The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, also known as Obamacare, presents challenges to the multiemployer plans through which some unions bargain collectively to provide health care insurance for their members.  These plans, often called Taft Hartley Plans, currently cover about 26 million workers, families, and retirees.  Unless there is a major regulatory change made by Health and Human Services, these union negotiated plans will be struck a harsh blow once the exchanges go into effect in 2014.

A quiet effort by many unions to persuade the Obama administration to make this change is now becoming very public.

In an Op Ed published in The Hill, Joseph T. Hansen, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), said,

But as currently interpreted, the ACA would block these plans from the law’s benefits (such as the subsidy for lower-income individuals and families) while subjecting them to the law’s penalties (like the $63 per insured person to subsidize Big Insurance). This creates unstoppable incentives for employers to reduce weekly hours for workers currently on our plans and push them onto the exchanges where many will pay higher costs for poorer insurance with a more limited network of providers. In other words, they will be forced to change their coverage and quite possibly their doctor. Others will be channeled into Medicaid, where taxpayers must pick up the tab.

In addition, the ACA includes a fine for failing to cover full-time workers but includes no such penalty for part-timers (defined as working less than 30 hours a week). As a result, many employers are either reducing hours below 30 or discontinuing part-time health coverage altogether. This is a cut in pay and benefits workers simply cannot afford. For example, a worker making $10 an hour that has his or her schedule cut by six hours a week would lose $3,100 a year in income. With millions of workers impacted, this would have a devastating effect on our economy.

Alaska UFCW

The effort of unions to persuade the Obama administration to change the regulations in order to resolve the problems was reported in the January 30, 2013, Wall St. Journal.

“Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, theAFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage.”

“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, according to the WSJ article.

Many unions have been working through the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP) to find a solution.  In a memorandum to the Department of Health and Human Services, the NCCMP stated:

If subsidies are available only for plans purchased through Exchanges, employers contributing to multiemployer plans will face tremendous economic pressure to stop contributing to multiemployer plans…. Many employers will feel the need to drop coverage and access the subsidies to remain competitive.

On April 16, 2013, the United Union of roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International President Kinsey M. Robinson issued a statement calling for a repeal or complete reform of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA).  He stated that the union has supported President Obama for both terms in office but that the union’s concerns “over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored.”

“In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.  These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans,” Robinson stated.

The Cornell University Industrial and Labor Relations School recently held a special workshop on The Affordable Care Act:  Impact on Multiemployer Plans.  The materials from that educational event are available here.

So far there is no adequate answer from the Obama administation to the efforts of unions to resolve the issues.  The state exchanges must be in place by October of 2013 so that they are ready to go byJanuary 1, 2014.

Many of the unions involved contend that regulations for the ACA could be written to allow the employers that pay into these union negotiated plans to receive the same subsidies that employers will receive in the exchanges.  So far, that has not happened.

This is one of many conundrums that face unions as the costs of health care in our corporate-controlled, profit-oriented system make the maintenance of health benefits increasingly difficult to achieve.

#1: The tax cut leaves out low-income taxpayers.

More than three-quarters of a million Wisconsin tax filers would not receive any benefit from the tax cut proposed by the Governor, including most people earning $30,000 a year or less.

Low-income Wisconsinites typically pay a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than do those with the highest incomes. Yet low-income taxpayers would receive little or no benefit from the income tax cut.

#2: Rolling back recent tax increases should be a higher priority.

The last state budget included two tax increases for low-income people:

• A cut in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, which resulted in higher taxes for modest-income working families with children; and
• A cut to the Homestead Credit, which helps make sure that seniors on fixed incomes and other people of modest means aren’t taxed out of their homes.

Before approving new tax cuts, the first priority of state policymakers should be to revisit recent tax increases, especially because those tax increases hit working families and seniors the hardest.

#3: The so-called “middle class” tax cut winds up mostly in the pockets of the most well-off.

Some policymakers have described this tax cut as being aimed at the middle class, but most of the benefit of the proposed cut goes to the highest earners. Half the benefit of the tax cut would go to the top 14% of tax filers.

#4: The tax cut would be likely to hurt, rather than help, the state economy.

Proponents of the tax cut say that it will boost the Wisconsin economy, but recent history in other states shows the opposite is more likely to be true. States that cut personal income taxes in the 1990s and 2000s lagged the rest of the country in economic growth. Cutting taxes is no substitute for public investments in high-quality schools, roads, and communities that attract business.

#5: It may create a large hole in the next budget.

The estimated cost of the tax cut is about $170 million a year. To put that amount in context, that is more than the state spends on the entire Wisconsin Technical College System per year.

In a March 28 paper, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) pointed out the proposed budget bill would put the state in a substantial hole at the start of the 2015-17 biennium. The good news is that the LFB recently raised its revenue projections, and that increase could be used to avoid the budget hole in the following biennium. The bad news is that much of that revenue growth is one-time money, so great care needs to be taken that it isn’t used for ongoing, unsustainable tax cuts. Using a short-term surplus for permanent tax cuts is a recipe for big fiscal problems in future years.

