So you have experience lying as a union rep so you expect the same from other Union reps?
no. but i do have a quarter century of experience seeing union and management reps posture before and during negotiations
2014 isn't even half over. The to-date cost wouldn't be 4 years.
so, you don't think premiums need to be paid in 2014? my math included 2014, explaining how i arrived at my premium increase per added insured
So what you are arguing is that Obamacare isn't raising the costs of health care, it's just lowering coverage for the same cost? Hah, yeah, take that to the people you represent.
you were the one who established the position that it did not matter what was included in the plan under negotiation. here are your words:
Second, what difference does it make what is covered by the insurance?
So you argue that union reps have researched the data to make a convincing argument... after saying that the Union reps argument isn't believable.
what the rep says publicly and what the rep knows may very well be two different things. you seem not to realize that puffing is often a part of labor-management negotiations
It's looking more and more like you simply don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your argument.
it's that i obviously have a lot more experience and expertise in this kind of environment than you and recognize that everything one of the parties says is not necessarily accurate. it's contract negotiations. an arena unsafe for naifs
Hah, you changed what you said. You are now arguing that Obamacare isn't a problem because the Unions and employers may be able to lower coverage? Again, I'm guessing this wasn't the goal of Obamacare. :roll:
duh! the contract negotiation is NOT about the intent of Obamacare
So? The trouble that you keep trying to dodge is that the Obamacare costs are something NEITHER SIDE WANTS TO PAY. It's a burden on both Union and Employer.
not dodging anything. explaining for you the realities of labor-management contract negotiations
neither side wants to absorb costs, but they negotiate something which is fair and reasonable to both parties or they impasse and allow an objective third party to split the baby
Your argument that they can reduce cost by, what, cutting dental? It's absurd.
that argument was never made. but the possibility may exist that it would be agreeable for both sides that the bargaining unit employees choose their own health coverage policy, one that works for each of them, and the employer benefits from a happier/healthier work force, and possibly saves money, too. but then maybe not as i cannot say with the very limited information available to us
Possibly. You are talking out of your ass. Any "change" that is made to offset the costs is, in reality, a reduction in coverage for the employee.
not necessarily. you jump to wrong conclusions much too readily
maybe the change is beneficial to the employee, where the coverage excludes the health care bells and whistles the employee expects never to require
if the parties agree on such an alternative then it could be a win-win for all the parties. the ideal negotiated result
The information is sufficient.
if it is then tell me who the carrier is presently and what the cost is per insured bargaining unit employee
tell me what the plan covers
what the copay is
then tell me what is comparable coverage and fee amounts offered by other prospective carriers
if you can do that, then i will agree with you that the presently available information is sufficient
In this negotiation the Union has had to pay an additional $26 million since the beginning of Obamacare mandates.
notice this has already been discussed. you cannot tell us what years that $26 million covered. you cannot tell us that this information is accurate since it was provided orally by a biased party to the contract negotiations, the union rep
again, you leap to conclusions that are not credible
That can't be reduced because the cost is incurred from a mandate. The only "cost reduction" is actually cutting benefits no matter how you look at it.
you do not understand impact and implementation. while the union cannot oppose a change in the law, such as one which extends insurance coverage to an insured's children thru age 25, the union has the ability (fiduciary responsibility, actually) to negotiate how those changes in conditions of employment will be dealt with
Hey, welcome to the argument, JAB! Boy howdy that took you long enough!
crazy talk there. you have focused your attention on the things you dislike about Obamacare while i have been addressing the tread topic: "Unions might have to pay more for healthcare"
The problem is that the Obamacare mandates throw non-negotiable costs into the negotiation that can only be mitigated by lost revenue or lost benefits.
those costs can be assigned to each of the parties, in whole or in part, via negotiations. this is not so different than negotiating any other aspect of terms and conditions of employment. hopefully, you can finally understand that reality
