
Bad Idea by BrotherMagneto on Flickr
Jane explained last night that unions have a tentative deal for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross the $23,000 threshold won’t be taxed.
TPM backs up this story with Rep. Rob Andrews explaining exemptions for the excise tax may pull together enough votes to pass:
As I first reported yesterday, one idea gaining traction in negotiations between Congressional leaders, union officials, and the White House is that collectively bargained benefit plans could be exempted from the tax. According to Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, that could be enough to build a majority for health care reform.
“It would be a way to lessen impact of the so-called excise tax,” Andrews said. “I think we could build a consensus around that idea–a majority around that idea.”
If unions take this deal, it’s a sell-out of epic proportions. I’m hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the labor movement, but to the middle class itself.
The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the “Cadillac tax,” but that distorts the reality of who it will effect. This isn’t a tax on the rich; it’s a tax on the middle class, the old, and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under union contracts.
Richard Trumka laid down a line and said the AFL-CIO would not support a plan without a public option. While other labor groups haven’t been as forceful, progressives have looked to the AFL-CIO as the most defiant of the veal pen.
Presumably, in Monday’s meeting at the White House, labor leaders made clear that the excise tax on their plans wouldn’t fly, and that the Employee Free Choice Act would have to come up for a vote (and pass?) in a few months after health care. And I’m sure they got the same assurance they’ve got from Rahm and Reid for more than a year on labor law reform: be patient, it will come up and pass.
If unions take this “deal,” if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.
The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question. But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation, unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax and call it a day.
And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal – a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act – expect unions to be very much on their own in that fight if they sell out on health care.



99 Comments









Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
Good Morning Michael,
thank you for keeping it real.
As I typed in Jane’s post, passing legislation that is supposed to be in the country’s interest by slicing off groups and pitting them against each other is a process that reveals the substance (i.e., the absence of substance).
Blatantly OT:
To whom do you need to correspond on this godforsaken site to get them to put up a Red Cross International Fund clicker for Haiti? Or any other, for that matter? The UN thinks it has 150 UN workers that may be dead there.
http://tinyurl.com/yctu2tf
I got an email from Red Cross yesterday asking me to donate. I couldn’t navigate their website to figure out how. I gave to the U.N. instead.
However, that there is even talk of a deal that undermines the claims of how good the excise tax is supposed to be for workers. It would be great if Gruber was asked about why the unions would exempt themselves from something that would result in their members getting pay raises. This both shows that the excise tax doesn’t just affect the rich and also that the excise tax is harmful.
I think they should rename this the “ I got mine so screw you bill“.
Every vote seems to come as the result of a bribe or payoff. Most astonishingly, the extortion is taking place in broad daylight with the bribes to Landreau, Nelson, Sanders and others widely reported and sitting there on the table for all to see.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Dumb move by the unions. It will drive an even bigger wedge between unions and the middle class, making union-busting far easier in the future.
Lots of middle class folks are already suspicious of unions, believing they’re corrupt or driving up their property taxes or business expenses. This move would just add to that sense of distrust and dislike, destroying what should be a strong alliance.
That would be the “contact us” link at the top of the page.
Instant site redesigns may actually be a bit trickier than you might be willing to accept. On the specific, issue people that want to donate would probably have little difficulty using the google or one of the many competitors to find a reasonable candidate.
Happy to help out, since you asked them so nicely, in what small capacity that I can offer as a simple viewer of web pages.
I said it yesterday and I say it again, ha fucking ha! The unions suck.
Or, that the Obama admin thinks average union members are part of the rich.
e.g. “I’ll only raise taxes on the rich.”
I donate to Mercy Corps or Oxfam. Most donations go directly to help the people (something like 90%). I decided years ago to donate to these groups rather than the Red Cross.
But he’s agreeing to exempt them from the tax…
Looks as if we will have some measure of health care reform at the end of the day. Let’s hope that this will be a positive first step toward something better.
d It’s ugly and messy and you don’t really want to know much about how the sausage was made, but it will be a step towards seeing the US join other civilized nations in providing health care to everyone.
Congratulations President Obama!
That would pretty much sum up politics alright. Smart politicians try to get as much as possible while trading away of their “values” as little as possible. This just might be a situation where leadership gave the Senators a chance to either be somewhat relevant in the future or completely powerless. Blaming Sanders and other relatively powerless folks can offer a way to ignore the fact that this plan was pretty much architected by Obama and promoted via Gruber. There’s plenty of blame to go around but the architects bear greater responsibility. And in that regard Nelson and even Landreau are picking up some of the scraps from the house built by the Ds.
