THE HILL
 

Unions win concessions but fight on

By Alexander Bolton - 10/26/09 07:19 PM ET

Organized labor is flexing its muscle in Senate negotiations over healthcare reform and winning important concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).


Reid has not given labor unions everything. But he has done enough to keep them from turning completely against the bill: including a version of the government-run health insurance program; raising the taxable level on high-cost insurance plans; and increasing the penalty for those companies that fail to provide health insurance to employees.

Keeping labor unions, a reliable Democratic-base group, on his side is an important accomplishment for Reid as he heads into a multi-week floor debate on the party’s biggest legislative priority. If unions were provoked to oppose the bill’s central provisions, it could tear apart the Senate Democratic Conference, pitting liberals against centrists.

Labor unions have put heavy pressure on Reid and other Senate Democrats to move away from the more centrist Senate Finance Committee bill and move closer to legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

The AFL-CIO, which has 11.5 million members, has delivered 42,000 handwritten letters to Capitol Hill and dispatched labor representatives from 27 states to hold 100 meetings with lawmakers.

Unions have taken out print ads in newspapers criticizing Finance’s proposal as “deeply flawed.”

And on Monday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka held a news conference to reiterate union concerns, to remind people that labor is paying close attention and to “make sure we’re in the middle of that debate.”

One issue where they are watching closely is the contentious matter of paying for a portion of the Senate bill by taxing high-cost, or “Cadillac,” insurance plans. Union workers, particularly those in dangerous lines of work, negotiate for these plans, sometimes instead of more pay.

Legislation approved by the Finance Committee would impose the excise tax on family healthcare plans costing more than $21,000, a key component that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates would raise $201 billion for reform.

In a move likely to mollify unions, Reid has increased the threshold for high-cost insurance plans that would be subject to a 40 percent tax to $23,000, according to a source familiar with the legislation. The taxable threshold would increase each year by the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent.

But while unions would prefer the tax be excluded altogether, Reid defended it Monday at a news conference.

“This bill is for middle-class families,” he said. “[President] Barack Obama, when we were involved in this healthcare, in the initial stages, in a telephonic conference call we had — one of the things that President Obama said is we have to make sure when we’ve finished this legislation it is not legislation that’s only for the poor people; it’s for the American middle class.

“And that’s where I’ve legislated since then, and that’s what this bill does,” he said.

Obama administration officials have also defended the tax proposal.

Trumka said he prefers the House bill, which does not raise money by taxing employee plans, but instead taxes wealthy earners.

He called for employers to bear a greater portion of healthcare costs, instead of going after employee plans.

“We think the excise tax as currently structured is a bad type of policy,” he said. “It puts the burden on the middle class while the rich and employers and others, that should be paying their fair share, skate,” he said.

Even though labor officials have blasted the proposal to tax high-cost plans, they have been careful not to criticize Reid and have even praised him for addressing their concerns.

“Sen. Reid is working hard to lessen the impact of this tax and we appreciate his hard work on this,” said Trumka.

Reid also announced Monday that he would include a government-run insurance program in the bill. Union officials are not completely happy with the details of the proposal because it would let individual states opt out of the public option. But they are satisfied enough to say that Reid is moving in the right direction.

Reid has also increased the penalty for employers who fail to provide health insurance for their employees. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill requires companies with more than 50 employees to pay the full cost of the federal health subsidy for each employee or $400 a person. Reid has raised that fee to more than $700, putting it more in line with the penalty adopted by the more liberal HELP Committee, according to the source.

While the concessions made the bill more palatable to unions, they didn’t stop Trumka from attacking the provisions hours before Reid’s news conference.

“The problem is that when you fail to force insurance companies to be competitive, and when you fail to make all employers pay their fair share, then you have to come up with more money somewhere — and that’s why you’re seeing proposals for a tax on working Americans’ health benefits,” Trumka said.

“It’s bad policy and bad politics, and it is totally unacceptable to put the cost of healthcare reform on the backs of working America,” he said.

The House bill would fund much of its reform package by imposing a surtax on families earning more than $350,000 a year.

Trumka gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a heartier endorsement for “doing a great job of crafting legislation that doesn’t finance healthcare by taxing working families.”

But others praised the move to tax the high-cost plans.

During a speech Monday, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said: “A policy along these lines, designed carefully, will encourage both employers and employees to be more watchful healthcare consumers.

