Unions Tentatively Strike A Deal Regarding Excise Tax

[Craftsman]

Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_20100113_9874.php

Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained healthcare plans from a tax on high-cost plans expected to be used to help raise revenue for the healthcare overhaul.

...

by Anna Edney, with Billy House contributing

Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010



Read more: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_20100113_9874.php

---

If this is true, expect a huge backlash from no union people.

[Mojorabbit]

1. How nice for them.

Sigh.

[Inuca]

2. Why a backlash? n/t

[Craftsman]

4. It is called being fair. If I have to pay the tax then so should they.

Taxes are never popular, and when you excempt someone due to political clout it sticks in many people's throats.

[laughingliberal]

18. Did you win your benefits in a contract negotiation?

I am not convinced the unions have agreed to this. They were not in favor of it as of last night. But if that is the only concession the Senate and White House are willing to make on this excise tax, I support them in having their contracts honored.

[ArcticFox]

34. Negotiated or not

My salary is not going to go up to compensate me for any loss of health insurance, or tax imposed on my health insurance plan. And I guess you could say that every worker who takes a job that offers health insurance has negotiated that health insurance as part of the compensation package.

Why should it make a difference if I negotiate it myself or if I do it as part of a group of people?

[laughingliberal]

38. I suppose your question goes to the heart of why workers fought and died for the right to organize

back before either of us were born. We all, who work for a living, still enjoy many of the rights which were won by those who did so.

The law is anyone working without a contract is working 'at will.' You are subject to termination at any time for any reason. You are subject to salary reductions and changes in benefits at any time. Your only recourse if working 'at will' is you have the right to not work there if you disagree with those decisions. Union workers have a contract into which they entered with management. I don't think it is okay for them to have negotiated a contract for benefits in lieu of pay only to have a new tax of which they were not aware imposed while still under contract. In other words, would they have forgone the wages for their health care plan if they had known they would be taxed on the benefit? If they want to negotiate with them to waive the excise tax for the duration of their current contract, I would say that would be fair. Then, in their next contract negotiation they can work more towards increased wages.

We, who work for a living, and participate in covert union busting are cutting our own throats as surely as the working class right winger who keeps voting for Republicans.

I am not in favor of this excise tax on anyone and, regardless of this brief line on this website, the unions have not, yet, agreed to this compromise. They are still, as we speak, trying to mitigate this for all workers not just their own.

[Igel]

53. So you distinguish between contract vs non-contract.

That's not the distinction in the OP.

That distinction is collectively bargained versus not collectively bargained.

I know a lot of people who have contracts. They were offered the contract, it wasn't negotiated. Not at will, not bargained. They don't fit in. They lose.

I know others who have contracts, but part of the hiring process involved negotiating their contracts. But they negotiated them singly. Not at will, not collectively bargained, yet negotiated. They lose.

Even a lot of people without contracts have bargained as part of setting their pay/benefits. You go in, ask for a raise, and get it or not. Or the manager responds with a counter offer. You may not belong to a group that's politically connected or organized, there may not be a formal contract, but there's bargaining involved. They lose.

[laughingliberal]

64. The first thing I have to say is I think the story is bogus

I read late Tuesday night that union leaders had not accepted the offer and that they did not want to be singled out for special treatment. The article I read (which I believe I linked to elsewhere in this thread) had the union leaders stating they wanted to protect all middle class workers not just their own. That said, if the best they can do is get an exemption for the contracts in place, then I support them in doing so and I believe any working or middle class American who supports covert union busting is cutting the throat of the working class just as surely as those working class right wingers who keep voting for Republicans. If unions go down in this country we are going to find out why people fought and died for the right to organize. Even non-union workers have benefited from the gains the unions won for us such as 40 hour work weeks, days off, vacation time, etc...

As for those who have contract with employers and were in a position to get a contract, good for them. I'm assuming if they are in a position to have a contract they are in a position to go back and ask for some concessions in lieu of a change in the law. What we all need to be doing, instead of participating in this divide and conquer crap, is calling everyone to whom you have access and letting them know you oppose this excise tax and favor the House's tax on millionaires.

