Unions wary of new health care law
WASHINGTON — Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Obama's health care overhaul are frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.
Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.
“It makes an untruth out of what the president said — that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,” said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.”
The problem lies in the unique multi-employer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.
The union plans were more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans.
And Obama's Affordable Care Act has added to that cost — for the unions' and other plans — by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
“We're concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges,” said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.
Workers seeking coverage in the state-based marketplaces, known as exchanges, can qualify for subsidies, determined by a sliding scale based on income. By contrast, the new law does not allow workers in the union plans to receive similar subsidies.
Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, said the real fear among unions is that “a lot of these labor contracts are very expensive, and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits.”
“If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?” Laszewski asked. “In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer.”
However, Laszewski said, it was unlikely employers would drop the union plans immediately because they are subject to ongoing collective bargaining agreements.
Labor unions have been among the president's closest allies, spending millions of dollars to help him win re-election and help Democrats keep their majority in the Senate.
The wrangling over health care occurs as unions have continued to see steady declines in membership and attacks on public employee unions in state legislatures across the country.
The Obama administration walks a fine line between defending the president's signature legislative achievement and not angering a powerful constituency as it looks to the 2014 elections.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said unions have spent more than a year trying to get a regulatory fix that would allow low-income workers in union plans to receive subsidies, too. But labor leaders say they have been told it won't happen. And new legislation is unlikely anytime soon.
Both Hanson and Schaitberger said the frustration could spill over into the 2014 election cycle if union concerns are not addressed.
“It started out with some anxiety, and I think it's translated into more anger,” Schaitberger said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Large-scale batteries are integral in shift to renewable energy
- Energy Spotlight: Steve Anthos
- Plastics, tech sectors crucial to cracker plants
- Open enrollment puts varied impact of health care law back in focus
- Without pipelines, gas can’t get to demand
- Falling oil prices shake up world’s economies
- Neiman Marcus sells fantasy
- Universal theme park swings into Beijing
- 113 Federal Reserve staffers earn more than chief Yellen
- ‘Foodies’ get fill in Western Pa. as groceries hire chefs to offer tips
- Mortgage in reach despite few dings