Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

 

I detect a little cynicism.

 

 

[Balta1701]

There are starting to be reports of a deal on the high-cost-plan tax, which the Unions hated because they had high-cost plans. Basically, the tax stays pretty much in tact with a small tweak, which is nice because it keeps the cost control effect, but to satisfy the unions, the health insurance exchanges, which were going to be much more limited in membership, will be much more open, allowing for more competition between plans and giving many more companies the ability to choose plans competitively. At least until Lieberman realizes this will cost insurers money, this will make the bill significantly better than it was yesterday.

[mr_genius]

:lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting

[EvilMonkey]

Nothing like exempting unions from paying thier fair share when they try and tax 'Cadilac' plans. WHy don't they just come out and change it to 'all Democrats are exempt from paying anything more for the first five years'.

http://tinyurl.com/ygmg24h

 

[Balta1701]

Nothing like exempting unions from paying thier fair share when they try and tax 'Cadilac' plans. WHy don't they just come out and change it to 'all Democrats are exempt from paying anything more for the first five years'.

http://tinyurl.com/ygmg24h

There's actually quite a logical reason for giving the unions a couple years exemption; because union contracts tend to last multiple years, you're giving the unions and the businesses a chance to take that into account in their next set of contract negotiations. That's the whole idea of the tax anyway; it's to make it less profitable for companies to sell high-cost plans that keep pushing HC costs higher.

 

What's kind of impressive is that the Dems are still keeping a tax that hits a large number of unions because it is good policy, even if its terrible politics.

[southsider2k5]

Nothing like exempting unions from paying thier fair share when they try and tax 'Cadilac' plans. WHy don't they just come out and change it to 'all Democrats are exempt from paying anything more for the first five years'.

http://tinyurl.com/ygmg24h

 

I'm still waiting for the automotive tax to recoup the losses from the irresponsible auto companies bailout losses...

[EvilMonkey]

There's actually quite a logical reason for giving the unions a couple years exemption; because union contracts tend to last multiple years, you're giving the unions and the businesses a chance to take that into account in their next set of contract negotiations. That's the whole idea of the tax anyway; it's to make it less profitable for companies to sell high-cost plans that keep pushing HC costs higher.

 

What's kind of impressive is that the Dems are still keeping a tax that hits a large number of unions because it is good policy, even if its terrible politics.

Then perhaps you start the tax in say 5 yearas time for EVERYBODY. It also applies to contracts negiated before it starts, so might as well just say hey, join a union now, save money on your taxes for next 5 years! It's a farce.

[Rex Kickass]

Then perhaps you start the tax in say 5 yearas time for EVERYBODY. It also applies to contracts negiated before it starts, so might as well just say hey, join a union now, save money on your taxes for next 5 years! It's a farce.

 

If that was the case, I fail to see the harm in offering more people a chance to have a seat at the table when it comes to their employment.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm still waiting for the automotive tax to recoup the losses from the irresponsible auto companies bailout losses...

You know exactly why that isn't happening - the auto companies aren't making billions in profits. Deep pockets, and further more, protecting the auto industry means protecting jobs. Most of the large financials are making money and not laying anyone off now, so its safe to raid them for the money. If GM suddenly was making big bucks this year, they'd be in the discussion too.

 

[southsider2k5]

You know exactly why that isn't happening - the auto companies aren't making billions in profits. Deep pockets, and further more, protecting the auto industry means protecting jobs. Most of the large financials are making money and not laying anyone off now, so its safe to raid them for the money. If GM suddenly was making big bucks this year, they'd be in the discussion too.

 

Please. There is a reason that isn't happening, and it has nothing to do with that. Its the same reason they seem to be exempt from all of the "too big to fail" crap. No one is talking about breaking up the auto companies either.

[NorthSideSox72]

Please. There is a reason that isn't happening, and it has nothing to do with that. Its the same reason they seem to be exempt from all of the "too big to fail" crap. No one is talking about breaking up the auto companies either.

Ah yes, the union conspiracy. You guys make them out to be much bigger boogie men than could possibly be realstic.

 

Its simple, and it actually makes sense, as I noted before. Now is not the time to hammer the car companies in that particular way. Although, if Chrysler starts listing off course again, I'd be all for dismantliing them, in order to protect Ford and GM.

 

[bmags]

if the unions had so much power they would have been able to get card check at least to a vote with a huge democratic congress.

[southsider2k5]

if the unions had so much power they would have been able to get card check at least to a vote with a huge democratic congress.

 

Because if they aren't guilty they have nothing to hide?

[NorthSideSox72]

if the unions had so much power they would have been able to get card check at least to a vote with a huge democratic congress.

 

 

Because if they aren't guilty they have nothing to hide?

 

SS, what does your response even have to do with bmags' post? I'm at a loss here.

