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.
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.
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.
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 see a pattern here, the unions were for it (since they were exempt) before they were against it.
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.
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.
From an article in today's Wall Street Journal on this topic -
Have unions never had to negotiate health care costs with their employers prior to 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.
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).
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).
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:
why not just negotiate it as they have in the past? what is so unique about this issue?
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).
nothing novel hereMy guess is the dollar figure. It appears to be more than either can stomach.
amd what is that excerpt supposed to tell us?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."
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?
$26 million since 2011 covering how many insureds over that span?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.
you have not shown Obamacare is responsible for the increasesThis is also different from other negotiations because Obamacare robs both sides of wiggle room in the negotiation because the costs are all mandatory.
$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
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
also says the plan covers 120,000 people, 55,000 employees ad that spikes range from 5% to 12.5%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.
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 chargeCome 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."
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 themThat 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.
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 aboutSo, your solution is for the Union and Employer to break the law? You want to pay their legal fees?
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 problemI 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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?