[auburnblu]

76. Was the negotiated contract with Congress?

Everyone keeps mentionung a negotiated contract.

[bain_sidhe]

3. As I just posted over at TPM

I'm not as opposed to this as some are, because I think it could lead to more unionization down the road. Regardless of the other merits/demerits of the total bill, an incentive to unionize isn't the worst thing that could happen.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. "We've got ours now...the rest of you can fuck off!"

Am I right?

[Craftsman]

6. That is how I am reading it.

[bluestateguy]

17. Well, yes

A union is like any other interest group: they represent their constituents, not their non-constituents. They seek to get the best deal for their paying members, not their non-paying, non-members. That may not be fair, but that's how politics works.

[Betsy Ross]

19. You are wrong.

The unions support single-payer healthcare. But that ain't gonna happen. So we are fighting for the best outcome for all workers. Union contract negotiations would be much simpler if healthcare was not part of the equation.

[joeglow3]

24. So, if we can't get single payer, then "We've got ours now...the rest of you can fuck off!"

nm

[FiveGoodMen]

27. "Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained health care plans"

Am I misreading that?

Looks like it says they'll stop their pressure to change the bill as long as collectively bargained plans are not taxed.

Surely that means that others' plans are still going to be taxed -- even more to make up the difference -- but the unions don't care because their problem is solved.

Maybe my characterization was harsh -- the unions' job is to look out for their own, after all -- but I don't see where it's inaccurate.

[Betsy Ross]

37. Again I will say

Unions do care about WORKERS. They take care of their own first, but that doesn't stop them from fighting for all workers. I am a union member and a delegate to our county labor council so I do know something about union actions in support of health care reform.

[joeglow3]

40. But, they do support taxing plans unrelated to unions.

A friend of mine was offered job with 2 different companies. One was for $5,000 less than the other, but the employer paid 100% of their healthcare costs. Thus, here you have an employer that is taking care of their employees on their own. I think we would all agree this is a great thing. Companies NOT doing the right thing is what lead to the need for unions. However, since they do the right thing without the need for unions, their employees get taxed.

Sorry, but it is a bullshit excuse for not giving a damn about workers unless they are representing them.

[FiveGoodMen]

47. Perhaps you're right. But the OP article doesn't support that notion.

[billyoc]

22. We've got ours, join a fucking Union and get yours too.

No, you are not right.

[joeglow3]

26. So, if I negotiate this on my own, I get taxed?

But, if a union negotiates on my behalf and gets it, I don't get taxed. Sorry, but most level-headed people will see right through that.

[ArcticFox]

35. You are wrong here

What about all the people who are the only employee in a company? What about professional employees and those that have to purchase their own health insurance?

Not everyone has the option of joining a union. I support unions and believe they're good for everybody, but this kind of stance would erode that support. I would start saying: you f'd me, f you too.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You know, I've always supported unions even though I don't belong to one.

You just eroded a bit of good will, to say the least.

[billyoc]

66. If Unions needed your support, they'd be worthless.

Fortunately, we don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Sure you don't.

That's why Boeing just moved a bunch of jobs to an at-will state, SC.

People like me supported state incentives for Boeing to keep those jobs here, where workers enjoyed union representation. Guess I won't have to care about that anymore.

[ipfilter]

74. Exactly.

If you want the benefits of a union then organize. Of course unions are going to do what they can to protect union interests...that the whole point of a union.

[Brickbat]

7. Don't mourn, organize!

You don't get something for nothing.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brickbat]

20. Didn't "get it".

Worked my ass off for it. Was harassed for it. Honored those who fought and died for it. Stood with those who were willing to lose family, house and life for it.

I don't know you and I don't know your history. If you've tried to organize and are having trouble I guess I'd like to hear about it.

