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

reply to post by xuenchen


I thought the unions got a pass on Obamacare for a year.

If the membership are just figuring out the union's can not defend and give them benefit's then the union becomes redundant.

reply to post by FyreByrd


But they're setting the cut off at 30 hours and eliminating the 16 hours currently given.

From there, they can reduce hours to below 30 and force more people onto the exchanges.

The 30 hour rule never existed until it was established by PPACA.

What part of the statement from the union official are you missing ?

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.

They are referring to the 30 hour cut off established by the PPACA.

The 30 hour rule is not a regulation from HHS or IRS.



Here's another quote from the same union spokeman;

“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.

The grocery chains Safeway and Albertsons, along with Fred Meyer and QFC (subsidiaries of Kroger Co., the largest supermarket owner in the country), are seeking to eliminate healthcare coverage for a total of 8,000 union members who work 30 hours or less per week, citing the Obamacare provision that says employers are not required to cover part-timers, according to Geiger.

“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 Complicates UFCW Talks; Seattle Workers on Brink of Strike

The Union is clearly *blaming* ObamaCare, not Breitbart.

Now, what's your opinion of workers possibly getting reduced hours and not getting a raise to cover the cost of insurance ?

That's the issue here. Not who is reporting it.

Battleline
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I thought the unions got a pass on Obamacare for a year.

If the membership are just figuring out the union's can not defend and give them benefit's then the union becomes redundant.

edit on 12-10-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

I think the waivers have either expired, or this one didn't get one.

Some waivers may have been for employees of the union itself, not necessarily the workers they represent.

And yes, it appears that PPACA is notching down the union powers.

reply to post by Kali74


I am on a kindle....... ugh.....

I will check that out for sure though.

Thanks Kali.

reply to post by badgerprints


No.
What you missed is the fact that the union isn't striking because of the ACA.
The irony was your accusation of ignorance while practicing your own.

reply to post by Kali74


Here is a counter-view to the Heritage Foundation mandate .....

Maybe a bit weak, but they are saying it was a single person talking, not the Heritage Foundation.

3.) The Heritage Foundation created the individual mandate

This is one of the most ubiquitous components of the myth amongst the left and the media. I don’t consider this surprising, since the Heritage Foundation is the most well-known “conservative” think tank in America. It’s a massive, far-reaching enterprise and it has spent decades as the standard-bearer of American conservatism for most national observers.

On a technical level, I would argue that the myth is incorrect. It’s true that Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation was the first to propose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance in 1989. Some have said that the individual mandate first appeared in a paper by economist Alain C. Enthoven of the Jackson Hole Group, but that paper was actually published three years later in 1992.

While Butler did create the individual mandate, it would be misleading to say that the Heritage Foundation created it. If Butler were officially calling for the individual mandate as a spokesman for Heritage, it would be very different, but that’s not the case. Please note the clear disclaimer at the start of Butler’s essay:

Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

So, while Stuart Butler may be appropriately named the Father of the Individual Mandate, the Heritage Foundation itself can claim no such paternity. May the Heritage Foundation bear a little bit of the blame for promoting Butler’s individual mandate later on in response to HillaryCare? Perhaps, but that’s very different from creating it.

And what about Butler himself? Is he still a conservative even though he created the individual mandate? Well, yes. We all make mistakes, as human nature is obviously flawed. At times, we make arguments that we haven’t fully thought through for the purpose of winning a debate, or out of desperation. With the potentially disastrous idea of an employer mandate floating around health care policy circles for years prior to Butler’s essay, he understandably wanted to make a case for an alternative reform.

His alternative reform proposal turned out to be a bad idea as well, but he has at least admitted as much. A note on that article: In it, Butler claims that he came up with the individual mandate in order to provide a “viable alternative” to President Clinton’s plan. However, since President George H.W. Bush was still in office when Butler first proposed the individual mandate, I consider this a misleading claim.

He also points out three differences between the individual mandate that he proposed and the at the heart of ObamaCare, but I would argue that those differences are important only on a technical level. The principle of government compelling people into commerce was the same. There are several other debatable points in the essay, but I’ll leave it at that for the sake of brevity.

Debunking the “ObamaCare is Conservative” Myth, Part 2

reply to post by xuenchen


A bit weak?
No.
This is what Heritage wanted all along, it wasn't one person saying it... maybe you are younger than me I dunno but I remember the Clinton presidency and when he was pushing for universal health care what we now have as the ACA is what Heritage in part wrote, and what all the Republicans at the time were supporting.

Look I don't like it either, but I'm not going to make up lies and perpetuate myth and rhetoric over it.

Kali74
reply to post by badgerprints

 

No.
What you missed is the fact that the union isn't striking because of the ACA.
The irony was your accusation of ignorance while practicing your own.