I strongly disagree about your characterization of the union. OF COURSE they are about their own self-interest. That is the whole point. If the unions bear the brunt, the cost of all the negotiations but the benefits accrue to everyone, all the union due non-paying free riders, that would be suicidal. Because why would anyone want to join a union if they felt they were going to get the same set of benefits as union members do?
I think it is a brilliant move on part of Trumka. It gives every worker in America a very strong incentive to unionize. Because, should this bill pass, the only way to get a “cadillac plan” will be through union membership. This is a good thing, for the unions, for the middle class, for America.
From the bottom of the front page, if you click on “contact”:
firedoglake [at] gmail.com
The UN isn’t the only group that is suffering. My research group has a clinic in the heart of Port-au-Prince that has been serving some of the most destitute folks in the country. While we were fortunate that no one (that we are aware of yet) was killed, they will be called upon heavily to help meet the overwhelming medical needs resulting from this tragedy:
http://weill.cornell.edu/globalhealth/
And here is a site I got from CREDO Action for Doctors Without Borders:
https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=197&hbc=1&source=ADR1001E1D01
So, Michael , are there ANY other entities besides unions that would qualify for this”collective bargaining agreement” exemption?
Agreed. The only thing I give the Red Cross is my blood on a fairly regular basis. Next one coming up again two weeks from now. Oxfam and Medicines Sans Frontiers are two of our favorites.
Paid for by no one.
I tend to agree with you.
It could definitely become a very large and attractive carrot to recruit new union membership.
Great point.
I understand that the default assumption is to assume everything is a sellout – however, there’s this, from Huffington Post which at least seems to deal with some of the objections:
Now, of course, this may all be smoke and mirrors and we’re not privy to the discussions, but does anyone know anything definite about the above that would prove it’s phony?
This is how politics works. Give me what I want or you don’t get my support. Glad to see someone of the left (i.e., the unions) finally has figured out how to play this game. I wish more liberal groups would follow their example instead of continuing to have their votes taken for granted and blindly rubber-stamping everything that comes out of this administration.
Saw this coming a mile away. I get mine everyone else burn in hell (until they finally come to toll the last bell for thee).
OT
I gave to Doctors WO Borders. I trust them to get in there with as little nonsense as possible.
typically insightful there. it sounds like they are just being ‘pragmatic’ a word FDL was valorizing when it looked possible that the whole steaming pile of Democratic HCR would have a teeny little ‘Public Option’ on top.
Sure would love to have a toke or two of whatever it is you’re smoking.
Step towards seeing the US join other civilized nations in providing health care to everyone? haha, laughable. It doesn’t provide ANYONE with health care. It provides some with health insurance. Millions of folks have health insurance now that still end up being bankrupted.
And a first step??? hah, laughable too. This bill drives a stake through the heart of real health care reform once and for all as it entrenches the already powerful for-profit insurance industry as even more powerful. If you concede this is the best we can do now with 60 D Senators, a huge D majority in the House, and a D President, exactly how will it be easier in the future after the insurance industry has been guaranteed millions and millions of new customers and billions and billions more dollars to combat future attempts with?? Nope, this bill puts real health care reform to death (lol, seems the Rethugs were right, there is a death panel in this bill).
I will say though that the congratulations are in order. After all, President Obama not only shit all over the constitution when he argued before the SCOTUS (and basically won) that he could label a person as a “non-person” and thus nullify all Constitutional rights, but he did it at a level not even contemplated by the likes of Bush/Cheney!!!!! Congratulations indeed!!!
Saw this coming a mile away. I get mine everyone else burn in hell (until they finally come to toll the last bell for thee).
I agree it would hurt them in the long run – nothing worse than the vast majority of the middle class looking at their special perks with envey. In the current frame this does not lead people to form unions (its made hard or impossible) – it leads people to join the chorus for their destruction.
Why does someone who delivers mail deserve my tax money for the rest of their lives.
Again, this sellout was obvious in it coming.sad though it is.
@21
Thanks for posting that.
Time will tell.
Actually, the Top 50% of Wage Earners – which includes the middle class, e.g. “individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up” – have been paying roughly 97% of all Federal Income Taxes for a long…long time. The Top 1% pays something like 38% of all taxes.
Then comes a long list of other taxes – Excise Taxes among them – that the Federal Gov’t piles on. State and Local Gov’ts then add more taxes on top of the growing Federal Gov’t pile.