[Illuminated]

28. Good for you..

Grew up poor, went to college on loans & scholarships, got my degree (Mechanical Engineering), got an MBA, worked my ass off, donate my time and money to charity. Start my own consultancy, so yes I own my own business. Dont get me started on having to pay BOTH ends of S/S. I dare say you as a senior union guy probably NET more than I do, but that's ok. So tell me, where is my union? I support universal health care and agree that it needs to be paid for. As far as fairness goes, you get an exclusion and I dont? If you support universal health care, step up. It's ok for you to help pay for it. Or will you not put your wallet where your heart is? Want someone else to pay for it?

It's a great idea - you pay for it, is what I hear.

[ArcticFox]

36. +1

From an attorney who worked his ass off and financed law school and has nothing left over at the end of the month after rent, student loans, food for the family, health care and insurance costs.

Can't we all agree that we're all hurting? Why does everyone have to stab each other in the back and climb on the corpses to reach for the unobtainable?

[RoccoR5955]

48. You can join a union... It's called the IWW.

at http://www.iww.org/ Dues are cheap, and and the union is open to ALL.

Don't gripe about it, join a union.

[Illuminated]

50. Can you not read.....

I own my own company. Who the hell am I going to negotiate with? Hello, Me, I have some demands. Sorry, Me, I cant meet them, need to pay for x. Well I, Me is going on strike. Great Me meet Myself at the bar then.

[RoccoR5955]

57. I can read, but you can still join up with IWW

It's one big union for EVERYONE.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. So you want to hold the gun of the IRS, enforcing Health Care premiums to the heads of non-union

workers, to swell the ranks of unions?

This will not backfire at all.

[RoccoR5955]

58. no, I just want EVERYONE to be in a union! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

63. But I don't want to be in a union.

My industry doesn't really have unions. I get a fair gig from my employer, without paying dues to any sort of protection racket that I do not need.

Some industries it makes perfect sense. Some, it's just a waste of money. This health care tax will now amount to punishment for having a good working relationship with my employer.

[RoccoR5955]

65. Well the IWW isn't your typical union. Here's why.

Here's the preamble to their constitution:
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

"We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

"These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

"Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

"It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

[AtheistCrusader]

67. My employers don't have 'all the good things in life'.

I have some too. If I were at 'war' with my employer, I wouldn't work here. I could subsist on much less, if I thought I was getting a raw deal.

I don't think 'a fair days wage for a fair day's work' is actually a 'conservative' motto.

[RoccoR5955]

72. But isn't the fair days' wage motto more conservative than

getting rid of the wage system altogether?

That being said, it is the entire capitalistic system that is to fault here. It breeds greed. If we were to eliminate the system where one had to work for a fair days' wage, and could get what they need, we could all be better off, because, with all the bounty in this country, nobody would have nothing.

Look at what it has done to Haiti. One major disaster, and those who have, still do, and those who do not, are without food and water.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. A lot of those that 'have' in Haiti 'have' a pile of rubble on top of them.

Even the UN representative, a wealthy dude, and a good chunk of his staff, also well-paid by haitian standards are dead.

For some strange reason, wealth doesn't seem to translate into better building standards in Haiti, likely caused by government corruption, and lack of enforcment of building codes.


I like the wage system. I expect to work for things I want. We have social safety nets (which could be improved significantly) to catch those that are unable to do so. I doubt you and I are going to see eye to eye on anything here, but to be clear, while I do like Capitalism, I also expect it to be well-regulated, and currently it is not. Bringing back glass-steagal, and breaking up some of the megabank corporations would be a start. What just happened simply wasn't possible in the 90's, before the Republicans removed key regulations, and neutered the SCC.

[RoccoR5955]

75. If you really think that capitalism works, check out this

video from Naomi Klein. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x423384
There are corporations who are using this crisis to make big bucks here. This is wrong, and is often the case.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I get paid for my work.

I work in an industry with no credible union. I get paid, and receive benefits as incentive to work for this company, instead of some other company.

I am now likely to suffer significant additional taxes, and erosion of a good benefits package that my employer offered on fair terms without the pressure of any organized labor.



If you think this is a good way to spread organized labor, you've got another thing coming.

[bluestateguy]

8. Then pass EFCA to make it easier to join a union

nt

[Craftsman]

9. Many dems won't do that, their business masters will not like it

[Oregone]

10. What percentage of "Cadillac" plans are union bargained plans?

From what I understand, a lot. Anyone have a number?

