Unions might have to pay more for healthcare (1 Viewer)

[ludin]

Unions, employers square off over ObamaCare costs in collective bargaining | Fox News

as it stands while some employers are willing to pay a part of the so called ACA increase they are not going to foot the entire bill.
this has lead to several union contracts to stall.

more so public union contract which shouldn't be up for neogiation anyway.

some unions have threatened strikes. as companies struggle to meet the additional costs of the so called affordable healthcare act
they are wanting unions to pay more of the cost while they try to stay competative with other companies.

strike another one up for the disaster of the ACA.

 

[1750Texan]

Unions, employers square off over ObamaCare costs in collective bargaining | Fox News

as it stands while some employers are willing to pay a part of the so called ACA increase they are not going to foot the entire bill.
this has lead to several union contracts to stall.

more so public union contract which shouldn't be up for neogiation anyway.

some unions have threatened strikes. as companies struggle to meet the additional costs of the so called affordable healthcare act
they are wanting unions to pay more of the cost while they try to stay competative with other companies.

strike another one up for the disaster of the ACA.

Have unions never had to negotiate health care costs with their employers prior to ACA?

 

[American]

I see a pattern here, the unions were for it (since they were exempt) before they were against it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Unions, employers square off over ObamaCare costs in collective bargaining | Fox News

as it stands while some employers are willing to pay a part of the so called ACA increase they are not going to foot the entire bill.
this has lead to several union contracts to stall.

more so public union contract which shouldn't be up for neogiation anyway.

some unions have threatened strikes. as companies struggle to meet the additional costs of the so called affordable healthcare act
they are wanting unions to pay more of the cost while they try to stay competative with other companies.

strike another one up for the disaster of the ACA.

There seems to be a contradiction here - since a public union's employer has no competition.

Unions always want more for their members, regardless of the issue involved. Every dollar in added fringe benefits is worth more than a dollar in added salary since it is non-taxable.

 

[ludin]

There seems to be a contradiction here - since a public union's employer has no competition.

Unions always want more for their members, regardless of the issue involved. Every dollar in added fringe benefits is worth more than a dollar in added salary since it is non-taxable.

It is more than just public unions. if you read the article airline unions, vegas unions and other unions are all having the same problem.
companies are refusing to foot the entire bill for the suppose affordable care act.

they are wanting union members to eat the costs. unions tried to neogiate out of it but it was stopped before they could do anything.

unions are furious at obama of this as they didn't think it would affect them.

 

[rocket88]

Unions, employers square off over ObamaCare costs in collective bargaining | Fox News

as it stands while some employers are willing to pay a part of the so called ACA increase they are not going to foot the entire bill.
this has lead to several union contracts to stall.

more so public union contract which shouldn't be up for neogiation anyway.

some unions have threatened strikes. as companies struggle to meet the additional costs of the so called affordable healthcare act
they are wanting unions to pay more of the cost while they try to stay competative with other companies.

strike another one up for the disaster of the ACA.

Health premiums going up happened before the ACA. Union employers often tried to work it into CBAs, and it has caused strikes before.

While you could say that the ACA has failed to fix that problem, saying that it caused the problem is disingenous.

 

[MaggieD]

It is more than just public unions. if you read the article airline unions, vegas unions and other unions are all having the same problem.
companies are refusing to foot the entire bill for the suppose affordable care act.

they are wanting union members to eat the costs. unions tried to neogiate out of it but it was stopped before they could do anything.

unions are furious at obama of this as they didn't think it would affect them.

I have shirt-tail family that's in the road building union in the Chicago area. When the ACA was first passed, he was furious -- taking the stance of his union -- that it was going to cost them money. You know...like the rest of the world. Six months later, he nudged me and said, "We're happy now...it's not going to effect us." Wink*Wink.

It ends up being just one more thing they will negotiate for. *shrug*

 

[justabubba]

wow. thanks for bringing this faux news story to our attention:
unions and employers will have to negotiate conditions of employment
who would have guessed

 

[CriticalThought]

This is really disingenuous. I can find plenty of reasons to hate the ACA without blaming it for the issues of rising costs that predated it.

 

[Gaius46]

I see a pattern here, the unions were for it (since they were exempt) before they were against it.

From an article in today's Wall Street Journal on this topic -

Jim Ray, a lawyer who represents the Laborers International Union of North America in benefits negotiations, said these provisions have increased construction-industry health plans' costs by 5% to 10%, and already resulted in lower wages for some laborers. He said employers are frequently seeking contract language to cap their own liability for future cost increases from the law.

"When we first supported the calls for health-care reform, we thought it was going to bring costs down," he said.

