The unions were wrong this time.

[Skidmore]

I don't understand why they stepped on a true public option and sought to hang onto an employer based insurance system. The constant haggling over insurance is part of what has gotten us into this mess. If the unions were not putting so much effort into negotiating benefit packages with employers, perhaps they could direct their efforts to better wages and safer work environments. I think this was so shortsighted and in-the-box thinking on their part.

[AllentownJake]

1. Are you in a union?

[Skidmore]

7. Not currently.

I was at one time a union steward for several years.

[AllentownJake]

8. So you would understand

that the members elect the leaders and the leaders during negotiations the past 10 years have been more concerned with benefits than wages, so taxing said benefits would undo 10 years of labor negotiations for their members.

[Skidmore]

10. Yes, I do.

However, it would present an opportunity to open up true negotiations for wages. Why all the looking backward? Is there nothing new on the horizon ever?

[AllentownJake]

13. The plan started off looking backward

The unions are just protecting their members.

[county worker]

2. Please put this in some context.

I'm a union member so I am interested in what you mean but it seems out of any context to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. For the same reason corporations and governments tend to suck.

Constituents, members, and shareholders want instant gratification and the people in power don't want to risk relinquishing power by making tough or unpopular long-term decisions. It's why we build schools to fit today's population when everyone knows that there'll be another 1,000 kids within 5 years. It's why companies offshore for marginal short-term gains without considering that increasing the layers of cost-risk (fuel costs are a prime example) could turn a decision horribly in a few years.

The need for instant gratification is killing our country.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. A refernce would be nice.

What have you read or seen that says the Unions have supported this.

I can find some stuff on the SEIU blog. (Service Employees International Union.)
http://www.seiu.org/2009/10/senate-finance-committee-passes-health-care-bill.php

[damntexdem]

5. I thought they were only against taxing union-negotiated health plans.

And they have a very-good argument: those "Cadillac" plans were gained in place of higher wages.

[Skidmore]

6. You are correct and that is my entire point.

Removing the health care benefits from being employment-based would truly demand that wages be addressed without that excuse for the employers. Also it would force the insurance companies to compete in a very large pool and price accordingly.

[Skidmore]

9. Its interesting that when people call for change

they don't really want change. Not really. They only want change for everyone else and nothing that affects them. I was hoping that, after all the work, we could collectively be more innovative.

[AllentownJake]

11. You understand discussing employment coverage

was never part of the equation in any bill other than single payer.

I went to a debate with Pat Toomey and he was suggesting ending employer coverage as well and cited it as the reason for out of control costs.

I'll agree our employer based system is kind of a Frankenstein that evolved after WW2 when there were wage controls, however without a single payer proposal attacking employer coverage really isn't the route to go.

It doesn't matter we are entering a work force the oppostite of the WW2 paradigm. Next year more and more workers will eat more of the cost because employers don't have to be as competitive.

I understand where the unions are coming from. If employer coverage is being maintained why would they be for a plan that would undo the gains they made in the past 10 years at the expense of wages.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. It always comes down to whose ox is being gored. I worked on campaign

finance reform initiatives here in MT back in the late 1990s. They were very popualr with everyone on the left and with citizens as a whole, yet the labor counsel voted to oppose them. The reason was that they would have diminished the personal power of one guy, who got to hand out checks to labor approved candidates.

Never mind that it put the same restrictions on businesses who were outspending the unions 3 or 4 to one. The fact that an official's personal power would be diminished by the law if passed was enough for him to put the squeeze on the board and they voted to oppose.

I don't blame unions per se, it's just human nature to never relinquish any power at all unless one is forced to.


Yes job based insurance is an accidental artifact from the past that serves no good purpose for union member or non-union member and it is bad public policy. But it does give someone some power and they don't want to give up that power. So they oppose the change.

I find this interesting given that the same unions have endorsed single payer health insurance, even though they are not currently organizing on single payer.

[AllentownJake]

15. If they got Single Payer

They could start negotiating strictly on wages right away as the expense is off their employer's books.

If they got a cadilac tax, the expense is still on the books and now they pay a tax on it.

I disagree with unions on campaign finance, I understand where they are coming from, but on this issue, I fully understand their position and support it.

[anonymous171]

16. Welcome to Politics. The goal is not "innovation" but victory.

[TheKentuckian]

12. This is what I've been thinking too.

I'm against the squeeze play Max tax but that doesn't mean that I think it is good long range thinking to continue to be caught up in benefit maintenance rather than going after new benefits and more wages.

[madrchsod]

17. unions are fighting for universal healthcare....

unions are the only place where workers can actually have a decision in their healthcare.

[Skidmore]

18. We'll never get it as long as it is a point of negotiation between

the employer and the insurance industry first.