This excise tax on more expensive insurance plans isn’t really going to “fund” much of anything. Our Debt will keep growing until the Federal Gov’t can force citizens to pay a 23-25% (a starting point) VAT on top of all the other taxes…
If you believe that once americans get a benefit, theo won’t give it back, and that the govt. will now be forced to make the package more affordable, then it’s a damn good first step. Something progressives have longed for since Teddy Roosevelt.
If you think that it was possible to ram a much better bill through this senate- I can’t see how it could have been done.
‘Blaming Sanders and other relatively powerless folks …..”
With the 60 vote threshhold the determining factor, every Senator has equal power to become the 60th vote. Senators claiming to be “progressive” had every bit as much power and opportunity to move this bill as President Lieberman.
“Dumb move by the unions. It will drive an even bigger wedge between unions and the middle class, making union-busting far easier in the future.”
It would be a dumb move in the long term for unions if they accepted it. I haven’t seen any reaction to this yet, and certainly I’ve heard of no acceptance by any labor leader or group. But the move we are talking about here is by Dem leadership, apparently. I haven’t seen who is pushing this identified by name.
Actually, one could argue that if union-negotiated health plans were exempted it would make union jobs more attractive and thus encourage more jobs to be organized, at least theoretically. From a moral point of view, though, it would mean allowing others to get screwed. But then, that has always been the law of the jungle in labor.
The real problem for labor is that while this deal might protect unionized employees at the program’s inception, it would only last as long as the Dems have control of Congress. If there’s a health care beast in place, the first thing that Repubs would do once in power would be to eliminate that exemption. That’s why any subsidiary funding of any healthcare plan has to come from a tax plan that hits the people who’ve been benefiting from the Dubya tax cuts, the ultra-wealthy.
The way that this sausage has come out pits all brands of working class people against each other while fatcats get fatter. Time to just let this mess die and get a more modest expansion of Medicare started.
This bill needs to die. It will only entrench the insurance industry further and complicate any future reform. It is about time that we recognized that the current party in power (notice I said party, singular) in not going to do the right thing anymore and represent the people. They, almost every politician, is beholden to special interests and the elite.
Obama campaigned on showing the sausage being made – remember showing the HCR negotiations on C-SPAN? Don’t tell me that I want the wool pulled over my eyes.
“…this bill puts real health care reform to death …”
Nailed it!.
If it isnn’t Health legislation then it’s Financial, or whatever – but you can be sure that any progressive ideas WILL NOT BE INCLUDED. The public is a side issue, corporations at always at the head of the line.
So what to do. Don’t vote – easy approach, and will affect Dems in 2010 and further. Support the congress people who have progressive ideas (note though that these ideas will still not be included in any final bill).
Here is my solution. Impeach Obama. Let him know that he has crossed a line (a long time ago), and it is time to focus entirely on the PEOPLE, and the corporations will have to stand in line, with consideration for their problems, low in priority. I can think of no other way to get his complete attention – let him know the level of anger in this country and that he needs change his loyalty to the people, not corporation.
Food for thought.
With that kind of thinking we never would have gotten women’s rights and then civil rights. Like gosh, with that line of thinking white women should have opposed civil rights since after they got their own self-interest they should have just abandoned minorities, particularly if said legislation meant that minorities could then compete for their jobs. This is about equal treatment and you are touting up unequal treatment as being good so that it can be used for extortion.
A sort of drive-by. Sorry.
Did anyone consider that allowing exemptions is what get us into trouble in the first place? The first thing I would do to circumvent the excise tax for “my Cadillac plan” would be to form a “union” of executives. In fact, the first thing I am doing is to form a union for those likely to end up with Cadillac plans. Say, charge tax deductible dues based on a percentage of the overage of the membership’s plans….. hey, it is America, right?
I mean, is our legislative branch, um, stupid to entertain such a tax?
How is an exemption for one class of people, and not others, not a breach of “Equal Protection Under the Law”?
If it is such a benefit that people will love, then there’s no need to mandate it.
and just what was ‘the get’ here ? if the Bill is signed tomorrow with these exemptions, what has changed since 6/23 ?
My wife gets our coverage through the California Association of Reltors. Its more-or-less the same an a group plan, no underwriting, no refusals.
If you can name which one of the Senators that is more powerful than the Office of the President then I will concede that 60 Senators might be 60 times more powerful than the President. Or I would if you could first get me to concede 60 Senators voting is anything other than a smokescreen. The rule was 50 with the tie breaker going to the Vice President back when I went to school. Since there haven’t been too many changes to the Constitution on this issue I’m pretty sure it’s still true. Sixty votes are filibuster proof to which I say anybody that wants to step up and filibuster should take their chances and it should be filmed by C-Span to assist them in their wish to enter the public view.
redX opined earlier: “Why does someone who delivers mail deserve my tax money for the rest of their lives.”