Yep. I know.
The union is striking because of something else.
I didn't check the details of the source and you pointed that out.
Yay for you.
Give yourself a trophy.

I'm not really worried about the details of why the union is striking.

Fact remains.

Nobody who supported the ACA knew what is in it.

The ones who pushed it thought they'd be getting a free ride and sticking it to the average person who has a job and insurance.

Unions pushed hard for this and expected full exemption.
They now will have to deal with what they supported and are not happy about it.

Yay for them too.

buster2010
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.

Ok, you really believe these companies are really just looking for an excuse to take away workers healthcare and now they have it with the ACA. You ever hear of Occam's razor?

The far more obvious reason for them to reduce the workers to less than 30 hours is because of the costs and hassles of providing healthcare went up - By the way this is not a theory it is fact - and in order to keep prices competitive they have decided to move workers to part time. Also considering what a Cluster ACA is, prices may continue to rise huge each year and the paperwork involved is a nightmare. From an employer standpoint it is far easier to just drop workers from full time and not deal with the unknown even though they would prefer full time happy workers.

You will of course deny this, just like the dumb union workers apparently, because it is obvious neither of you have ever owned or managed a business. Pissing off your employees is not what you want to do, but pissing off your customers is even worse because they keep the business open. Employees will never win that battle as has been demonstrated over and over with manufacturers leaving the US for lower costs.

badgerprints
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.

Exactly what I was going to say. They helped enact it and had it shoved down our throats, now they've had a change of heart because it isn't in their best interest. Thanks a helluva lot for that.

I really don't know why y'all disagree about this thing, truth is
folks will see soon enough what happens when you add a 200$
per month bill onto those making just barely above or just barely
below the poverty level, which is a huge amount of us by the
way.

The first thing i will cut is any superfluous spending, IE i wont
be going to visit family or traveling for recreation, i wont be
spending anywhere near as much for gifts during holidays,
i will cut my overall travel back to bare necessities and
planned weekly trips..... get the idea?

No one seems to be focusing on the fact that to stimulate
the economy what did they do? oh yeah they gave us all
a payroll tax break to have more spending money.

What that should tell you is in a consumer based economy
if you oh i don't know take the money for consumption away,
well we stop consuming, can anyone say domino effect?

reply to post by Kali74


This goes way back to before the Heritage Foundation proposed it in the early 90's.

This was also pretty much the same plan that Nixon was pushing in the early 70's.



www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

74 - Special Message to the Congress on Health Care.
March 2, 1972

THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PARTNERSHIP ACT This proposal for a comprehensive national health insurance program, in which the public and private sector would join, would guarantee that no American family would have to forego needed medical attention because of inability to pay. My plan would fill gaps in our present health insurance coverage. But, beyond that, it would redirect our entire system to better and more efficient ways of bringing health care to our people.

There are two critical parts of this Act:

1. The National Health Insurance Standards Act would require employers to provide adequate health insurance for their employees, who would share in underwriting its costs. This approach follows precedents of long-standing under which personal security--and thus national economic progress--has been enhanced by requiring employers to provide minimum wages and disability and retirement benefits and to observe occupational health and safety standards.

Required coverages would include not less than $50,000 protection against catastrophic costs for each family member; hospital services; physician services both in and out of a hospital; maternity care; well-baby care (including immunizations); laboratory expenses and certain other costs.

The proposed package would include certain deductibles and coinsurance features, which would help keep costs down by encouraging the use of more efficient health care procedures.

It would permit many workers, as an alternative to paying separate fees for services, to purchase instead memberships in a Health Maintenance Organization. The fact that workers and unions would have a direct economic stake in the program would serve as an additional built-in incentive for avoiding unnecessary costs and yet maintaining high quality.

The national standards prescribed, moreover, would necessarily limit the range within which benefits could vary. This provision would serve to sharpen competition and cost-consciousness among insurance companies seeking to provide coverage at the lowest overall cost.

Any time the Federal Government, in effect, prescribes and guarantees certain things it must take the necessary follow-through steps to assure that the interests of consumers and taxpayers are fully protected.

Accordingly, legislative proposals have been submitted to the Congress within recent weeks for regulating private health insurance companies, in order to assure that they can and will do the job, and that insurance will be offered at reasonable rates. In addition, States would be required to provide group-rate coverage for people such as the self-employed and special groups who do not qualify for other plans.

xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

But they're setting the cut off at 30 hours and eliminating the 16 hours currently given.

From there, they can reduce hours to below 30 and force more people onto the exchanges.

The 30 hour rule never existed until it was established by PPACA.

The Company set their own rules - and is now changing their own rules. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Well they are still talking. Five counties in Wa State have voted on the strike so far.

www.thenewstribune.com...