 

[Gaius46]

Health premiums going up happened before the ACA. Union employers often tried to work it into CBAs, and it has caused strikes before.

While you could say that the ACA has failed to fix that problem, saying that it caused the problem is disingenous.

Yes but these increases are tied specifically to ACA mandates and, as the quote in my previous post points out, some union people thought the ACA would lower their costs.

 

[American]

From an article in today's Wall Street Journal on this topic -

Imagine that. :doh

 

[year2late]

Have unions never had to negotiate health care costs with their employers prior to ACA?

THey have been negotiating costs for decades.

 

[faithful_servant]

Health premiums going up happened before the ACA. Union employers often tried to work it into CBAs, and it has caused strikes before.

While you could say that the ACA has failed to fix that problem, saying that it caused the problem is disingenous.

The difference is that healthcare premiums never jumped this much with so little benefit. It was also forced on the employers and employees without any choice given to them in the matter (other than moving to Indonesia).

 

[rocket88]

The difference is that healthcare premiums never jumped this much with so little benefit. It was also forced on the employers and employees without any choice given to them in the matter (other than moving to Indonesia).

Some of the costs may be a little different, but the idea of negotiating rising healthcare costs into a Union contract is nothing new.

It still remains to be seen if the ACA will reduce costs in the long run.

 

[year2late]

The difference is that healthcare premiums never jumped this much with so little benefit. It was also forced on the employers and employees without any choice given to them in the matter (other than moving to Indonesia).

So little benefit???

No pre-existing conditions.(HUGE)

No lifetime maximums .(HUGE)

Coverage of preventative care.

My young adult son has a pre-existing condition. This law is life changing. Getting him through the next 6 years is a massive plus. It means he will not have to rely on Medicaid during this time as well - a plus for him and taxpayers.

 

[jmotivator]

THey have been negotiating costs for decades.

This, and the arguments on the same line the precede it, are missing the point. Yes, unions and business will always negotiate costs. The issue here, and the reason why its a big deal, is the SIZE of the costs that both sides are insisting the other has to pay.

I think the grand compromise is to have them split the cost. the Union should only pay a percentage of the increase equal to the average percentage of their PAC money given to Democrats in the last 5 years. :mrgreen:

 

[justabubba]

This, and the arguments on the same line the precede it, are missing the point. Yes, unions and business will always negotiate costs. The issue here, and the reason why its a big deal, is the SIZE of the costs that both sides are insisting the other has to pay.

I think the grand compromise is to have them split the cost. the Union should only pay a percentage of the increase equal to the average percentage of their PAC money given to Democrats in the last 5 years. :mrgreen:

why not just negotiate it as they have in the past? what is so unique about this issue?

 

[jmotivator]

why not just negotiate it as they have in the past? what is so unique about this issue?

My guess is the dollar figure. It appears to be more than either can stomach.

From the article:

"One pressure point is the higher costs of new mandates, especially the requirement that health plans expand coverage for dependents. For Unite Here, adding that coverage for 14,000 dependents raised costs in the health-care fund run by the union's Las Vegas local by $26 million since 2011, said union spokeswoman Bethany Khan."

 

[ludin]

The difference is that healthcare premiums never jumped this much with so little benefit. It was also forced on the employers and employees without any choice given to them in the matter (other than moving to Indonesia).

Pretty much it. the costs have jumped more than normal and unions are wanting companies to pay the full costs and companies are telling them no.
now the unions are getting backlash froma bill that they supported, but now they don't support since it is going to cost them money.

funny how that works. as long as someone else was paying for it they were ok with it. now that they are on the hook for it they are against it.

 

[justabubba]

My guess is the dollar figure. It appears to be more than either can stomach.

nothing novel here
when has one side ever admitted that they can actually afford to eat the costs that are under negotiation

From the article:

"One pressure point is the higher costs of new mandates, especially the requirement that health plans expand coverage for dependents. For Unite Here, adding that coverage for 14,000 dependents raised costs in the health-care fund run by the union's Las Vegas local by $26 million since 2011, said union spokeswoman Bethany Khan."

amd what is that excerpt supposed to tell us?

 

[jmotivator]

nothing novel here
when has one side ever admitted that they can actually afford to eat the costs that are under negotiation

amd what is that excerpt supposed to tell us?

It tells us that Obamacare has thrown a significant wrinkle into contract negotiations making it harder to reach agreement. There is no doubt that if this $26 million weren't sitting out there that the negotiations would go more smoothly.

This is also different from other negotiations because Obamacare robs both sides of wiggle room in the negotiation because the costs are all mandatory.

 

[justabubba]

It tells us that Obamacare has thrown a significant wrinkle into contract negotiations making it harder to reach agreement. There is no doubt that if this $26 million weren't sitting out there that the negotiations would go more smoothly.