Why should I (a retired letter carrier, thus someone who delivered your mail) deserve your tax money for the rest of my life? Why shouldn’t I just be taken out back and shot after my knees are arthritic and my hands are riddled with repetitive stress after working for the federal government for 33 years? Yeah, I’m such an ungrateful lout. Kill me. I’m useless to you now. Besides, you’ve got the internet. Why should people who work their lives with the promise of receiving pensions and healthcare in their retirement get any of that? We’re worthless to redX now.
But then why should the ingrates getting social security get your tax money? Why should anyone get redX’s tax money.
Unions act in their self-interest, but then so is redX. I think the unions’ best self-interest is to walk away from this deal because it won’t hold up in the long run.
The best thing about the offer, though, is how it flushes out anti-union people who claim to be progressive but who share the same hatred for labor organizing that the reactionaries feel.
Bob, this is just an observation, but I have noticed that the commenters who have X at the end of their screen names,more often than not, turn out to be trolls.
I’m sorry, what am I missing here? I hate the tax but YES unions are supposed to act in self interest. And by the by – isn’t the whole point to have union workers have a better life then non-union workers? Thus ensuring that EFCA passes and we increase the ranks of the unions and bettering the lives of the American worker? If Americans think that unions are only for greedy and lazy people and don’t benefit them then what good are they? Union workers should make more, get better benefits, negotiate better deals. Yes, this should impact the market as a whole. Has everyone forgotten history?
I have been wondering about the unequal protection afforded AIG,Goldman Sach, and Blackwater, among others.
Here’s some news that has not been reported here:
Source: Rebel Reports
Schakowsky Prepares Legislation to Ban Blackwater
By Jeremy Scahill
As multiple scandals involving Blackwater continue to emerge almost daily, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing to introduce legislation aimed at ending the US government’s relationship with Blackwater and other armed contracting companies. “In 2009, the U.S. government employed well over 20,000 armed private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is every indication that these figures will continue to rise in 2010,” Schakowsky wrote in a “Dear Colleage” letter asking for support for her Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act. “These men and women are not part of the U.S. military or government. They do not wear the uniform of the United States, though their behavior has, on numerous occasions, severely damaged the credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship with other governments.” “The legislation would prohibit the use of private contractors for military, security, law enforcement, intelligence, and armed rescue functions unless the President tells Congress why the military is unable to perform those functions,” according to Schakowsky. “It would also increase transparency over any remaining security contracts by increasing reporting requirements and giving Congress access to details about large contracts.”
Meanwhile, a national coalition of groups opposed to Blackwater have issued an open letter to Congress urging support for Schakowsky’s SOS Act and have called on Congress to investigate the US Justice Department’s handling of the criminal case against the Blackwater operatives alleged to have been responsible for the 2007 Nisour Square massacre. On New Year’s Eve, federal Judge Ricardo Urbina threw out the case alleging prosecutorial misconduct. “Considering all of the millions of tax payer dollars that have gone into funding Blackwater, as well as paying for all of the various investigations into their illegal and unethical activities, the citizens of the United States deserve to know the truth,” said Dan Kenney, co-coordinator of “No Private Armies.”Read more: http://rebelreports.com/post/332555848/schakowsky-prepa…
If you look through the comments a bit you’ll see that some of people responding have no problem with the union deal. As for EFCA, Whimpy’s promise to “gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” has come up on occasion.
My reason for wanting to see the union get their piece is one of my standard arguments. Any deal that one group can get moves the line in the sand. Knowing that a deal has been struck once makes it easier for someone else to get something comparable. In this case it also makes it harder to explain why some are burdened more than others. So I say: have at ‘em!
Bullshit. Heres what you apparently missed. From 1950 – 2000 union membership went from about 35% of wage workers to about 9% of wage workers. Despite what newt gingrich says thats not becasue they are all rich bosses now. The oligarchs have been isolating the unions from the rest of the work force not only to keep workers out of unions, but to kill the unions and its working. the big union leadership sell out on national policy issues mirrors the internal union leadership sell outs toward rank and file members.
thats why we should keep fighting it. every little miserable fucking detail of it. in washington, in the states, and in court until theres nothing left of it.
