To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Jane explained last night that unions have a tentative deal
for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected
by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross
the $23,000 threshold won't be taxed.
Jane explained last night that unions have a tentative deal
for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected
by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross
the $23,000 threshold won't be taxed.
TPM backs up this story with Rep. Rob Andrews explaining exemptions for the excise tax may pull together enough votes to pass:
As I first reported yesterday, one idea
gaining traction in negotiations between Congressional leaders, union
officials, and the White House is that collectively bargained benefit
plans could be exempted from the tax. According to Rep. Robert Andrews
(D-NJ), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Education and
Labor Committee, that could be enough to build a majority for health
care reform."It would be a way to lessen impact of the so-called excise tax,"
Andrews said. "I think we could build a consensus around that idea-a
majority around that idea."
If unions take this deal, it's a sell-out of epic proportions. I'm
hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that
would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the
labor movement, but to the middle class itself.
The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is
supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the
"Cadillac tax," but that distorts the reality of who it will effect.
This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old,
and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those
plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under
union contracts.
Richard Trumka laid down a line and said the AFL-CIO would not
support a plan without a public option. While other labor groups
haven't been as forceful, progressives have looked to the AFL-CIO as
the most defiant of the veal pen.
Presumably, in Monday's meeting at the White House, labor leaders
made clear that the excise tax on their plans wouldn't fly, and that
the Employee Free Choice Act would have to come up for a vote (and
pass?) in a few months after health care. And I'm sure they got the
same assurance they've got from Rahm and Reid for more than a year on
labor law reform: be patient, it will come up and pass.
If unions take this "deal," if the labor movement decides to fold
and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the
worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By
abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the
labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.
The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the
unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question.
But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation,
unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax
and call it a day.
And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal - a vote on the
Employee Free Choice Act - expect unions to be very much on their own
in that fight if they sell out on health care.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Jane explained last night that unions have a tentative deal
for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected
by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross
the $23,000 threshold won't be taxed.
TPM backs up this story with Rep. Rob Andrews explaining exemptions for the excise tax may pull together enough votes to pass:
As I first reported yesterday, one idea
gaining traction in negotiations between Congressional leaders, union
officials, and the White House is that collectively bargained benefit
plans could be exempted from the tax. According to Rep. Robert Andrews
(D-NJ), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Education and
Labor Committee, that could be enough to build a majority for health
care reform."It would be a way to lessen impact of the so-called excise tax,"
Andrews said. "I think we could build a consensus around that idea-a
majority around that idea."
If unions take this deal, it's a sell-out of epic proportions. I'm
hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that
would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the
labor movement, but to the middle class itself.
The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is
supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the
"Cadillac tax," but that distorts the reality of who it will effect.
This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old,
and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those
plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under
union contracts.
Richard Trumka laid down a line and said the AFL-CIO would not
support a plan without a public option. While other labor groups
haven't been as forceful, progressives have looked to the AFL-CIO as
the most defiant of the veal pen.
Presumably, in Monday's meeting at the White House, labor leaders
made clear that the excise tax on their plans wouldn't fly, and that
the Employee Free Choice Act would have to come up for a vote (and
pass?) in a few months after health care. And I'm sure they got the
same assurance they've got from Rahm and Reid for more than a year on
labor law reform: be patient, it will come up and pass.
If unions take this "deal," if the labor movement decides to fold
and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the
worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By
abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the
labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.
The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the
unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question.
But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation,
unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax
and call it a day.
And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal - a vote on the
Employee Free Choice Act - expect unions to be very much on their own
in that fight if they sell out on health care.
Jane explained last night that unions have a tentative deal
for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected
by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross
the $23,000 threshold won't be taxed.
TPM backs up this story with Rep. Rob Andrews explaining exemptions for the excise tax may pull together enough votes to pass:
As I first reported yesterday, one idea
gaining traction in negotiations between Congressional leaders, union
officials, and the White House is that collectively bargained benefit
plans could be exempted from the tax. According to Rep. Robert Andrews
(D-NJ), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Education and
Labor Committee, that could be enough to build a majority for health
care reform."It would be a way to lessen impact of the so-called excise tax,"
Andrews said. "I think we could build a consensus around that idea-a
majority around that idea."
If unions take this deal, it's a sell-out of epic proportions. I'm
hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that
would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the
labor movement, but to the middle class itself.
The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is
supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the
"Cadillac tax," but that distorts the reality of who it will effect.
This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old,
and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those
plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under
union contracts.
Richard Trumka laid down a line and said the AFL-CIO would not
support a plan without a public option. While other labor groups
haven't been as forceful, progressives have looked to the AFL-CIO as
the most defiant of the veal pen.
Presumably, in Monday's meeting at the White House, labor leaders
made clear that the excise tax on their plans wouldn't fly, and that
the Employee Free Choice Act would have to come up for a vote (and
pass?) in a few months after health care. And I'm sure they got the
same assurance they've got from Rahm and Reid for more than a year on
labor law reform: be patient, it will come up and pass.
If unions take this "deal," if the labor movement decides to fold
and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the
worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By
abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the
labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.
The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the
unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question.
But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation,
unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax
and call it a day.
And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal - a vote on the
Employee Free Choice Act - expect unions to be very much on their own
in that fight if they sell out on health care.