 

[EvilMonkey]

if the unions had so much power they would have been able to get card check at least to a vote with a huge democratic congress.

Card check was exposed to the public for what it was, a blatent power grab and attempt to be able to use intimidation to increase union rolls, and it failed because many of the congresscritters couldn't stand the heat.

[Balta1701]

Card check was exposed to the public for what it was, a blatent power grab and attempt to be able to use intimidation to increase union rolls, and it failed because many of the congresscritters couldn't stand the heat.

 

Exposed? for what it was?

 

And it wasn't simply that business has better lobbyists and is much, much, much better at buying off congress?

 

Couldn't be that could it. We all know the Unions secretly run everything.

[EvilMonkey]

 

Exposed? for what it was?

 

And it wasn't simply that business has better lobbyists and is much, much, much better at buying off congress?

 

Couldn't be that could it. We all know the Unions secretly run everything.

Sure, those helped. But the whole card check idea is crap, and people know it.

[Balta1701]

Sure, those helped. But the whole card check idea is crap, and people know it.

I think that the 0.1% of people who'd be hurt by it believe its crap, the 5% of this country who have tried to unionize and who have been screwed over by having all the laws against them would love it, probably about 5% of activists on each side either love it or hate it, and 84.9% of the country think it has something to do with new credit card laws if they've heard of it at all.

[Rex Kickass]

Sure, those helped. But the whole card check idea is crap, and people know it.

 

Actually, no it isn't. I would wager the amount of pressure organized labor place would place on individual workers to sign cards of intent to be represented by a union pales in comparison to the intimidation that big business uses to prevent unions to organize in their place of business to begin with.

[Balta1701]

Actually, no it isn't. I would wager the amount of pressure organized labor place would place on individual workers to sign cards of intent to be represented by a union pales in comparison to the intimidation that big business uses to prevent unions to organize in their place of business to begin with.

But that's ok, because business is good and labor is evil.

[southsider2k5]

Card check was exposed to the public for what it was, a blatent power grab and attempt to be able to use intimidation to increase union rolls, and it failed because many of the congresscritters couldn't stand the heat.

 

Because we all know there is no history of organized violence and intimidation by unions to try to get what they want...

[Balta1701]

Because we all know there is no history of organized violence and intimidation by unions to try to get what they want...

And there's never been violence or intimidation to keep workers and unions under control.

[southsider2k5]

And there's never been violence or intimidation to keep workers and unions under control.

 

Going out and literally giving a mark to people who refuse to join unions is only going to put a bullseye on them for the organized violence that we have been seeing all over the country at any event that is perceived as anti-union. Instead of giving general targets, you are going to be providing these groups with specific names. I guess from your point of view that is just evening the playing field or something.

[Balta1701]

Going out and literally giving a mark to people who refuse to join unions is only going to put a bullseye on them for the organized violence that we have been seeing all over the country at any event that is perceived as anti-union. Instead of giving general targets, you are going to be providing these groups with specific names. I guess from your point of view that is just evening the playing field or something.

There have been illegal and unprosecuted firings in 30% of attempted unionizations over the past few years. Over 90% of employees go through closed-door anti-union sessions during attempted unionization movements. 50% of companies/offices face threats of closure because of union organizing. Unionization processes typically are drawn out for years even when union organizers do everything correct and legal. Penalties have been stripped back so far that they're less than a slap on teh wrist. According to a Human Rights Watch report:

"US labor law currently permits a wide range of employer conduct that interferes with worker organizing. Enforcement delays are endemic, regularly denying aggrieved workers their right to an 'effective remedy.' Sanctions for illegal conduct are too feeble to adequately discourage employer law breaking, breaching the international law requirement that penalties be 'sufficiently dissuasive' to deter violations."

I'd be more than willing to admit that a card-check plan could be the wrong way to go. But the playing field ABSOLUTELY needs some leveling in favor of workers and to say it isn't is simply to ignore reality. The last 30 years it's gone the other way, and it's gone quite a bit too far.

[Rex Kickass]

There have been illegal and unprosecuted firings in 30% of attempted unionizations over the past few years. Over 90% of employees go through closed-door anti-union sessions during attempted unionization movements. 50% of companies/offices face threats of closure because of union organizing. Unionization processes typically are drawn out for years even when union organizers do everything correct and legal. Penalties have been stripped back so far that they're less than a slap on teh wrist. According to a Human Rights Watch report:

I'd be more than willing to admit that a card-check plan could be the wrong way to go. But the playing field ABSOLUTELY needs some leveling in favor of workers and to say it isn't is simply to ignore reality. The last 30 years it's gone the other way, and it's gone quite a bit too far.

 

+1.

 

The idea of physical intimidation by the unions on a worker to worker level is seriously overblown.