You are conflating two different things – how businesses treat unions and how the government treats wage earners. There’s no problem with private negotiations between employees and businesses, but there’s serious problems when the government actively engages in discrimination. Would you be happy if the KKK negotiated that whites were excluded from the excise tax? How about if the excise tax only applied to one gender? Afterall with both the KKK and with gender exclusions, you’re having one group who gets what it wants out of it’s own self-interest. Maybe you supported the Jim Crowe laws and other such laws done by groups of people out of their own self-interest that resulted in discrimination, but I’m not supporter of discriminating against people.
Why is anyone surprised by this? Unions are the very thing they rail against – big business. They are a special interest trying to protect their bottom line. And the bottom line for unions – ‘dues’ (and don’t pretend otherwise).
Thanks for the link, off-topic or not.
“Schakowsky originally introduced the bill in 2007, but it only won two co-sponsors in the Senate: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Clinton—now Secretary of State”
I completely missed this one, or at least forgot it.
The American public has been systematically brainwashed against labor ever since Reagan, and the Free Marketeers began dismantling the American labor and manufacturing landscape-espcially with the advent of NAFTA and CAFTA.
But,it is only logical that a nation whose sense of community is no larger than the dimensions of their WalMart shopping cart, is not interested in being a part of something larger than themselves-and their own self centered consumerism.
We have become a nation of consumers,not citizens. And the “line” that unions are bad has been bought hook,line, and sinker by the very folks whose jobs are being offshored.
Cui bono? Why, ofcourse ,those on non-union Wall Street.
Welcome
one more time – just what did Labor get out of this they didn’t have on 6/23/09 ?
no one is arguing Labor shouldn’t be looking out for their own, but there has been all kinds of talk and gestures from it’s leaders about saving and shoring up the middle class (in and out of unions) in this country
and who in their right mind thinks EFCA will pass anywhere near the form Labor is proposing
fyi – I am 4th generation Labor and my name can be found on a major union’s charter – clearly not in the Unions are selfish and bad ! camp
well, your only partly right. they are owned from the bottom up. the problems with Union leadearship are the same problems we have in the country at large. your characterization of unions as a for profit commercial enterprise are incorrect.
Icky ole unions.
They’ll get theirs when our corporation controlling, neofeudalist, overlords take over and save us from the sins of collective bargaining by-golly.
In the past, union advances have given everyone better working conditions–the 40 hour work week, no child labor, etc.
If they take this carve-out just for them they’d better not come canvassing for candidates.
@54
re: NAFTA ,CAFTA, “SHAFTA”
Jesse’s Café Américain: There Are Now More Government Employees …Jan 6, 2010 … There Are Now More Government Employees than Goods-Producing Workers in the US … Category: economic imbalances, manufacturing sector …
jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/…/more-government-employees-than-goods.html – Cached
America passes a milestone! « Fabius MaximusJan 20, 2009 … More Government Workers Than Manufacturing This made me want to cry. …. Paine Blog » US government bigger than manufacturing sector — 20 …
fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/milestone/ – Cached – Similar
Actually the unions helped themselves in the past not everybody. That is the point to a union, collective bargaining successes which make joining the union better than not joining. The rising standard of living created for the unions in turn caused employers of non-union help to compete on wages and benefits. The reason corporations have won their ability to force the middle-class down was based upon the skill of the business owners in creating the impression that they could be just as nice as the unions and it wouldn’t require dues. Most folks bought it and the middle-class has been spiraling downward ever since.
You want the International Fund. Actually, you can donate (to the ARC) from the USAID site, too.
Pedinska, my first reaction was that the UN workers aren’t there to do the helping they would have done. I got a note from UNWFP that they have moved in, and I got a note from ICRC yesterday that they are shipping out of Geneva today (probably already), and that IFRC is mobilized. They have a 68 person delegation in Haiti, no workers hurt, not sure about families though.
“The best thing about the offer, though, is how it flushes out anti-union people who claim to be progressive but who share the same hatred for labor organizing that the reactionaries feel.”
Absolutely. Well-educated people in management positions–sons and granddaughters of immigrant folk who survived because of the ruthlessness of union bargaining–are often the biggest enemies of organized labor. Their embarrassingly naive belief in their own self-reliance and the magic of the market have brought us here. Not unions and their negotiating tactics. I refuse to lose sight of the enemy, unlike so, so many in the middle class.
I am a university professor at a private liberal arts college who doesn’t get paid very much, but who has very good health insurance. It’s against Federal Law for me to join a union, or for university professors to participate in collective bargaining. Guess I’ll be calling a lawyer if this is true, talking about “equal protection under the law.”
The reason corporations have won their ability …..is in great part due to LOBBYISTS, who represent no one but the bottom line of the shareholders of their corporate masters. Oh, and these lobbyist WRITE the legislation too!
