AFL-CIO now agsainst Obamacare

[VITE1]

Says it is raising costs to the point where their employers will have to abandon their plans. Poor babies. They want socialized medicine for all of us but don't want to pay the costs in their plans OR accept lower coverage in their plans. Typical Leftist hypocrites.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...acare-changes/

AFL-CIO calls ObamaCare 'highly disruptive' to union health plans


Published September 12, 2013



The AFL-CIO approved a resolution saying that President Obama's health care overhaul will drive up the costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.


In a strongly worded resolution released Wednesday, the federation said that labor unions still support the Affordable Care Act's overall goals of reducing health costs and bringing coverage to all Americans, but added that the law is being implemented in a way that is "highly disruptive" to union health care plans.

Some individual unions have complained about the law's impact for months, but the resolution marks the first time the nation's largest labor federation has gone on record embracing that view. Unions were among the most enthusiastic backers of the law when it passed in 2010.

A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution. The official, who wasn't authorized to discuss the conversations publicly and requested anonymity, said many union leaders insisted that they wanted to highlight their concerns.

Asked about any efforts to discourage unions from passing the resolution, the White House said in a statement Wednesday night that officials "are in regular contact with a variety of stakeholders, including unions, as part of our efforts to ensure smooth implementation and to improve the law."

The AFL-CIO, one of the president's major boosters, approved the resolution just as the administration began rolling out a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to encourage Americans to sign up for health care exchanges starting Oct. 1.

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said the intent of the resolution is to "point out the criticisms without being overly caustic."

"There have to be some changes made in the area that are giving a number of our unions great concern," said Schaitberger, who chaired the committee that hammered out the resolution's language.

The resolution was approved at the AFL-CIO's quadrennial convention in Los Angeles. It claims the new law will increase costs for health plans that are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers in the construction, retail and transportation industries. That could encourage employers to hire fewer union workers or abandon the health plans altogether and force union members to seek lower quality coverage on the new health exchanges.

Union officials are seeking rule changes that would make their low-income workers eligible for the same types of federal subsidies they could get in the exchanges. They have also suggested rules that would treat their multi-employer plans as qualified exchange plans under the new law.

But the Congressional Research Service issued a memo earlier this year finding that neither change is allowed through rulemaking. The AFL-CIO resolution calls for the law to be amended by Congress if new rules cannot satisfy their concerns.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka held meetings at the White House last month in which he and other union leaders pressed the administration to make changes. Trumka has said he is encouraged that the White House is listening, but that no firm proposals have been made.

In a statement issued earlier Wednesday, the White House said there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that changes the law for union plans. The statement said the White House would continue to work with unions and other stakeholders on ways to ensure smooth implementation of the law.

The AFL-CIO resolution was toned down from a draft originally offered by Sean McGarvey, head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department. The early draft said the AFL-CIO could no longer support the health care law and called for its repeal unless changes were made to protect union multi-employer plans.

Republican critics of the health care law have seized on the union complaints to fuel their push to repeal the law. At the same time, GOP leaders have warned the White House against carving out any special deal for unions.

"We will do whatever is within our power to ensure that the administration does not once again provide a special exemption to unions at the expense of American taxpayers," Michigan Rep. Dave Camp and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote in a letter this week to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Camp is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Hatch is top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

[99 pewtercoupe]

The number of 'groups" wanting to be exempted seems to be growing rapidly. They are in good company...both Congress and the IRS have requested exemptions

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by 99 pewtercoupe

The number of 'groups" wanting to be exempted seems to be growing rapidly. They are in good company...both Congress and the IRS have requested exemptions

Same groups that hailed him as the Messiah for two elections.

[Doug28450]

More wheels falling off the BHO wagon.

[DukeAllen]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

More wheels falling off the BHO wagon.

Even when they all fall off his masters will drag the wagon on to the next election. Get ready for Hitllery.

[VITE1]

Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions | Fox News

Now the BHO administration is looking to offer subsidies tot eh Unions and only the Unions to keep their support. They already have Cadillac style plans.

FILE: July 2, 2013: A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet on the impact of ObamaCare, at a rally in Littleton, New Hampshire.REUTERS



Capitol Hill Republicans are trying to stop the Obama administration from offering labor unions a sweetheart deal on ObamaCare, as the White House tries to quell a simmering rebellion from Big Labor over the health care law.


President Obama and White House officials reportedly have called union leaders to try and persuade them to tone down their complaints, pledging an accommodation. The AFL-CIO, though, on Wednesday approved a resolution anyway calling the law "highly disruptive" to union plans.

