Union: _Obamacare will slash wages by up to $5 an hour

Now we have yet another union saying Obama.Care is going to cost workers money by way of wage cuts (less raises etc) and hours cuts.

They are saying that Obama.Care is going to have "unintended" inequalities.

We already have workers getting cut to part time thus forcing them by law to buy insurance from their own pockets.

We already have delays that cause workers to buy on their own.

Maybe Obama and the Obama.Care designers knew this and it's part of the grand plan afterall ?

Obama.Care had the full support of all unions when it was "sold" to the public in 2009.

Perhaps the union higher level officials are in on the plot to destabilize the middle class ?

A national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix.

Unite Here warned that due to Obamacare's much higher costs for health insurance than what union workers currently pay, the result will be a pay cut of up to $5 an hour. "If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage," said the union in a new report.

Union: Obamacare will slash wages by up to $5 an hour


about Unite Here;

UNITE HERE represents workers throughout the U.S. and Canada who work in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, and airport industries.

UNITE HERE boasts a diverse membership, comprising workers from many immigrant communities as well as high percentages of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American workers. The majority of UNITE HERE members are women.

Through organizing, UNITE HERE members have made apparel jobs in the South, hotel housekeeping jobs in cities across North America, and hundreds of thousands of other traditionally low-wage jobs into good, family-sustaining, middle class jobs.

"United Here"

reply to post by xuenchen


Back in 2009 when Obama was talking this ACA crap, just about everyone on ATS knew it was going to cost more, kill jobs and reduce marginally paid workers to ridiculous lows. Four years later and some dolt at a union had a light bulb turn on where their brain is supposed to be and this becomes news LOL? It may have been prediction back on ATS in 2009, but it seems it has turned into fact. Great work ATS'ers! And I really mean that because I was one of them saying the ACA would screw the pooch.

Now, if we could all just get together and buy all the winning lottery tickets ;-)

Cheers - Dave

Most union jobs already have benefits. I can't believe this will make a difference with Union wages. I have worked in four union jobs in my life and they all had health insurance already after the qualifying period was met, usually three to six months. Maybe the base pay till that point is what they are talking about, the new guy may get a little less. It shouldn't effect the long term workers at all though, ones that have already met the qualifying time.

Maybe part time workers will also get less pay if they didn't get insurance before that.

obama care is designed to wreck the country and get everyone under the jack booted thumb
wait till the tax people start going after the premioum money and the fines start
and the jobs go away even more

reply to post by xuenchen


The very progressive fools who supported this will pay the biggest price.....Gotta love irony.



If you call yourself a progressive and support this crap it is time to wake up. They flat out used you like a doormat. When you see lower wages or your hours being cut this is the cause. It is time to grow up and become conservative minded. Being liberal is for the young and foolish. The path to ruin......It really is. How many die hard progressives do you know that are well off?

Nobody bothered reading the report did they?

The report is about Taft-Hartley Health Insurance Plans, which are self funded, not being allowed on the exchanges.

From the Conclusion of the report.....

Having already made efforts to accommodate businesses, churches and congressional staff, it is ironic that the Administration is now highlighting issues of economic inequality without acting to preserve health plans that have been achieving the goals of the ACA for decades. Without a smart fix, the ACA will heighten the inequality that the Administration seeks to reduce.

More info on Taft-Hartley Insurance Plans....

One way private sector unionized employees can get health and other benefits is through a Taft-Hartley Multi-employer Health and Welfare Plan. Taft-Hartley Plans can be formed by a single employer, but this is unusual. Multi-Employer funds are almost always set up under Section 302(c)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act, more formally known as the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, which covers private sector employees. Taft-Hartley plans have five basic characteristics:

• one or more employers contribute to the plan;
  
• the plan is collectively bargained with each participating employer;
  
• the plan and its assets are managed by a joint board of trustees equally representative of labor and management;
  
• assets are placed in a trust fund;
  
• mobile employees can change employers without losing health or pension coverage provided the new job is with an employer who participates in the same Taft-Hartley fund.
  

