The home health care ruling: A pig & a poke |

The home health care ruling: A pig & a poke

Commonwealth Court got it right when it struck down Gov. Tom Wolf’s odorous executive order that would allow unionization of home health care workers — an action that would have swelled union coffers with workers’ dues while destroying the important relationship between home health care recipients and providers.

In its 4-1 decision, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs — which included the Pennsylvania Homecare Association and United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania — and called the order an “invalid exercise of executive authority” that “invades the relationship” between home care workers and the people who employ them.

The order amounted to an illegal kiss-up to the unions by the governor.

The Commonwealth Foundation reported that the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — two of Mr. Wolf’s largest campaign contributors in the 2014 election — helped draft the order that would directly benefit Big Labor.

It doesn’t get more odorous than that.

The workers who provide in-home medical and personal care — in the majority of cases to a family member or loved one — have no connection to government employment. Wolf’s office ignored this as it pushed to help its union cronies. We are glad the court saw the order for what it was: a putrid pig.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.