Unions and ObamaCare

Unions leaders are for union leaders.

Political leaders are for political leaders.

Union leaders and Democratic politicians have long maintained a mutually supportive and dependent relationship. It's a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' situation.

Now comes ObamaCare and the fine print. Union leaders don't like it but Democratic politicians have to support what they brought to life. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

So it's time for We the People to watch closely and hold on to our wallets as the episode plays out.

Big Labor Wakes Up to ObamaCare is subtitled 'Unions fret that reform will kill multi-employer insurance and jobs':

"Every revolution devours its children, but it's still surprising to see some of ObamaCare's keenest boosters deny paternity so soon after the birth. Witness the emotional volte-face from three top union leaders, warning that the program will "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class."

Last week's open letter comes from James Hoffa (the Teamsters), Joseph Hansen (United Food and Commercial Workers International) and Donald Taylor (Unite-Here, a hotel and other services union). All three, who together represent three million workers, acknowledge they were once "strong supporters" of the Affordable Care Act but now lament the law's "perverse incentives" that "are already creating nightmare scenarios."

The law "will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans," they note, with some understatement. In 2009, Mr. Hoffa launched what he called "an unprecedented effort" to promote the Obama health program because health costs were "burdening American workers" and "too important for the labor movement to sit on the sidelines." So much for that.

The first union grievance is that the employer mandate is leading business to hold worker hours below 30 hours a week to comply with the Administration's regulatory definition. Despite the one-year suspension of the mandate, many businesses that must provide insurance or pay a penalty are shifting to part-time labor, and the union chiefs explain that "fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.". . .

The unions are also aggrieved because they have failed to gain special subsidies for the multi-employer health insurance plans allowed under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. . . .

But the Teamsters, UFCW and Unite-Here do have a point that ObamaCare will damage their current coverage—in violation of Mr. Obama's frequent pledge that if you like your health plan you can keep it. Under Taft-Hartley, companies can jointly contribute to nonprofit health-care trusts. These are especially useful for workers in low-income or intermittent industries like hospitality, because they can maintain continuous coverage during periods of joblessness.

Mr. Hoffa claims Taft-Hartley plans will be "relegated to second-class status," and he's right.

ObamaCare's financial structure encourages employers to quit the trusts when collective-bargaining contracts expire, and then dump the 20 million Americans with such coverage into the worse and more expensive government plans. That will force out of existence the gains that "have been built over decades by working men and women," the union letter says.

This union remonstrance is on the heels of the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers call in April "for repeal or complete reform" of ObamaCare. No doubt there will be more such retractions in the months to come.

What Mr. Hoffa and the other union reps don't mention amid their cold sweats is that less employer-provided insurance means less of a role for unions as middle men in contract negotiations. . . . It's another reminder that Big Labor now exists mainly for the benefit of unions and their leaders, rather than the workers they supposedly represent."

Summing Up

Family fights are always exciting and often fun to watch.

But in this case, taxpayers are the ones who need to watch carefully and attentively as the Dems and the Union Leaders try to stick it to the taxpayers in the name of "fairness" ---- again.

Houdini is needed.

Thanks. Bob.