LaborPains.org

It appears that labor leaders and government officials have reached a compromise on excise taxes, according to the New York Times. The details are not fully clear yet, but FoxNews has reported the following:

A senior Democratic official speaking on background told Fox News that the threshold for exemption would be raised from $23,000 to $24,000 per family but would remain the same at $8,500 for singles with high-value plans. Dental and vision plans would be removed from that calculation, however. State and local workers and union members are exempted until 2017. A Democratic source with close union contacts said labor leaders are not particularly happy with the tentative deal, but are much less angry than they were at the previous plan.

The chatter in the last few days that been that unions might convince the Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership to exempt collectively-bargained health insurance plans from paying the excise tax, the majority of plans over the threshold.  It’s a deal that would increase the cost of the health care legislation.  While the compromise announced today doesn’t go as far as the one that’s has been bandied about, it will be interesting to see what its final form really is. Unions exempt until 2017? What’s to say that the exemption doesn’t get an permanent extension.

Why on earth should union insurance be exempt with state and local workers (many of whom are union), while the rest of us with expensive plans pay the price?

If indeed collectively bargained health insurance plans are exempt from the excise tax for the next 7 years, former SEIU staffer Michael Whitney who now blogs over at FireDogLake says it could be very, very bad thing for unions in the short and  medium term.  It only proves that unions are guided by “blind self interest.” And it may jeopardize the public willingness to swallow EFCA. The “deal” that FDL is talking about below, for the record, on the union excise tax exemption sans the 2017 caveat, but I’d say the principle holds.

From FireDogLake:

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.

Labor leaders are playing hard ball with the President over so called “cadillac” taxes in the health care bill (Senate, not House).  Although press was not present, yesterday’s meeting can’t have gone very well.  The White House officially deemed the meeting “productive”, which in Washington-speak means it didn’t go well. Labor leaders threatened crushing defeat for Democrats in November. So sad I missed the fireworks.

From the AP:

“A Monday evening meeting at the White House between Obama and about a dozen heads of the country’s biggest labor unions capped a day when two union leaders fired broadsides at Obama and Senate Democrats over their plans to pay for overhauling the nation’s health care system with a tax union leaders fear could hurt their workers. [...] Although Obama terms them “Cadillac” plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who’ve negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. A bad bill could have that kind of effect – a place where people sit at home” – as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters.

Trumpka, among all his fellow labor leaders, is obviously towing a very hard line. And he’s stating that EFCA will be passed in the first quarter of 2010, or else. According to the Huffington Post:

“I think you will see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010,” said Trumka. [...]” The president fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, the Vice President fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the members of the House support the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the people of the Senate support the Employee Free Choice Act. And I think we are going to have the Employee Free Choice Act despite the determined efforts of the Republican Party…”

Labor leaders, who put so much money heart and soul into backing health reform, will continue to play hard to get, but heaven forbid they actually remove their support of the legislation.  But if the White House thinks they are just peeved enough, then perhaps Trumka will get his field of dreams after all– EFCA before April.

I just received this from the North Pole.  It’s almost unbelievable, given the spirit of the season . . . and the billions of children who would be affected. [See below]

In response to the strike notice, Santa Claus has made the following announcement. [See below]

It’s a little unclear what the NLRB’s jurisdiction is in this situation, considering the transnational border issues this brings into play….delivery to every country and territory will be affected if Santa and BCERAS do not reach an agreement.  It is also unclear how this incident may affect the FedEx vs. UPS  controversy–whether the Brotherhood of Elves, Reindeer, and Abominable Snowmen are legally able to strike, or whether they are instead subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which would make it more difficult for something like this to happen– given that Santa’s sled travels over interstate boundaries.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from LaborPains.org.

Labor leaders have been back and forth on different portions of the health care bill, but in the last day, SEIU President Andy Stern and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have both come out with a “We’re just so disappointed” statement against the current version of the Senate health care bill. Don’t confuse this with labor leaders actually taking a stand. It remains to be seen whether they will NOT support the bill.

In light of yesterdays reading and quick dismissal of a public option amendment, and a variety of other concessions aimed a Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Nelson, leaders of both groups met last night to discuss the Senate bill, in an apparantly emotional and heated conversation.

At 7:30 am this morning, Andy Stern put his feelings this way:

“I am writing to you today because I believe this is the moment when we must stand as one and say enough. [...] But at the very moment that we saw real and meaningful changes within our grasp, one Senator came forward to say “no we can’t.” He can’t let the Senate have an up-or-down vote on health insurance reform. And the result of this Senator saying “we can’t?” The public option is declared impossible. Americans cannot purchase Medicare at an earlier age. The health insurance reform effort we have needed for a century is at risk.”

