption these seemingly minor differences make a huge difference.

There is only one way to begin to straighten out this mess- require anyone who is donating over $250 to a federal candidate to register with the FEC, just as lobbyists have to register, and be assigned a unique federal donor ID number. They would also have to register their primary employer ID number as well (this may be difficult for people like Mitt Romney who haven’t had a real job in years) to be able to track their companies’ donations.

The campaign finance rules we have in place today are totally inadequate thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which have caused donations to a “candidate” to be grossly marginalized compared to donations to SuperPACs which can collect unlimited amounts of money with impunity- making the only crime the Suarez Corporation really guilty of is stupidity for donating to a candidate instead of to a SuperPAC in support of the candidate.

Congressman, recuse thyself? NEVER.

Conflicts of interest. It’s the line of reasoning used in a court of law to change judges, to overturn court cases, to make sure justice is done.

However, it doesn’t apply in Washington:

There is a combined total of 59 Democrats serving on these two panels, which hold potentially life-and-death power over Toyota’s ability to continue offering its products to American consumers. So far this year, 31 of the 59 have received re-election campaign contributions ranging from as low as $500 to as high as $10,000 from the United Auto Workers union.

Why is that significant? Because the UAW is a major stockholder of Toyota’s top U.S. rival, General Motors. Also, Toyota has successfully resisted UAW attempts to organize the Japanese firm’s estimated 31,000 assembly line workers employed in five plants here in America.

Democrats have been telling America for years that special interest money corrupts government. I wonder if that is not the case now in these hearings in which Toyota executives are being grilled and are being subjected to an avalanche of negative coverage in the Mainstream Media.

Coincidentally, Toyota sales are down and GM sales are up. Nothing to see here, folks, now move along!

via Thirty-one House Dems quizzing Toyota execs got UAW campaign cash.

See the article for the names of the guilty.

Considering the huge amounts of cash needed to get into Congress (a million dollars average, every two years for House seats, much more for the Senate) it’s time America wakes up and realizes that as long as our “representatives” accept campaign cash- they have conflicts.

How could we ever have 60 votes in the Senate if we had to start recusing senators? Impossible. Therefore the only rational change is to eliminate all private campaign funding. Let the taxpayers buy their representatives- after all they are supposed to represent us, right?

It’s time the same logic that applies in a court of law, apply to our system of representation. It’s time to eliminate any conflicts of interest.

Supreme Stupidity: Best politicians money can buy

Today our country was officially sold out. In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court gave corporations carte blanche to buy their politicians.

Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

via Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending – NYTimes.com.

This all came out of a case on whether or not a corporation could pay to show an anti-Hillary movie on old school broadcast media. Apparently the Supremes haven’t been paying attention to video streaming sites like YouTube. The real issue is buying off politicians- it’s bad enough what the lobbyists spend:

A campaign finance watchdog’s analysis of insurance and HMO political contributions and lobbying expenses found the industries spent $126,430,438 over the first half of 2009 and $585,725,712 over the past two and a half years to influence public policy and elected officials. The group, Public Campaign Action Fund, found that in the first part of 2009, the industries were spending money at nearly a $700,000 a day clip to influence the political process and that the monthly pace of political spending this year has increased by nearly $400,000 over the average spent per month in the previous two years.

via INSURANCE AND HMO INDUSTRIES SPEND NEARLY $700,000 PER DAY TO KILL HEALTH CARE REFORM MEASURES | Public Campaign Action Fund.

How are our interests protected by that kind of spending power- especially, when campaign costs keep escalating?

Greg and I have a real short 3 minute discussion on the subject:

What do you think of this latest decision?

I think we have the best politicians money can buy.

Dayton Grassroots Daily Show v.18: Campaign finance reports discussed

Your daily show hosts, David Esrati and Greg Hunter talk about the campaign finance reports filed by Dayton’s Rhine McLin, Nan Whaley and Kettering’s Ashley Webb and Amy Schrimpf. A lot can be learned from these documents- like who owns whom, when it comes to local politics. Good luck finding these reports online- it seems it’s become my job to keep them out in the open.

If anyone wants to see the Kettering reports- ask in comments- and I’ll get Greg to do the scanning.

Enjoy.