If its well above 2/3rds, then it sort of undermines the entire pro-argument for the excise tax in the first place (drive down cost/increase wages). If only a few people will actually feel the effects, then it wont have much of an industry impact. In other-words, its just another symbol (not that I was a fan of it in the first place).

If they are exempting most of the plans, to the point it undermines the purpose of the tax, what is the point of the tax anymore?

[Craftsman]

12. Not to mention this could be grounds for a legal challenge

based on equal protection under the law.

[laughingliberal]

21. I don't know. I think it's around 1/3. I know the unions have argued there are about 30 million

non-union workers who will be affected. I am not convinced they took this deal. Reports I heard last night had them against it.

[Craftsman]

25. I hope you are right, but if this tax passes I expect to see it a big issue in November

[laughingliberal]

29. Here's a story a little more fleshed out on the ongoing negotiations:

That said, the contours of a compromise are beginning to form. Negotiators are poised to raise the threshold of the tax, making it so that family plans valued at $25,000 (not $23,000) are now taxed. In exchange, a small tax would be placed on the wealthy to help fill in the funding hole created by raising the tax threshold. There is also talk of exempting all collectively bargained health care plans from the so-called Cadillac tax.

There is no word yet as to whether this would be acceptable for union leaders. White House officials, meanwhile, have refused to comment about ongoing negotiations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/union-leaders-head-back-t_n_422175.html

This is, I believe, a little more current on the state of negotiations.

[boppers]

62. 20-25%, in 2015, IIRC. (Lots of different numbers out there)

It's well below 2/3rds, the Unions weren't arguing against it out of general principle, they were arguing against it because some of their members could be affected.

Of course, if 20-25% of the money pool vanishes, that funding will likely have to be found elsewhere, probably by lowering the threshold.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Don't taxes and excises HAVE to be levied uniformly?

This is the first I've heard of this Union-HCR issue... admittedly not paying much attention to HCR anymore.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. If you care about the Constitution, yes.

No bill of attainder.
Equal Protection under the laws.

[Beavker]

13. And the purpose of the tax was to fund this thing was it not?

So there's a big chunk of $ gone.

[Craftsman]

14. Yepper

[laughingliberal]

16. I know they were offered that but reports I saw last night had them not enthusiastic about it

Perhaps that has changed but they were against it at that point saying they did not want to be singled out for special treatment and it was their intent to protect all middle class workers from being hit with the tax. It was reported that President Obama gave key negotiators 48 hours to get back to him with ideas for 'tweaking' the excise tax in high end plans. I suppose it's possible that, since then, they were told it was this or nothing but I'm not convinced they've made that deal in the 12 hours since I became aware of the story. This reports it as a deal done on Tuesday. We'll see but they were not enthusiastic about it at the time it was offered.

That said, if they fail to win further concessions on the excise tax, I have no problem with their contracts being honored. They've done nothing to invalidate them (you know, like tank the whole economy of the country) and they should not have to give up their contracts because our legislators continue to protect the ruling class from paying their fair share.

[laughingliberal]

23. If you think helping out the unions is a pisser (I don't) wait til you see this from the same site:

The Obama administration might seek a temporary extension of all current tax rates, including for the nation's wealthiest earners, beyond their scheduled Dec. 31 expiration, congressional and private-sector sources said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/wha_20100113_4104.php

[chimpymustgo]

31. Sheeeet.

[laughingliberal]

33. Uh huh. I don't even want to think there could be a shred of truth in that. nt

[madmom]

30. I said this before, but it's worth repeating...

how many things has the unions worked for out of "self interest" that then became the norm around the country? Can you say 40 hour work week, over time pay, sick leave, holidays, vacations, no child labor, and on and on and on and on and on.........