WHY do lobbyists get more respect than unions?
Maybe you could ask the lawyer about the unequal protection that has been afforded Wall Street
Namely,Blankfein ADMITTED improper activity at Goldman, at yesterday’s hearings.
When can we expect to see some accountability and EQUAL protection for the victims of this deliberate malfeasance?
I’ll pick “Because they have deep pockets”. A slightly more interesting question is how we got to a place where what used to be considered an illegal bribe has turned into a legal lobbyist donation. For that I’m going with the SCOTUS determining that money is free speech. One of the most evil concepts ever to pass out of that body.
Actually, according to Sam Stein, the unions are pressing for an exemption for anyone making under $200k, whether they are union members or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/white-house-and-labor-mak_n_422947.html
I should clarify that I think this overall bill is a complete stinker and am completely opposed to it. But I don’t see the unions as being the bad guys here.
not to interrupt your fun, andreww, but perhaps instead of telling non-union-members how hateful they are, maybe you could offer some suggestions for organising. i wish i could join a union, but i can’t. a lot of people can’t. it’s not because we hate unions, but because we live in ‘right to get fired’ states, or work for corporations that engage in anti-union tactics, up to and including immediately terminating anyone who even whispers in the break room about starting a union, or work at the kinds of jobs that haven’t got unions to represent them. it’s hard to organise in such situations, and the unions themselves really don’t seem interested in helping. we’re not all latte-sipping macbook-clutching moneyed parasites. a lot of us make a hell of a lot less than people in trades do; a lot of us are hardly getting by, and we haven’t got anyone to back us up, and in this economy it’s harder than ever to think about risking one’s job to organise.
so maybe, instead of being snotty, you could offer suggestions to people wanting to organise. it’s hard not to feel like the unions are saying ‘fuck you, we want ours’ here. because they are. and a lot of people are frozen out, and have no way of joining that bargaining bloc even when they want to. and your attitude of exclusivity isn’t really helping.
@62
And, let’s see how deeply their belief AGAINST the value of unions REALLY is,Andrew?
Like next time they need a cop,fireman, nurse, US mail-will they refuse to call these service providers because these same cops,nurses,fireman and mail service are ALL union?
@66
1. Start enforcing RICO- some of these corporations are too big. Google up A&P being busted up ,sometime.
2. Revoke corporate personhood.
You don’t want to risk your job to organize, but you want unions to go to bat for you? Sorry, but that’s not how it works.
Save anything you can, move to Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Chicago, Minneapolis, or Milwaukee. Get the hell out of Texas.
VORE wrote on: “Why is anyone surprised by this? Unions are the very thing they rail against – big business. They are a special interest trying to protect their bottom line. And the bottom line for unions – ‘dues’ (and don’t pretend otherwise).”
People who are immediately anti-labor expose themselves as reactionaries.
Almost every improvement in average Americans’ lives over the last hundred years has started in the labor movement: 8-hour day, forty-hour week, safety on the job, a living wage, etc. One can measure the misery quotient of the average American going up as union membership has gone down. That a group of people were powerful enough to get the Dems to back down from a loathsome part of the bill is good.
Not saying that all unions always do the right thing. I’ve been active in my union for 25 years as both a steward and an officer and I’ve got plenty of complaints not only about my local but especially my national. But all organizations, political parties, corporations, unions, social movements, have problems when individuals act in their own self-interest rather than in everyone’s.
@69
You really need to check out this site:
American Rights at Work – HomeAmerican Rights at Work is a nonprofit advocacy organization whose mission is to support workers’ rights to a free choice and a fair chance to join a union.
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/ – Cached – Similar
Our Staff
Contact Us
Employment
Employee Free Choice Act Anti-Union Network
About Us
Quick Facts
Freedom to Form Unions
More results from americanrightsatwork.org »
NOTE: The link they have to anti-union network is superb. You will learn a lot there.
That was my point. People need to see unions fight for things. Not giving away things all the times like the UAW has for years to the auto industry. There needs to be an obvious value add. Organized workers should have a better life. That was my point.
I think the point was that it would imply (as in the 40 hour work week etc..) a trickle down effect. And I don’t mean in the reaganomics way.
here’s the thing: once they fire you, you can’t organise your workplace. because you don’t have a workplace any more. and ‘move’ isn’t really a helpful suggestion. people have kids, they have debts. the last large company i worked for had branches in all the cities you list, and they’re just as anti-union out there as they are in my current state. i knew people at that company who did want to organise, but we had no backup. the only union contact we ever got was a protest from a local woodworker’s union that got pissed off when some of the employees did some store improvements themselves, without contracting out. this did not help us very much. this is why non-union people question unions, and the way you’re talking here is more of the same.
corporations are a lot smarter now at fighting back, and the laws are on their side. maybe you could think back over the glorious course of unionisation and realise that the obstacles people in non-organised workplaces now are as big as they ever were. it’s not just texas that’s anti-union, although thanks for the elitist snark. try working with people. please.