And Here We Are
By David Glenn Cox

And so here we are, living in an environment Huxley or Orwell could forecast, but could never foretaste. It is the enormity of it and the stealthiness of it, which gets next to you. Shoving money through the slots, as the man with gun and uniform watches you from the corner of the grocery store on a Friday night. It requires the suspension of belief and the acceptance of an un-reality, as Barack Obama names a former cable industry lobbyist to head the Federal Communications Commission and the Republicans create a false flag issue out of Benghazi.

It is the one-party state creating a smoke screen, diverting attention from the real issues of domestic policy. Divide and conquer, always keep’em guessing, always leave’em laughing. Jack Lew is a former hedge fund manager for Citigroup and manager of its alternative investments unit, with oversight over Citigroup’s subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Hong Kong and he’s the new Treasury Secretary.

Sally Jewell worked for Mobil as an engineer in the oil fields of Oklahoma from 1978 to 1981. From there she moved on to banking at Security Pacific and West One Bank, before moving on to the Titanic disaster of modern banking, the ill-fated S.S. Washington Mutual. Jewell escaped the disaster by jumping ship as the iceberg approached, moving on to become the CEO of REI sporting goods. She’s the Secretary of the Interior now and her qualifications for the job are based solely on chairing several green committees, versus a twenty-plus-year career in oil, finance and banking. Who would a thunk it; an oil engineer with background in banking and the Republicans said what?

http://www.leftistreview.com/2013/05/21/and-here-we-are/davidcox/

(Picture courtesy of mhaithaca at flickr.com.)

In continuing tribute to the Diner tradition of Southern Dragon, today we look at media and news outside the U.S.

A scene of horror was created in Southeast London’s Woolwich neighborhood just outside an army barracks when two men hacked a soldier to death then actively publicized their own crime.   They announced to passersby that they were returning a murder there for the deaths of their fellows abroad at British hands.

One was pictured holding a knife and speaking to a woman at the scene….According to the paper, Cub Scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett asked him: “Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?”

“He was covered with blood,” she said. “I thought I had better talk to him before he starts attacking somebody else.”

She says the suspect told her the dead man was a British soldier, adding: “I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Comparisons were being made to the recent atrocity at Boston’s Marathon.

In Egypt’s Sinai region hostages have been taken and the Morsi government is struggling to recapture them from tribes that are in revolt against officials who have failed to give even basic services in that area.

More importantly, there are no indications that authorities even know the whereabouts of the hostages. The presidency says it is not talking to the hostage takers, but there are mediation efforts under way, and it does not seem that these men could be released without some sort of dialogue.

Tribal leaders have been key in talks with assailants in previous hostage situations involving tourists or members of the security forces. There have been claims over the past year that President Morsi had also been resorting to so-called Jihadists to mediate with armed groups in Sinai, which, if true, can be quite risky.

The government is, once again, between a rock and a hard place, but it is arguably a position they could have avoided if a genuine, transparent and wide-reaching dialogue and programme was set to develop the Sinai.

The economic slump in the European Union has ameliorated among signs that the worst part of the decline is over.

“There are signs the rate of decline is easing, which does suggest we may be moving into a period of stabilisation, but it’s taking a lot longer than most people anticipated,” said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.

“It’s looking more like the end of the year (until) we’re going to see the numbers start to show signs of stabilising.”

The new orders services index fell to 45.3 from 46.2, meaning a big upturn in the PMI next month looks unlikely.

Williamson said there were signs that the rate of decline eased this month in the “peripheral” euro zone countries outside Germany and France.

“But against that we’ve seen a worrying steep deterioration in service sector expectations for the year ahead.”

The easing of deficit levels in the U.S. has eased pressure here as well, erasing a major factor cited by opponents of public services to erase such basic support systems as social security and medicare.

Never.Give.Up.

Hi, y’all.

Tonight’s musical selection is “Trigger on my Fire” by Black Pistol Fire from their self-titled album.

Many state legislatures (and Congress as well) have an opening prayer. Recently, an atheist lawmaker was tasked with the duty. From the Phoenix New Times:

An atheist state lawmaker tasked with delivering the opening prayer for this afternoon’s session of the House of Representatives asked that people not bow their heads.

Democratic Representative Juan Mendez, of Tempe, instead spoke about his ‘secular humanist tradition’ and even quoted author Carl Sagan.

‘Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads,’ Mendez said. ‘I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.’

There’s also a video of the invocation. I think this kind of diversity is great, and that our lawmakers could stand to hear thought provoking words of great writers, not just scripture, before they begin their day. Here’s another recent moment where Wolf Blitzer asked a woman if she thanked the Lord for surviving the tornado. Her response is both honest and gracious.