“It will discourage insurance companies from offering high-priced plans that would otherwise eat up larger and larger shares of workers’ wages,” she said.

Mike Lux, a Democratic strategist, said that Trumka and other labor officials are already trying to influence the balance of power in healthcare negotiations between the House and Senate.

“Trumka is trying to set things up for the conference committee,” said Lux, when asked about the timing of the news conference. “Hopefully it would have a pretty big impact. Labor is still an important part of the Democratic Party.”


Jeffrey Young contributed to this article.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64895-unions-win-concessions-but-fight-on

Comments (10)

This is just more blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter WHO the government taxes it "is the working people" who pay the tax. It is not the unions that are an important part of the Dem Party. It is the Union overhead that loves to do the 'hobnobbing'.BY Gazinya on 10/27/2009 at 00:11
The Union is not getting public option, they do not want it,. They also do not want tax increases on their cadillac plans. This the trade, get the dems the public plan and you keep your plan no change. So this battle isn't over. It's about the rest of us getting screwed. Look what the unions did to the GM retirees. It wasn't pretty and this won't be easy. The dems want to union to support them, so we will have to keep fighting for what is fair and right.BY motherreddog on 10/27/2009 at 01:02
MotherRedDog— Not sure where you're coming from on your allegations. As a UAW/GM retiree, I have to ask: What DID the UAW do to the GM retirees? Other than losing dental and vision, which wasn't pleasant but at least we have access to affordable coverage still, what is your point? We still have a health plan through the VEBA in 2010, and I still have my pension, along with several other benefits that most retirees don't. And I'm for sure better off than the salaried GM retirees, who didn't like or belong to unions, trusted the company would be moral and ethical, and really took it tough. I'm waiting to see if a national plan will have any supplements to my insurance, perhaps in the dental and vision areas I lost. Everyone at GM and Chrysler lost something in these bad times, but the union did a pretty decent job for the retirees, at least for this moment in time.If you get screwed, it's because you've spent too much time writing stuff on the Internet and not enough time writing letters and calling your legislators, which is what the unions had their people doing.BY rt on 10/27/2009 at 02:45
What does it matter? We will all pay higher taxes starting next year to fund this joke of a plan. This is how the Dems think they've snowed us into believing that the plan is "deficit neutral". Unfortunately, it is not. Get ready for your taxes to go way up and not get a single thing for them. Nice, huh? Want to buy some property? Just start paying for it now and I'll let you move in around January 2013. And you think we're not in trouble? Think again.BY DIANNE on 10/27/2009 at 09:43
Romer: “It will discourage insurance companies from offering high-priced plans…" High-priced plans are High-quality plans, so the objective seems clearly to 'encourage' a Low priced, mediocre plan. I.e., they will not be available at any price. Remember, the Tax Code can raise revenue, but it is also the primary method by which Congress micro-controls the behavior of the otherwise free citizenry. In other words, upon reading the Code, you can see how modern taxation is primarily written to cause specific behaviors by specific segments of the population that cannot yet be done by direct Constitutional laws. It's an interesting read, on a dull evening.BY Rae on 10/27/2009 at 09:53
I don't see unions escaping the tax, without having the tax ditched completely.In short, with the cost of negotiated active and retiree benefits loaded to the productive sector, and after booking the FASB liability, their benefits are already over the mark. Union guy will be paying the tax from Day One.BY KstJAY on 10/27/2009 at 10:26
Yeah Unions look what you did for GM employees! all you care about is your fees!And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I read somewhere, where the Unions would be excluded from Public Option!We don't want no Stinkin democrat public option!BY Debi on 10/27/2009 at 10:40
This is why we have nafta,Employers no longer have to pay union wages and benefit packs if they move to mexico or Chad or wherever labor is cheep.We are on a collision course with [***]!!BY zeek on 10/27/2009 at 10:47
The unions only represent a very small portion of the American population. Union representatives can gather all their members into union halls and have them sign preprinted letters and will not make a dent of the the total population this country that is against this bill. We have separation of Church and State, I begining to think it should be separation between Government and Unions as unions are only out for themselves and [***] with everybody else.BY Roger Peck on 10/27/2009 at 19:47
You know the plan stinks because the Senate and House will keep there's. There are so many new taxes involved in the bill and screw the public that is your democratic party!BY William on 10/30/2009 at 22:46

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.