WA State: 98% of UFCW Union Vote to Strike Because of Obamacare

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
WA State: 98% of UFCW Union Vote to Strike Because of Obamacare

Oh Oh !!!

Looks like that goofy 30-hours is full time declaration from PPACA is starting to hold hostages !!

The ObamaCare law says 30 hours is considered full time.

btw, I think Karl Marx said something about a 6-hour work day being 'sufficient' ?

Hmmm.

I always wondered where that 30 hour cut off idea came from.

I wonder if the High Echelons that supported ObamaCare are angry or happy these days ?

I suppose it depends on what their *Real* agenda is.



The Washington State United Food and Commercial Workers Union has voted to authorize a strike because of Obamacare regulations. Approximately 30,000 workers could walk picket lines as early as next week and the vote to strike was approved by 98% of the membership.

One of the new proposals in the current contract negotiations is to provide health insurance only to those employees working a 30+ hour work week. "As with all employers, the Affordable Care Act will impact how we deliver health benefits to our employees," said Allied chief negotiator Scott Powers. The previous contract provided healthcare for workers with 16+ hour work weeks.

Union officials say the President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act is being used as a convenient excuse to cut benefits."The reason why the employers are doing this is it's a big money grab," said Tom Geiger of UFCW Local 21.

This could be the beginning of strikes around the country as the consequences of Obamacare become apparent.




WA State: 98% of UFCW Union Vote to Strike Because of Obamacare





posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


One saying comes to mind................

"Eat Crow"????

Guess it sucks when you learn you were used doesn't it???

Join the Club Unions? Life sucks for all of us now!



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
From Breitbarts own source, (why haven't you learned yet?) (FOX none the less):


Under the most recent contract, workers got health care insurance if they put in a minimum of 16 hours per week.

Union officials say the President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act is being used as a convenient excuse to cut benefits.


There's really no reason for the company's decision to change their contract. No company or individual is required to switch from the insurance they had to something from the health care exchange.
edit on 12-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
What a surprise Breitbart left out the real reason why these people are going on strike.

Obamacare Complicates UFCW Talks; Seattle Workers on Brink of Strike



“We are preparing for a strike” unless Seattle supermarket operators come forward with an acceptable contract offer by the end of this week, UFCW Local 21 spokesperson Tom Geiger tells Working In These Times. A total of 30,000 grocery workers across the Seattle metropolitan area stand ready to hit the picket lines at four separate supermarket chains that are united in demanding health care cuts, wage freezes and other give backs, Geiger says. Last week rank-and-file members voted “overwhelmingly” to authorize a strike, he reports.




“They are trying to make a bogeyman out of Obamacare," Geiger says. "Obamacare is supposed to provide coverage for the uninsured, but our members are insured right now. There is nothing in the law that requires them to eliminate coverage. It’s just an attempt to save money."


Obamacare is being used as a scapegoat by the greedy owners who think people should work for slave wages.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

buster2010


Obamacare is being used as a scapegoat by the greedy owners who think people should work for slave wages.



The AFL-CIO, at the convention, passed a resolution calling for Obamacare to be amended so that union-sponsored multiemployer plans, often called Taft-Hartley plans, would be eligible for special government subsidies. “The ACA should be administered in a manner that preserves the high-quality health coverage multi-employer plans have provided to union families for decades and, if this is not possible, we will demand the ACA be amended by Congress.”


Earlier, President Obama had spoken to AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, asking him to “soften the harshly worded resolutions that several unions planned to push” at the convention, according to the New York Times. Trumka agreed to do so, and “made sure to strip out some proposals that called for repealing the legislation.”


Labor Leader: Obamacare 'Needs To Be Repealed' If Union Demands Aren't Met

Unions are most definitely worried about ACA.

Please...

It just goes to show you how hand in hand Unions are with Obama and his Administration. Obama asked them to soften the resolutions also.

BTW, the only people making money on Obamacare IS the insurance Companies. The very ones Obama has blamed.

Priceless.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





BTW, the only people making money on Obamacare IS the insurance Companies. The very ones Obama has blamed.

Priceless.


