Since it is kinda sacred cow day I am reluctantly going to call out our unions on some of their

obstructionism relating to health care reform.

I stand behind the union movement 110%, and maybe more than they do themselves. I was disgusted that Baucus could honestly site labor opposition to the Wyden proposal to open up the exchanges to the population at large, presumably to backstop the efforts and sacrifices made for benefits through the years. I would assert that this understandable reaction is stupid and wrongheaded.

Unions seem to fail to understand that their position and strength would only be enhanced by moving away from the employer based system because it would allow them to transition back from fighting tooth and nail to preserve what they already have to getting back to doing things that bring easily observably results to their members like increasing wages, PTO, paternal leave, and retirement.

Unions now more than ever have been forced into a box of seeming like they do nothing but collect dues and give lip service because they have been forced to retreat to the position of trading away about everything to maintain health insurance. An intelligent labor movement needs to understand that slowly but surely they are losing the loyalty of their membership because members can't see what they are doing for them.

The movement must get off of it's heels and come running to the defense of the people as a whole, even those they don't represent and by doing so they will find that the nuts St Ronnie of Ray Guns lopped off will be back bigger than ever.

Going against Wyden is anti-worker. It might not be immediately and directly anti their membership but fighting to preserve a chain around the neck of most Americans is wrongheaded, cowardly, and lacking in scope of vision. Union members need to demand their representation support choice along with the public option (and bravo on their support there) so that unions can get back to increasing wages and the constellation of other benefits workers need and deserve.

I know, I know a broken clock is right twice a day, but why are employers providing Health Insurance to begin with?

opinion.

Why should unions come running to defend people who won't defend themselves? If you won't stand up for yourself, why should a union? A union is a group of people standing up for themselves, and while I'm all for educating unorganized workers, if they aren't going to grab the tools of change and make it happen for themselves, I'm not really going to mourn for them, KWIM?

They're not fighting to preserve a chain around the neck of most Americans. They're trying to protect what they've worked hard for. There must be a better solution.

and hobble their own ability to negotiate for WAGES AND RETIREMENT (not to mention other needed benefits) because they have to use all of their powder to preserve health insurance.

If you don't here the grumbling about "the union not doing shit for us" then you have your fingers in your ears.

endanger their ability to negotiate in the long-term.

if that doesn't curtail their ability to negotiate then short of not existing I can see little that hinders their ability to fight for workers more. Health care is like trying to escape a singularity for them. Maintaining health benefits takes every iota of energy which leaves the rank and file as well as THE POTENTIAL MEMBERS wondering what use the unions are if all they can do is give away pay and needed benefits for what they already have.

What they should have been doing is working with Wyden to make sure they get back the value of the money they have had to surrender. Labor must be on the side of the people or they will continue to allow themselves to be a boogie man to many of the very people that should be with them. The union movement does not operate in a vacuum or at least shouldn't if we want it to be a viable power.

"It ties their hands" -- what does? Sticking up for the benefits they do have? Or allowing them to be taxed?

Everything is up for grabs during contract negotiations. A good negotiating team can make up for concessions elsewhere. Generally, if health benefits are maintained, the rank and file will understand if wages go up less than usual or hold steady. It's frustrating, but right now is a terrible time for a contract to come up. It seems to me allowing health benefits to be taxed is certainly "giving it away."

And when you say they should work with Wyden to make sure they get back the value of the money, what money have union members "had to surrender"? I don't understand, do you mean in concessions? I don't want the government sitting in on bargaining sessions, do you?

I'm not trying to be a pain; I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

the health care issue would be taken care of for both unions workers and employers. then unions can get back to better pay and working conditions as the main focus. I think that's his point.

Msongs

I would say that health care, benefits, and wages are different forms of the same thing-compensation. What unions have been doing over the years and if the system remains in place is trading wages and other benefits for health care. I do not mean to imply that that benefit has no value but rather if the need to fight for that benefit was lifted away from them that it would open the space for the unions to be able to aggressively pursue compensation that the worker sees and feels increasing which adds value to their union in their minds.

I'd also say that the tax on the so called Cadillac plans is a separate issue because I believe it is still in the bill. I'm simply addressing the fact that our unions are playing a part in restricting people of all stripes, including their members in the leash that is the employer based system and that by doing so they are tying their own hands to be able to improve the lot of their membership. I think this is blind because it is difficult to sell getting less bad, especially over a protracted period of time.

So, certainly as the sun rise unions have been surrendering everything to maintain superior health care while if that weight was lifted from them and all employers it would allow them to work toward other concerns. What unions have been forced to do is treadwater rather than gain any advantages which over the long haul weakens them even though they can tell membership that they were able to hold the line. Over time this holding the line on health benefits has a diminishing return in value to members because their lot in life slowly but surely depreciates.

I'm not suggesting a government takeover of negotiations but rather allowing and encouraging government to set rules that allow unions the ability to negotiate again rather than grovelling to maintain what they already have. Compensation is one pie and I believe unions would be stronger, more desirable, and more effective when the day comes that a larger slice of that pie can be take home pay with other benefits like pensions and PTO of all sorts.

Health care is an anchor around the necks of the entire workforce and unions are no exception. Moving away from employer based health insurance benefits everyone.

by fighting for benefits, higher pay, and better treatment for its workers.

But for the things that unions won to be univeral, they can't remain as union benefits. They have to be part of the law and apply to everyone. Health care is no different from family and medical leave.