But reports have surfaced on a plan that would give union workers -- and only union workers -- subsidies to help pay for health insurance even if they're covered through their job. The purported "carve-out" could soothe the simmering discontent within Big Labor. The loyal Democratic supporters and early champions of ObamaCare say they have been slighted by the act’s final regulations, which they say is pushing some employees into part-time work and threatens their health insurance plans.

At least three congressional Republicans are trying to stop any effort to give the unions special treatment, which could cost $200 billion over 10 years.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday introduced the "Union Bailout Prevention Act," which would stop the granting of subsidies to offset premium costs for the multi-employer plans held by many union members. Separately, the House voted on Thursday to stop all subsidies until the administration launches a system to verify recipients are eligible.

Big Labor argues that workers without additional subsidies will switch to less-expensive, major-insurer plans, creating a withering effect on the so-called Taft-Hartley plans.

Thune and others argue the plans are already government-subsidized and the workers’ contributions are already tax-exempt.

“A deal such as this by the administration for the union would be illegal,” Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Michigan Rep. Dave Camp said in a letter Tuesday to the Treasury Department. “Giving union workers exchange subsidies in addition to the income-tax exclusion would be double dipping.”

News reports about the plan have been circulating for days, including an early one by the Inside Washington news service. The Health and Human Services Department did not return calls or emails from FoxNews.com asking about the veracity of those reports.

Labor unions launched a multi-targeted attack this summer to force changes to ObamaCare, including one on the mandate for employers to offer insurance to full-time employees, which they say has resulted in more part-time jobs. Though that provision has been delayed, the concern is that employers are shaving the number of full-time employees in order to stay under the law's threshold for when they have to start offering coverage.

“Unless you and the Obama administration enact an equitable fix, the (Affordable Care Act) will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week,” union leaders wrote in a letter this summer to congressional Democratic leaders.

The letter, co-signed by the Teamsters union, was sent to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada, and followed a resolution by a Nevada chapter of the AFL-CIO hammering on the same issues.

“The unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week … and force union members onto more costly plans,” the resolution stated.

Labor unions also feel slighted because low-income Americans are eligible for subsidies to help them purchase insurance through exchanges or marketplaces created by ObamaCare, when enrollment begins Oct. 1.

“Other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances,” the unions told Pelosi and Reid in the July letter.

F**k you liberal assholes that supported this piece of crap bill. You are Buying off all the Dem supporters at the expense of those of us who actually produce.

[6spdC6]

Remember folk’s not all union people are lock step liberal idiots. Without a doubt most if not all in high union office are pushing the liberal agenda. Many of the rank and file are hunters/gun people, outdoor people, car guys & independent thinkers.

When you see shit like this union backs this candidate or support something it’s normaly only the leaders shooting off their mouth.

I’m a over 40 year union construction guy (now retired) and I know for a fact many many others feel the same way I do. That goes for people in my trade and many others I talk with at job sites.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by 6spdC6

Remember folk’s not all union people are lock step liberal idiots. Without a doubt most if not all in high union office are pushing the liberal agenda. Many of the rank and file are hunters/gun people, outdoor people, car guys & independent thinkers.

When you see shit like this union backs this candidate or support something it’s normaly only the leaders shooting off their mouth.

I’m a over 40 year union construction guy (now retired) and I know for a fact many many others feel the same way I do. That goes for people in my trade and many others I talk with at job sites.

Do you hold back the percentage of your union dues they use for Political issues? If not do so.

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Do you hold back the percentage of your union dues they use for Political issues? If not do so.

Have done that for years and have told many people to do it (To be honest most do not). Obviously the bosses do not like it and I know it cost me some work (but cannot prove it,) in the past when construction was slow.

They make it hard to do like refilling paper every year, getting stuff notarized, and sent by registered mail. I can be a bit hard headed at times. As a NRA life member for over 45 years I know who my foes are!

[StaticCling]

Originally Posted by 6spdC6

Remember folk’s not all union people are lock step liberal idiots. Without a doubt most if not all in high union office are pushing the liberal agenda. Many of the rank and file are hunters/gun people, outdoor people, car guys & independent thinkers.

When you see shit like this union backs this candidate or support something it’s normaly only the leaders shooting off their mouth.

I’m a over 40 year union construction guy (now retired) and I know for a fact many many others feel the same way I do. That goes for people in my trade and many others I talk with at job sites.

Union member here, and I am FAR from a Liberal.