This I agree with, it's a shame that we as a nation can't have that conversation and are instead, at least in part, stuck deconstructing myth.
edit on 12-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Its sick, actually.

Kali, I swear we need to vote all these guys and gals out. Sure, it might be worse then what we have now but we need real change.

200 to 300% more made this year for stockholders and the insurance companies. I think this was Obamas and the insurance companies plan all along.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I agree we need to vote most out (there's a couple of critters I adore). I disagree however with a minor caveat to your point about Obama and the health insurance companies... it wasn't just them that wanted ACA. Elected Conservatives had a hand in the ACA becoming what it did, some Conservative groups like Heartland even had a hand in rewriting it from the single payer mandate version.

Capitalists should love ACA and I think most do or would if Obama's name wasn't attached. The only thing keeping ACA from being the absolute most like free market capitalism thing we've seen in a long, long while is the tax penalty, which I don't like but let's be honest it's not exactly new... we are required by law to purchase home insurance and auto insurance if we own either of those things, oh and healthcare companies don't get to reject people. Conservatives really should be loving this, minus the tax thingy.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You know, Im not against having some sort of National Health Care.

There are ways to do it. I posted in another thread some of those ways.

We need to learn from other Country's mistakes first. That is the only way. I like South Korea's way actually.


The last lesson stresses the role of NGOs. Many Korean NGOs, including progressive labor unions and health care–related professional organizations, aggressively called for government intervention in health care reform in response to the failure to regulate the supply side of the market. They asserted that market-driven health care reform in Korea weakened the financial structure of NHI.8As Beauchamp argues in Health Care Reform and the Battle for the Body Politic, “the purpose of reform is not simply to solve the health care crisis, but also to reconstruct the disorganized public.”9(p41) Given the strong interest-group influence, NGOs remain the only sector that can empower the public to demand a financially stable national health program, in Korea as well as in the United States. Furthermore, Korean and American NGOs should share their experiences in health care reform in order to strengthen their unique position in the health care system, independent of both governmental dominance and medical professional autonomy.


Health Care Reform in South Korea: Success or Failure?

Its a good read actually.

See, not ALL those with conservative values are against it. Just if its done, do it the right way. Not rammed down our throats.

This just polarized our Nation even more. MHO

edit on 12-10-2013 by sonnny1 because: typo duh



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Health care isn't something that can, in my opinion, be part of Capitalism. We are a hard working, productive people despite what many may say, we need good health care so that we can resume our legacy of innovation and 1st world infrastructure. Health care is always going to be in very high demand, that gives them way too much power... the suppliers too. A couple of things that could have avoided this whole fiasco was to heavily regulate supply and disallow health care companies to reject whomever they feel like in combination with the state setting up it's own health care insurance that middle to low income people could afford... and ease up on all the red tape involved in free clinics. There are tons and tons of doctors that would like to start clinics or volunteer time to them, but the red tape is insane.

Sorry I'm rambling... ultimately I think you and I agree on this issue for the most part.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I just got back from having supper with a business owner friend of mine. They are not cutting their employees work hours back below 30 hours as of yet. They have taken a wait and see attitude and are evaluating their cost on a quarterly basis.

What we decided/discussed amongst ourselves strictly as a business model is: If Obamacare can not get the required minimum enrollees all they will do is raise the rate for those who have indeed enrolled. The government's/insurance business model has surly figured a loss for the first few years but after that they will raise rates to cover their cost..

Watching the cost of medical bills which have risen about 8% a year for the last several, it will be little wonder those who can not afford the insurance now will have a harder time in the next couple of years. No links or pictures just thoughts of ours but made sense; to us.

If they could get 100% enrollment (impossible) you have to wonder if (as a true business model) the cost would go down? Pessimistically speaking, I doubt it.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I find it absurd that the ones who helped push the political agenda are now against the ACA.

It's almost as if they had no idea what they were supporting.

OK

Wait....

Answered my own question.

Carry on.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Gotta love the irony of your post.
You don't like the ACA so you just assumed the OP posted an article that was correct.
Except it's not.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I wondered when the union membership would start thinking for them selves.