They want to be able to offer these plans on the exchanges.

With no Public Option this seems like a good idea.

BritofTexas
Nobody bothered reading the report did they?

The report is about Taft-Hartley Health Insurance Plans, which are self funded, not being allowed on the exchanges.

I read the report. I just wasn't in the mood to "bother" myself in yet another futile attempt at enlightening those who really don't want to be enlightened.

But then again, it's good to see that someone still feels inclined to put the "truth" out there and for that, I thank you.

I served as a "labor trustee" on the board of a Taft-Hartley, multi-employer trust fund for over ten years prior to my retirement in 2005 and the explanation you provided is "spot on." Furthermore, in the absence of a "public option," they are IMO the best benefit plans out there.

The board of trustees that I served on had 4 separate benefit funds under our management and were the result of collective bargaining agreements between our union and as many as 12 separate employers. Under Taft-Hartley and ERISA, our plans were not even allowed to co-mingle funds, much less loan or borrow funds from one fund to another. (Can't say that for Social Security or Medicare)

When I retired, we had over $500 million in assets and all the trust funds under our control were actuarially "fully funded," 30 yrs. into the future. (Can't say that for S.S. & Medicare either)

reply to post by Flatfish


I must confess that until this thread I hadn't heard of Taft-Harvey Plans.

The Public Option never got off the starting blocks due to campaign funds from the Insurance Lobby. It would seem that these Plans aren't allowed on the Exchanges for the same reason.

Being able to join a well managed Non Profit Plan would be a no-brainer. And of course a Death Knell for Corporate For Profit Insurance Companies.

Congratulations on your work with one of these Plans and proving that a board does not have to be paid millions and ride in private jets to provide Insurance Coverage for its members.

It says this in the article.

And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.

This is BS where in the ACA does it make unions drop their insurance? Sounds like the insurance companies have made a few payoffs.

reply to post by rickymouse


The price of healthcare changes annually after the contract is up. A new contract is negotiated base on the market. It doesn't remain the same for the rest of history. What if the market tanked or have massive inflation?

buster2010
It says this in the article.

And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.

This is BS where in the ACA does it make unions drop their insurance? Sounds like the insurance companies have made a few payoffs.

My wife just retired. When she was working, the health insurance was close to half of her gross pay. It's been that way for about ten years, way before obamacare. 30 grand wages vs 14 grand insurance approximately, including the out of pocket expenses she incurs each year. The health/dental/eyeglass insurance is about 13,500 bucks.

That figure is absurd. No wonder nobody working there was getting much wage increases over the last ten years.

BritofTexas
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I must confess that until this thread I hadn't heard of Taft-Harvey Plans.

The Public Option never got off the starting blocks due to campaign funds from the Insurance Lobby. It would seem that these Plans aren't allowed on the Exchanges for the same reason.

Being able to join a well managed Non Profit Plan would be a no-brainer. And of course a Death Knell for Corporate For Profit Insurance Companies.

Congratulations on your work with one of these Plans and proving that a board does not have to be paid millions and ride in private jets to provide Insurance Coverage for its members.

Yeah and trying to explain this to right-wing union bashers is akin to beating your head against a concrete wall.

As a trustee, I was paid only for the days that I actually attended Board meetings, (usually once a month) and/or other plan functions at which my attendance was "required." Things like annual educational conferences where I was required to attend 5 days of educational classes covering topics from investment management updates to recent legislation and/or legal decisions regarding benefit trust funds.

Even on those occasions, any trustees who were being paid by another entity on those days could not be compensated by the "funds." In other words, if you were a "full time" or "salaried" employee of another entity, (whether it be a union or private company) and you were already being paid for the day in question, you could not be remunerated by the trust funds.