@74, thanks!
redX opined earlier: “Why does someone who delivers mail deserve my tax money for the rest of their lives.”
Why should I (a retired letter carrier, thus someone who delivered your mail) deserve your tax money for the rest of my life? Why shouldn’t I just be taken out back and shot after my knees are arthritic and my hands are riddled with repetitive stress after working for the federal government for 33 years? Yeah, I’m such an ungrateful lout. Kill me. I’m useless to you now. Besides, you’ve got the internet. Why should people who work their lives with the promise of receiving pensions and healthcare in their retirement get any of that? We’re worthless to redX now.
But then why should the ingrates getting social security get your tax money? Why should anyone get redX’s tax money.
Unions act in their self-interest, but then so is redX. I think the unions’ best self-interest is to walk away from this deal because it won’t hold up in the long run.
The best thing about the offer, though, is how it flushes out anti-union people who claim to be progressive but who share the same hatred for labor organizing that the reactionaries feel.
—
You missed the entire point – since its you and everyone else can burn in hell right?
Why do mail carries get pensions and not people who work for McDonalds?
What does it have to do with shooting you after you retire? Does that mean you are OK with having the McDonalds person pay for your health – but they have to go and get shot after they finish work.
I say McDonalds and Mail Carrier – but those are just placeholders. We are all human beings. As was noted above “Equal Protection”.
I am assuming you would be OK for other fed employees to be hired in without health plans as long as you are grannied in.
Nice try making the whole Death Panel argument.
Here is is in simple form: I am OK with paying taxes – but why should your health be taken care of as opposed to another citizens?
What I said was “elitist snark?” How is telling someone to move to cities in union states “elitist?” If my example of Texas bothers, how about Wyoming? You don’t want to change jobs, you don’t want to change cities, you don’t want to join the woodworker’s union. I’m losing sight of what you’re actually asking? I’m sorry, but I’m smelling a lot of right wing talking points in the outline of your discussion. What specifically are you asking?
Nice try . When all else fails:
- Death panel
- Trolls
- Personal attacks
- Straw men
- Grab a new account or a join a new site and pretend you been here forever
And as a last resort play madlibs:
I have noticed that many “new” posters are “suckers” who clutter up threads with “pointless” “spew”.
If I had said “FDA Regulators” rather than “Mail Carriers” then selfish would not have had sh*t to say about the other guy – or the argument itself (which will be posed by someone other than me).
“Dumb move by the unions. It will drive an even bigger wedge between unions and the middle class, making union-busting far easier in the future.”
This is the silver lining…
“Lots of middle class folks are already suspicious of unions, believing they’re corrupt or driving up their property taxes or business expenses. This move would just add to that sense of distrust and dislike, destroying what should be a strong alliance.”
That’s because unions are corrupt…
One of the more reactionary libertarian economic sites around, written by one who shall remain nameless (because I don’t want to give him the hits) has made all sorts of wild attempts to put every economic problem at the foot of the unions. One of his funniest propositions is to eliminate all unionized municipal fire and police services. The idea being that private firefighters and police would create wonderful cost efficiencies.
Which would be wonder to behold. Police services sold to the lowest bidder but with a potential for significant markup as law enforcement requests are executed. Mercenary police and fire services. Gangster’s thrived in the 30s because tax paid police services had been reduced enough to create a power vacuum. Mercenary police would be a creative way to make being a gangster a legal carrier choice.
Yous pays for protection and yous takes your chances.
i would join the woodworker’s union if i were a woodworker. i’m not. mostly i work retail or office jobs. america has fewer people working in the trades these days. way more jobs are in the service industry. people working those jobs have no union experience, and their only understanding of unions is from the outside. they see people getting things they can’t have. that’s where a lot of union-hate comes from, i think.
mostly what i was asking was that you, and others who have union experience, work on helping teach people in non-union jobs what unions actually are, and what they can do *for them*, instead of hating on those stupid middle-class union-bashing jerks. people who work in jobs that don’t have a history of unions get angry at what they perceive as union selfishness, and the way you’ve been talking in these comment threads makes it even harder for people to see unions as good things. that makes it harder for everybody.
i’m not a right-winger, trust me. but i know people who are, and i know others who aren’t but have bought into the anti-union talking points, and all the other talking points that trick americans into going against their own interests. it’s hard enough to overcome those talking points. in the previous thread and this one i feel like there were people, you chief among them, who were taking an opportunity to gloat and to hate on those who weren’t lucky enough to enjoy union benefits. it seems like this would be a great opportunity instead to reach out to people who don’t have your good fortune and help them get union representation, or at least to help them understand what it is. the approach you were taking just makes it harder to talk to people about unions and why they can be good.