What's interesting about the unions is they were all for passing Obamacare without reading it because they believed what Obama said and the membership believed there union leaders, now the member's are finding out they were lied to by Obama and there union leaders.

Point being when the members get together and find how bad they have been scr***d they can vote to strike even when the leadership says not to.

If they organize with other unions this country could be in a situation no one has thought about....tell now.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


I know in IATSE which is my union any member can bring something like that to a vote. All you need is to propose it have so done second it and have your vote. If this ends up affecting as many as it appears to we may very well see a lot more of this.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Sonny, just a little background on what I posted earlier.


The idea of an individual mandate was popularized by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks as early as 1989. Today, Heritage cites differences between their idea and the Obama version. Yet the basic principles are the same.

In 1992, Heritage proposed a sweeping reform it called the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan. Among the plan’s features:

“Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price.”

As President Bill Clinton began to push for a government-run system in 1993, Republicans introduced bills that included an individual mandate. At the time, Newt Gingrich hailed them:

“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he told “Meet the Press” in 1993. “And I’m prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy, to ensure that everyone as individuals has health insurance.”


Source

That whole article is a bit of an eye popper.
edit on 12-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Battleline
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I wondered when the union membership would start thinking for them selves.

What's interesting about the unions is they were all for passing Obamacare without reading it because they believed what Obama said and the membership believed there union leaders, now the member's are finding out they were lied to by Obama and there union leaders.

Point being when the members get together and find how bad they have been scr***d they can vote to strike even when the leadership says not to.

If they organize with other unions this country could be in a situation no one has thought about....tell now.



Yep.

It looks like this might be a snap shot of what's to come.

We have heard warnings about companies trying to cut the part timers out of health insurance.

Now we see the nightmares coming true.

This case is taking 16 hours out, and raising it to 30.

PPACA established the 30 hour rule.

What if they start cutting hours to 29 ?

Everybody gets nothing and is forced onto the 'exchanges'.

I wonder if workers will get a raise equal to the insurance cost savings ?

I think somebody had this this all planned out.

The *coincidences* are amazing !!



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RickyD
 


It makes a person wonder if this administration knowing it had the union leaders under there thumb actually thought the membership would go along blindly without question especially after the members started getting the bills for there healthcare.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Gotta love the irony of your post.
You don't like the ACA so you just assumed the OP posted an article that was correct.
Except it's not.



My post is true for all of the folks that have supported the ACA.
None of them knew what was in it. Ask Nancy Pelosi.

As far as liking or disliking the ACA, it will help me more than some although I know I wasn't expected to benefit. I'm a decently paid right wing capitalist bastard who forks over a lot of money for insurance and taxes.

I'm one of the bad guys.

I make out short term on the ACA. It will put chokes on some of the preexisting condition rules that cause me to fork over about 6 thousand a year for medications when my policy should cover them.

Even with increases for premiums and reduced coverage I still get something out of the ACA. I'll be saving about 4-5K per year on medications for the first few years until the ACA sets rules that prevent me from getting medication because it's not cost efficient to treat old people for age related issues.

Most of those that supported it's implementation fully expected free health care and for everyone else to cover the tab. Now the bad guy makes out.

Irony indeed



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



As usual, you are misrepresenting the facts --

From the Briebartt blurb you are quoting:



One of the new proposals in the current contract negotiations is to provide health insurance only to those employees working a 30+ hour work week. "As with all employers, the Affordable Care Act will impact how we deliver health benefits to our employees," said Allied chief negotiator Scott Powers. The previous contract provided healthcare for workers with 16+ hour work weeks.


The reason they are striking is because the COMPANY is changing their policy not because of ACA. As it says further on, quoting UNION SOURCES:



Union officials say the President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act is being used as a convenient excuse to cut benefits."The reason why the employers are doing this is it's a big money grab," said Tom Geiger of UFCW Local 21.


As to the reliablity of the Site this is taken from I refer readers to:



www.sourcewatch.org...


and

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions
mediamatters.org...

Don't know who's running the site now nor who funds it but ....
edit on 12-10-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join