$26 million since 2011 covering how many insureds over that span?
is the increase totally attributable to Obamacare provisions? if so, show us what they are. if not, they can be attributed to price spikes which have been happening for decades

This is also different from other negotiations because Obamacare robs both sides of wiggle room in the negotiation because the costs are all mandatory.

you have not shown Obamacare is responsible for the increases
thus you cannot hold Obamacare responsible for the need to negotiate the assignment of costs to each party

let me add that your post illustrates an ignorance of labor-management negotiations. either party could move to seek elimination of healthcare coverage. that would save all parties money. of course, then they would have to make their own provisions to cover any health care costs. i would believe it would be in the interest of the employer to have healthy employees. but maybe you disagree

 

[jmotivator]

$26 million since 2011 covering how many insureds over that span?
is the increase totally attributable to Obamacare provisions? if so, show us what they are. if not, they can be attributed to price spikes which have been happening for decades

It's right there in the quote, JAB. The $26 million is just for the provision of providing insurance to 14,000 dependents through age 26. As the Union rep said in the quote, that is just one of the increased costs from Obamacare.

you have not shown Obamacare is responsible for the increases
thus you cannot hold Obamacare responsible for the need to negotiate the assignment of costs to each party

Come on man, it's right there in the original article and I did you the favor of cutting and pasting a specific example from the article that answers all of your questions. Maybe I threw you by highlighting the answer to your first question so you didn't read the whole quote? Here it is again with the other pertinent data highlighted:

"One pressure point is the higher costs of new mandates, especially the requirement that health plans expand coverage for dependents. For Unite Here, adding that coverage for 14,000 dependents raised costs in the health-care fund run by the union's Las Vegas local by $26 million since 2011, said union spokeswoman Bethany Khan."

let me add that your post illustrates an ignorance of labor-management negotiations. either party could move to seek elimination of healthcare coverage.

That an is absurdly false statement, JAB. If the contract is to extend beyond 12 months then the employer mandate will kick in where the employer is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide coverage or pay a penalty. So the Unions and the Company are REQUIRED BY LAW to negotiate any long term contract as if health insurance if mandatory by the employer because, at some point, that will be the case.

that would save all parties money.

So, your solution is for the Union and Employer to break the law? You want to pay their legal fees?

of course, then they would have to make their own provisions to cover any health care costs. i would believe it would be in the interest of the employer to have healthy employees. but maybe you disagree

I have to hand it to you, I have never seen anyone beat up their own Straw man with a circular argument.. I bet the straw man never saw it coming!

 

[justabubba]

It's right there in the quote, JAB. The $26 million is just for the provision of providing insurance to 14,000 dependents through age 26. As the Union rep said in the quote, that is just one of the increased costs from Obamacare.

also says the plan covers 120,000 people, 55,000 employees ad that spikes range from 5% to 12.5%
but this article is substantially without any definite numbers to compare and contrast
being a union official, even i would not accept the presentation of the union official who insists $26 million is the cost of additional coverage for the 14,000 young adults since 2011 (less than $500 per year, but i would still want to see the underlying data ... from management or labor)

Come on man, it's right there in the original article and I did you the favor of cutting and pasting a specific example from the article that answers all of your questions. Maybe I threw you by highlighting the answer to your first question so you didn't read the whole quote? Here it is again with the other pertinent data highlighted:

"One pressure point is the higher costs of new mandates, especially the requirement that health plans expand coverage for dependents. For Unite Here, adding that coverage for 14,000 dependents raised costs in the health-care fund run by the union's Las Vegas local by $26 million since 2011, said union spokeswoman Bethany Khan."

if her data is correct, is <$500 per year found an excessive premium for each added insured? don't know unless we know what the plan covers and what comparable insurers would charge

That an is absurdly false statement, JAB. If the contract is to extend beyond 12 months then the employer mandate will kick in where the employer is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide coverage or pay a penalty. So the Unions and the Company are REQUIRED BY LAW to negotiate any long term contract as if health insurance if mandatory by the employer because, at some point, that will be the case.

are you trying to insist the employer and union could not agree to eliminate coverage and provide each employee an amount to fund individual plans, allowing each to secure coverage which works best for them
they could explore co-op plans, as provided for under Obamacare

So, your solution is for the Union and Employer to break the law? You want to pay their legal fees?

as a long time union official, i would want to do what was best for my membership. you know, negotiate. the very thing this thread whines about

I have to hand it to you, I have never seen anyone beat up their own Straw man with a circular argument.. I bet the straw man never saw it coming!

wish i could hand it back to you, but don't have any idea what you are posting about. your failure to explain it must also be my problem