[laughingliberal]

44. Absolutely. We are soft and spoiled, now.

As bad as things are here right now (and they are bad), people have no idea what working conditions were like in this country before the labor wars. We must ask ourselves what it was about the right to organize at work that was so important that people were willing to die for it. People now can not imagine as none alive today ever had to work under those conditions. And now we see middle class workers (who would not even exist if not for unions) participate willingly in covert union busting. Do people really think it will never get like it was before unions formed? Time to wake up. The ruling class is trying to get us back there as fast as they can.

[ArcticFox]

32. Huge backlash indeed

Weren't the unions saying just the other day that they are fighting for ALL workers? Even the mighty unions can sell out, huh?

I am so sick of this divide and conquer strategy of the elites, and especially upset that not even large organizations of labor can see it for what it is and refuse to play along.

[bain_sidhe]

42. divide and conquer is right

It's the working class that's being divided and conquered, and I've got to wonder if this "offer" is designed to further that effort. Look at the spitefulness being directed at unions on this board - just on this thread, in fact - and ask yourself whether the "elites" are rubbing their hands together in glee at the sight of it.

[ArcticFox]

55. Exactly my thoughts

Except that the unions, if they have actually cut such a deal, are really inviting the spite.

All they need to do is say "no, we won't go along with that, and we won't be placated by your offer and stab everyone else in the back."

[high density]

43. Well when Bush bought votes at least the $300 checks went to everybody NM

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

It is also forbidden in every state constituition.

If it applies to a tax targeted at AIG execs, it applies to this, targeted at me for not being a member of a union.

[Illuminated]

46. +1

Exactly right!

[JVS]

49. Holy shit is this a good recruiting tool for unions.

Just think of what a certification election is going to look like when people know that voting yes means that there won't be a tax on their benefits, which will make them cheaper.

[ArcticFox]

56. This will end badly for the unions

Unions could generate massive public support standing up against such a tax. Instead, they'll sit back on their hands, keep their mouths shut, and let the insurance companies become bigger, and stronger, and richer.

Then, after a year, three years, ten years, whatever, of showing the unions as turncoats against the rest of us, they'll come around again and strike out at the unions. There will be no public support left for the unions. The public will watch with glee as they are wiped out once and for all.

Even if this really does turn into some mass recruiting tool for unions, I expect there'll be mass violence before anyone in power allows the unions to get stronger.

[golfguru]

52. and what about those of us not able to join unions? (85% of workers)

another back room deal where the ordinary hard working person is
left out.

[Tim01]

54. The unions are in bed with the insurance companies now. nt

[groundloop]

59. I see a lot of heated debate on this, but with only speculation on one important fact

So far I haven't seen any figures on how many people actually have "cadillac" health plans. If the threshold is $25 K (and I have to assume that means $25 K supplied by the employer and doesn't count employee contributions) I rather suspect this won't affect many non-union middle class wage earners. It feels like a lot of folks are getting worked up over ptentially not much. If someone can bring forth some facts, let's see them.

[daa]

69. You will find out real fast

since it ins't indexed, it will hit you by 2016.

[highplainsdem]

60. Politico has published an AFL-CIO spokesman's email denying that report.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/Unions_strike_tentative_deal_on_Cadillac_tax.html

*UPDATE: AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale e-mails to knock down the story: "It is not true that there any deals. With our national call-in day, and meetings with the White House and Congress, we continue to work hard to get a bill that is worthy of being called health care reform."

[fishwax]

61. it makes no sense to get mad at unions -- they didn't fight for this tax

:shrug:

Unions have a responsibility to fight for the best interests of their members. Anger about the tax should be directed at those responsible for letting it in the bill.

[Better Believe It]

70. If this turns out to be true this is really bad for both union and non-union workers

Why?

Because the labor movement should speak on behalf of and for all working people, not just those who happen to be paying union dues.

If the labor movement hopes to organized non-union workers by the millions it must defend and champion the rights and interests of all working people.

The anti-union corporate interests would certainly use such a deal in their anti-labor propaganda. They will tell unorganized workers: "See, the union bosses really don't care about you, they just care about their own members and collecting membership dues money from more workers".

If this proposal is accepted by union officials, that will encourage harmful divisions and conflicts between organized and non-union workers and that can only benefit the employers and harm working people.