The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.co...-bad-bad-idea/

C. Mor Butts wrote:
The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a


Thanks for noticing, Tom. Now...go back into hibernation.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

actually it excludes union members.

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

actually it excludes union members.

Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

Correct, Mr. T, and it also depends upon the employment sector. The
scenario you describe most closely fits industrial and service sector
employees, who indeed gave up significant pay raises in order to get
better health care and sometimes pension benefits. In most of the
construction unions, the $$$ negotiations are over the hourly rate,
which the union members then decide how to divvy up between health care,
pension, savings accounts and net paycheck. In the last six or eight
years, the hourly rates have been pretty flat, but the amounts coming
out of that hourly rate for health care have skyrocketed.

HK wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they
would be paying an overall higher percentage than other working
stiffs. Labor contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present
ones will have expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

Correct, Mr. T, and it also depends upon the employment sector. The
scenario you describe most closely fits industrial and service sector
employees, who indeed gave up significant pay raises in order to get
better health care and sometimes pension benefits. In most of the
construction unions, the $$$ negotiations are over the hourly rate,
which the union members then decide how to divvy up between health care,
pension, savings accounts and net paycheck. In the last six or eight
years, the hourly rates have been pretty flat, but the amounts coming
out of that hourly rate for health care have skyrocketed.

Po babies. It ain't just the union lackies that have seen their
lifestyles erode.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

The unions bargained with their employers for wages and benefits not
with the government.

Taxes are about a shared burden. Now you are trying to tell me that
union members should be excluded from paying their fair share of the tax
burden because they negotiated their wages and benefits with their
employers.

I will tell you now that I, as a non-union member, bargain with my
employer each year for wages and benefits, shouldn't I be granted the
same exemption the unions are being granted?

BAR wrote:

I will tell you now that I, as a non-union member, bargain with my
employer each year


I saw the memo...you're on the lay-off list. Your company is cutting
deadwood.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

The unions bargained with their employers for wages and benefits not
with the government.

Taxes are about a shared burden. Now you are trying to tell me that
union members should be excluded from paying their fair share of the tax
burden because they negotiated their wages and benefits with their
employers.

I will tell you now that I, as a non-union member, bargain with my
employer each year for wages and benefits, shouldn't I be granted the
same exemption the unions are being granted?

Did your company support Obama with millions in campaign time and
money??