So your point if I get it, and I doubt I do, is that everyone should suffer if you do? So a union asking for more is bad unless they can provide for everyone? What exactly would be the point of collective bargaining as a union, if they got no better deal than if they didn’t bargain at all? Why pay to join a union?
Healthcare shouldn’t depend on whether somebody is a member of a union. Either healthcare is a right or it isn’t. If healthcare is a right, this bill needs to be scrapped and replaced with a single payer bill. If union members are OK with non-union members being forced to pay for unreliable insurance, they are selfish. I haven’t read all the comments, so if this post is redundant, I apologize.
Please provide examples of businesses that are not at least equally corrupt, that are not also run by liberal do gooders. For extra points please explain why non-union corporations such as Goldman Sachs, AIG and CitiGroup are not more obvious examples of corruption. Examples including the current crop of politicians and their interaction with corporation lobbyists would be appreciated as well.
Michael O’Brian at TheHill.com implies that Unions are not the only ones who may get a break.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/75913-rangel-democrats-close-to-agreement-on-health-bill
It isn’t out of character for the unions to behave this way. Few realize it but the unions opposed the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage and hours) because they thought that if workers could get this by law they wouldn’t join unions. Finally they got bought off by FDR. For more on that see “Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane Kirkland, and the Tragedy of American Labor,” by Paul Buhle, Monthly
Review Press, 1999. I strongly suspect that the unions were told that they would get the perversely named “Employee Free Choice Act” if they would go along on health care. If they really believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale.
My mistake. It was Jared Allen at thehill.com
Divide and conquer is more likely.
The Washington Post describes this as a “temporary exemption” while unions essentially negotiate for higher wages and less health care.
So, if that’s true, we can expect our unions to negotiate for lesser plans(which I guess is part of the goal–to reduce the amount of health care used)and HOPE that employers will play along with higher wages–although I suspect those wages could be lost in higher deductibles and so forth.
Strange.
I’m not really sure what the unions gain.
And if they can’t renegotiate within a certain time limit I suppose, they get hit with the tax anyway.
I think I’m missing something.
Gloating? Absolutely not.
I was defending the union move from folks who were bent on heaping more prog antiunionist creative class talking points. If it came across as gloating, my apologies. Believe me when I say I understand what the working class faces in this country.
Otherwise unions get hit with the double-whammy of lower wages and lesser health care, which is something they’ve sacrificed pay in order to gain.
So at best it’s a break even game.
And that’s IF they can negotiate higher wages.
I’m in a small Local for the IUPAT and we just had the company close our plant a couple years ago leaving us with about 35 employees and a warehouse.
The trend is toward slowly replacing us with part time workers. They recently offered a small buyout with the intention of dropping full time employees so they could increase part timers who get no benefits and smaller wages.
Maybe if you’re in a big union that has some ability to make a dent in a company you have a chance—but in my case–a lone distribution center that can easily be moved, an anti-union company, that has other plants(all non-union AND filling with part timers)your negotiating power is pretty much zilch anyway.
I’m sure I’m not alone.
I guess I’m just uncertain if labor really gains anything.
If it’s so awful, why do you hang around? Do a Google search, like I did. It’s one thing to make a suggestion, it’s another to insult someone because they’re not doing what you want them to.
I have issues with how this site is laid out and how some of the software works, but I have those issues with just about every blog.
I don’t disagree that this is probably simply a maintenance of status quo at best. But I’m not going to pretend that it can’t get worse.
What benefit is there? There is no regulating agency in the Senate bill. Therefore, there are no regulations. There is a limited expansion of Medicaid that is partly unfunded. The states, who are already bankrupt, will have to come up with the rest (except for Vermont and Nebraska, of course). There is no public option, but there is an individual mandate.
In short, we are being forced to buy crap insurance, and the states are being forced to spend money they don’t have. I don’t see any benefits here that I’d want to keep.
This is absolutely the wrong move to make but as a former union steward I am not surprised.
Everyone is caving in…so the prez can stand up there at the State of the U and say “I did it!” Shameful.