PST wrote:zoocrewphoto wrote:hegel wrote:
Again, let's see how this plays out. Providing health care to millions who can't afford it is a good thing in my book. If it works out, everyone benefits. But I guess you guys read a different book.
As somebody who is on the verge of losing my insurance (after 24 years of employment with decent insurance, I don't see it as a good thing if *I* lose my insurance. If it works for lots of other people, great. But please don't insist that "everybody benefits" when some of us are losing. As far as I know, everybody means every body. My contract expired back in May. The big sticking point is that my employer wants to drop insurance coverage and cut hours to avoid the penalty. Why do they want to cut it? The 40% Cadillac tax. We were supposed to be safe until 2018, but they lost the waiver.
Negotiations have been so bad that a 72 hour notice was given a few hours ago. If we don't get a contract by Monday evening, I will be on strike. I can't afford a strike anymore than I can afford to lose my insurance or pay for a government health plan. Unless we get a contract by Monday evening, I am guaranteed to lose big. I can't afford loss of pay. I really don't care about a wage increase. It would be nice, but honestly, if we can just keep our insurance, not lose the holiday pay, and still get hours above 30; I will be thrilled. It is really sounding like a long shot though.
The "cadillac tax" on high end plans simply does not go into effect until 2018. It isn't a matter of losing a waiver. There is no such tax until then. Is it possible that your employer is bargaining in bad faith and using misinformation about the law as an excuse? There is something screwy about a company that already offers health insurance saying it must cut people's hours so it doesn't have to offer health insurance. Whatever motive it may have, it isn't telling the truth about losing a waiver for the "cadillac tax."
The employers aren't saying much. They do say they want to continue offering insurance, but they have been unable to come up with something agreeable to the union. Unfortunately, our union doesn't tell us much, so all we heard from them is that employer wants to reduce hours below 30 for everybody so that they can eliminate health insurance. The union is so pro-democrat that it really can't say much without admitting that it promoted the very laws that are now hurting us. I have seen many segments on the news (various stations) showing larger union leaders (national, not local) complaining about how Obamacare is going to hurt health insurance for union members, and how this was supposed to be protected. (Which is why I thought the waiver had been lost).
Here is part of the letter by James Hoffa in regard to the damage the ACA is causing for union employees.
"First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.
Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.
And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."
Both the employers and union have been very vague with very little actual information. The union website did have a list of issues and what the employer proposal was, but that page is down now. I went through every page regarding negotiations and could not find it. The employers say they still want to give insurance, but the details need to be worked out. But they also stated that the rule would be changed to 30 hours minimum for insurance (it is currently 15 for single and 20 for family coverage). Very few employees get 30 or more hours currently, so even if the scheduling stays the same, most people will instantly lose coverage. And since we know that NOBODY is classified as full time except managers, and nobody is guaranteed 40 hours, then it will be pretty easy for everybody to get dropped below 30 hours. Even many employees with 20+ years only work 25-30 hours currently. many employees with 10+ years get 15-25 years. So, if they change the minimum hour requirement to 30, most employees will lose insurance.
The stupid people on the news keep reporting that we have threatened a strike because we want the wages and health insurance we deserve. To people watching the news, that usually means a raise, as if we are demanding a raise. In reality, we are simply asking for no loss of current wages or benefits. Honestly, I would be happy to go without a raise for the next 3 years if it meant I could keep my current insurance. I would even be okay with a small increase in premiums. And that's coming from somebody who can't afford to buy a car or live on my own. I am not rich by any means. Most years, a raise is only 25 cents an hour, so it isn't a big deal not to get another one of those.
Who would have thought it would be this challenging to sleep and breathe at the same time?