Furthermore, While my funds did pay for my transportation to and from these meetings and/or educational conferences, if I chose to fly they would only pay for coach tickets. To this day I've never ridden in a private jet, much less one that came at the expense of anyone's benefit trust funds.

For the record, I always drove my own vehicle, (6 hrs. round trip) to the monthly board meetings, for which I was compensated for mileage at the current rate established annually by the IRS. (I was not paid for time spent driving.) I was however, paid 8hrs. at the prevailing union rate for my attendance at the meeting.

While I was indeed an elected union official, I performed those official duties on a volunteer basis choosing instead to earn my living loading and unloading ships right alongside the same people I represented. I only got paid when I worked, just like everybody else and the fact that I wasn't being paid when I was away attending trust fund functions allowed for my remuneration by the funds.

By and large, most of the trustees of my trust funds were not paid by the funds for their services, because they were already being paid by someone else.

Our trust funds were registered "Not-For-Profit" entities where all contributions and investment earnings can "ONLY" be utilized to provide benefits to the beneficiaries of the trust and to pay for the cost of administering the funds. No other expenditures are allowed, period.

When it comes to things like retirement and/or healthcare, if you take the profit and greed out of the picture, the "benefits" are amazing!

rickymouse

My wife just retired. When she was working, the health insurance was close to half of her gross pay. It's been that way for about ten years, way before obamacare. 30 grand wages vs 14 grand insurance approximately, including the out of pocket expenses she incurs each year. The health/dental/eyeglass insurance is about 13,500 bucks.

That figure is absurd. No wonder nobody working there was getting much wage increases over the last ten years.

You're absolutely right, it is absurd. The rate at which healthcare cost were rising was eating up any hope of being able to both, maintain current level of healthcare coverages AND secure a pay raise. Instead, the best one could hope for was to just maintain what you already had and this is precisely why something has to give.

This is why healthcare reform is not only necessary, it's imperative! The enactment of the ACA is just the beginning. Now we have to make the decision to take the profit out of healthcare "insurance" coverage altogether and IMO, a single-payer, not-for-profit, public option is the only way to go.

reply to post by Flatfish


I think socialized medicine is the best thing. Take the profit out of medicine and pharmaceuticals. The doctors and people researching medicine and drugs can still be getting a decent pay, but the way it is nowadays is wrong. Medicines shouldn't be expensive, patents should not be allowed, the governments of the world should work together and help the people. People complain that this socialized health care will cost twenty five percent tax...not realizing that most people would save money by this and it would create a lot of lower middle class jobs for research and healthcare. The ones loosing out are the rich who profit more than acceptably from this. No doctor would need insurance either. Take the profit out of these big businesses and we will do better. Make education for doctors part of the deal so they can learn about the real medicines.

We are dealing with the staff of Hermes here, the staff of commerce. It is not the staff of medicine, Hermes was a sort of trickster. Medicine should not be for profit. I do think that a person who goes to college for six to eight years does deserve respect and also a little more than someone who works as a salesman though.

this is BS....."up to 5 dollars an hour cut in wages, to pay for healthcare"?????.....that's 200 dollars a week, 800 dollars a month, for a minimum wage worker getting minimum federal wage of 7.25 an hour.....hello?....where is this in the ACA?...the numbers are so exaggerated on the surface, that it defies believability....

Seriously, people need to stop blaming Obama. Yes, it is his fault in so much as he was just the president that got this past.

The ACA was written by insurance companies and their lobbyists, you need to come back to Kansas Dorthy if you thought that the ACA was written and signed into law for our benefit because it wasn't.

The insurance companies needed a way to absorb the skyrocketing medical costs and they are using the tax payer. President Obama just used it as a political tool, that's why he delayed it for another two years. That way, the democrats don't get creamed by the mid term elections.

It's all politics. There is no middle ground or common good. Besides, how long are you willing to believe someone or an institution when they blatantly lies to your face?