“SEIU does not accept that this monumental effort – that this reform that is so necessary to the health and wellbeing of our economy, our families and our future – can be over without a fight. A fight to make it work for you and your families.”

The CBS News blog reports the following about a statement by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka released this afternoon:

“Meanwhile, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka released a statement this afternoon following a meeting yesterday of their union. “The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters,” Trumka said. Taking a somewhat more aggressive tone than Stern, Trumka called the bill “inadequate.” “For this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made,” he said. Trumka said the AFL-CIO is still fighting for a government-run insurance plan, or “public option,” employer contributions and the removal of the “Cadillac” benefits tax.”

Despite the grumbling and grandstanding, neither union conglomerate has pulled support for the bill.  Why? Because the bill still helps out these unions. They still have something to gain from current legislation as is. And they have a lot to gain if the bill passes as is–even with the “crucial” things that the unions have demanded missing entirely.

When the Senate bill passes unaltered, the unions can use it against the Democrats.  They can kindly let the Democrats know that the Democrats still owe the unions back for their hard work and support.  For America’s union leaders, the worst thing in the world will be the day the Democrats think they’ve done enough for the labor movement. Because who then can labor turn to? Think of the worst codependent relationship you can imagine.

So the labor union leaders will keep barking. And never bite.

As we head into winter, things are heating up in Massachusetts– just as the Charles River begins to freeze up.

In the wake of the passing of longtime Senator Ted Kennedy, unions in Massachusetts are mobilizing for an “abbreviated” Democratic primary– a place where unions shine and shine and shine.

The Boston Globe reports:

“Special elections always play to our strength,” said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, which represents about 400,000 labor union members and has yet to endorse in the race. “We can organize our workforce, contact our membership, provide phone banks and literature on the job, knock on doors, and do mailings – and do each multiple times.”

The recipients of what the Globe calls “instant ground organizations” are Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has locked down most of the Teamsters, and US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who has locked down the United Food and Commercial Workers.  There are even major divisions between locals and between regional New England Boards and the state organizations.  While no union will deliver their membership en masse, they can deliver people and funds in a way no other group really can in such a short period of time.  It will be telling what policies Capuano and Coakley latch onto this fall, as it will no doubt be an indicator of which unions they are courting for an endorsement. The SEIU and the Massachusetts Teachers Association are expected to announce as early as next week.

Two democratic candidates have failed to attract any serious union backing, and therefore, are effectively irrelevant in this primary. Without union attention in Massachusetts, there is practically no reason to even name them.

Image courtesy of Craig Stevens.

With the future of the modern American labor movement on the line, labor unions just can’t seem to get it right–or get it together.

The recent schism over the proposed health care bill has simply brought into focus the long standing enmity between the country’s preeminent labor leaders.  Trumka, heir apparent to the AFL-CIO, says any health care legislation must include a public option.  Hoffa, head of the Teamsters, says a public option isn’t crucial.  And that’s just the start of it. This fight goes beyond politics; it’s personal.  According to The New York Times:

Originally, it was thought unity might occur after the current AFL-CIO president, John Sweeney, stepped down. Mr. Sweeney and Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees, are enemies. The federation, however, has tapped Mr. Trumka, former head of the mine workers, to succeed Mr. Sweeney this month; his relations with Mr. Hoffa and some other Change to Win leaders are also said to be bad.

Other problems abound. EFCA is at something of a standstill, the economy tanked last year and dislocated potential union members, healthcare legislation has just finished a month of facing the vehemence of the American people (or as labor union bosses put it—“right wing elements”), and the union pension fund crisis is getting worse by the day.  The labor unions divisions keep them from even prioritizing among these various legislative goals that might just bring the labor movement into the modern era.  Some want to push harder on health care. Others are upset that EFCA has been put on the back burner—de-prioritized for health care’s sake.

Tension exists with an administration that some fear is just leading the unions along. These problems are exacerbated by the simple fact that the major unions are not unified following their nasty split in 2005. Some labor unions that joined the Change to Win coalition fancy returning to the AFL-CIO fold, and infighting amongst the various unions abounds. The New York Times continues:

A few of the Change to Win unions, most importantly the United Food and Commercial Workers, might rejoin the old federation, and Change to Win is full of its own discord. But leaders like Mr. Stern and Mr. Hoffa say they have no intention of joining forces with their old adversaries. “They’re going to fail if they keep this fight going,” Professor Bronfenbrenner says. Even some top AFL-CIO officials worry that she’s right.

If infighting persists (and we have no reason to believe that it won’t), labor unions are in for an interesting fall.

Image courtesy of wirwuenscheneinbierinternationalereisegesellschaft.

Russian nested doll (Matryoshka)

SEIU has been taking a lot of heat for their less-than-subtle organizing of “open” town halls across the country.  No one has been terribly confused about who is behind a health care town hall when those in attendance are all wearing bright purple shirts, sporting ACORN buttons, and carrying fancy signs—not to mention arriving on school buses.

Someone seems to have caught on.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, last Tuesday, local residents were treated to a kind welcome from a “local” group called the Kalamazoo Single Payer Across the Nation, a group that was helpful enough to put Kalamazoo in its name.  Let’s open up this matryoshka.

As the Kalamazoo Gazette reports:

It was advertised as a Kalamazoo town-hall meeting, sponsored by a new, local, all-volunteer group with a sole focus of advocating for a single-payer government plan for national health care.  But Michigan Citizen Action, a paid, Kalamazoo-based advocacy group with ties to national public-employee unions and a nationwide network of “progressive” interest groups, was an unadvertised presence Tuesday at the meeting at the downtown Kalamazoo Pubic Library. MCA’s participation was not disclosed by the official sponsor, Kalamazoo Single Payer Across the Nation, or by three paid MCA staff members who distributed literature and collected names from people who attended.

It gets even better:

Kudary [resident] said he declined to provide his name and contact information when he was shepherded into the Kalamazoo Public Library meeting room by a woman distributing “Health Care for American Now” stickers. Kudary said he recognized the logo from HCAN, a pro-national plan group directed by a number of U.S. labor unions, the progressive group MoveOn.org and USAction.  When a Kalamazoo Gazette reporter asked who was collecting the sign-up information, MCA was not mentioned. MCA’s Web site shows it is affiliated with HCAN and USAction. Chris Killian, spokesman for the 40-member Kalamazoo Single-Payer Across the Nation organization, said MCA “asked for an opportunity to join in the momentum” after KSPAN announced its forum.

A state level group, “joining the momentum” of a local group, associated with a national group, with a steering committee that includes the AFL-CIO, ACORN, UFCW, and the SEIU? After opening up all the dolls, the smallest one is still wearing a bright purple shirt.

Image courtesy of backpackphotography

One of the less reported reasons why unions have been desperate to pass EFCA is because of their underfunded pensions. Changing the rules to facilitate union organization efforts would yield them more dues-paying members to prop up their fledgling pension plans. The Wall Street Journal takes the union pensions plans to task for their inadequate funding. Many of the major union pension plans are either at “endangered” or “critical” status:

In April, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund—which covers some 101,000 rank-and-file members—announced that its pension has been put into what the feds call “critical status,” or “red zone.” In other words, it lacks the cash to pay promised benefits and may have to cut them. As of 2007, the last year for which it reported results to the government, the fund had 74.4% of the assets needed to pay its benefits.

Thirteen of the bigger plans operated for the Teamsters have, together, a mere 59.3% of reserves necessary to cover obligations. Or consider that 26 pension funds at the food workers union, the UFCW, are at 58.7%. Seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters fare better at 67%. As a rule of thumb the government considers a fund to be “endangered” at below 80%, and in “critical” status at below 65%, and requires them to come up with a plan to get off probation within a decade.

Just as troubling is the disparity between the performance of union officers’ pension plans and benefits versus those of dues-paying members:

An even bigger mystery is that the unions do a far better job with funds created for their officers and employees than for mere workers. The SEIU Affiliates, Officers and Employees Pension Plan—which covers the staff and bosses at its locals—was funded as of 2007 at 102.2%. The plan for the folks at SEIU international headquarters was funded at 84.8%.

Union officer benefits are also far more generous than anything dues-paying workers enjoy. Consider again the SEIU, probably the country’s most powerful union. Their officers and employees get a yearly 3% cost of living increase, but SEIU members get none; officers qualify for an early pension at 50 or after more than 30 years of service, but workers can’t retire early with a pension; officers qualify for disability retirement after a year’s service, but workers need 10 years. In the land of union retirement, some workers are more equal than others.

As the Journal concludes, there are many reasons why most Americans in the private sector workforce are not part of a union. Poor pension performance and disparate benefits are just two more reasons why most Americans don’t want to join a union or support EFCA.