Also, a lot of my friends are upset that apparently it’s pronounced jif, reports Yahoo! News. Or at least, so says the creator of the humble GIF, on accepting a Webby Award:

Since retiring in 2001, [Steve] Wilhite has led a quieter existence than his creation. He goes on RV trips. He built a house in the country with a lot of lawn to mow. He dabbles in color photography and Java programming. He uses e-mail and Facebook to keep up with family.

He is proud of the GIF, but remains annoyed that there is still any debate over the pronunciation of the format.

“The Oxford English Dictionary accepts both pronunciations,” Mr. Wilhite said. “They are wrong. It is a soft ‘G,’ pronounced ‘jif.’ End of story.”

Tomorrow I leave for Burning Flipside, central Texas’ Burning Man event. I’ll be gone from Thursday through Monday, which means Richard will edit and host watercoolers during that time. See you next week!

Housekeeping notes:

• Please review our About Us page if you need a refresher on site rules, and
• We encourage you to use our flag system — if you see an abusive comment, user or post, please flag it rather than replying. We review every flag and take the best action available to us.
• If you have questions or concerns about Firedoglake-specific issues, please limit their discussion to Watercooler posts rather than starting new posts or making off-topic comments in others. But remember,
• Firedoglake editors and staff are not allowed to comment on any moderation decisions.

What’s on your mind tonight? It’s an open conversation in the comments.

Will the Connecticut General Assembly begin dismantling the state's war economy?

The Connecticut legislature has sent to the governor to sign a bill that would create a commission to develop a plan for, among other things:

“the diversification or conversion of defense-related industries with an emphasis on encouraging environmentally-sustainable and civilian product manufacturing. On or before December 1, 2014, the commission shall submit such report to the Governor and, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a, to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to commerce.”

The commission “shall Advise the General Assembly and the Department of Economic and Community Development on issues relating to the diversification or conversion of defense-related industries” among other things.

Read the full text.

According to Peace Action, sponsor State Senator Toni N. Harp from New Haven has said,

“The proposed Futures Commission will set up a framework that allows us to convert many of our military related jobs and infrastructure into non-military industries.”

This is a remarkable breakthrough that didn’t just come out of nowhere:

“In November 2012, a ballot referendum passed in New Haven that called for moving the money from war to jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and human needs. This referendum won support nearly 6 to 1! This winter in Connecticut, the US Peace Council, No Nukes No War, the City of New Haven Peace Commission with the support of the state AFL-CIO and International Association of Machinists worked to get  SB619 introduced in the state legislature calling for a Futures Commission whose goals is to investigate how to convert the weapons manufacturing industries to producing civilian, green products and retain and develop manufacturing in the state. The Commission that this bill creates will include representatives of labor, peace and environmental organizations.”

In February, Bill Shortell, an official with the International Association of Machinists in Connecticut, explained what’s needed this way:

“Diverse forces are now converging in an attempt to carve up the military budget. These are (1) those who would cut it to reduce the deficit. There is considerable logic on their side. The solvency of the nation, in many people’s eyes, is threatened by the size of the debt compared with our GDP. About 30% of our government runs on borrowed cash. The same proportion can be applied to the military budget.

“Then there is growing group (2) that wants to “Move the Money” to much-needed social services, like health and education, and also to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

“There is also a powerful group (3) who would not reduce the military budget at all. This group somehow imagines the continued military usefulness of fighter jets, nuclear subs, etc, even though they rarely argue this. They instead generally justify continued military spending because of the millions of jobs and billions in profits that it creates.”

TIME FOR CONVERSION

“Finally, there is a small group (4), which sees the dismantling of the military budget as inevitable, and is making plans for alternative uses of the “procurement” part of the budget. This is about $100 billion of the $700 billion budget. We advocate re-assigning workers and switching capital to products, which have a peacetime use. This does NOT mean abandoning factories and retraining manufacturing workers to be nurses, teachers, and construction workers.

“We don’t need any more construction workers right now, and most military manufacturing workers are not suited or inclined to training in the social services. In addition, folding up this significant sector of US manufacturing, with no replacement products would have a disastrous impact on the US economy.

“Economic Conversion means designing peacetime manufactured products that are in demand, and re-tooling military facilities to produce them. The growing market for green technology is most often cited.

“The two other groups who would cut the military budget seem unaware of the impact of eliminating so much value-adding industry.  Nor are they focused on the plight of the military production workers or the many millions more, soldiers, administrators, security personnel, who stand to lose their job with the shrinking of the military budget. These last, however,  are not represented by unions.

“Union-based organizations like USLAW and LLP have no choice but to take into account the ideas of Economic Conversion, as we set policies and phrase our peace message. Calling flatly to “cut the military budget,”  spurs opposition from the manufacturing unions. These, in turn, have enough influence in the AFL-CIO to considerably weaken its vital input in the struggle over the reduction of the military budget.

“Economic Conversion is a difficult, complex question. There is little precedent for using government funds to manufacture anything but weapons. But if we don’t try to understand it and embrace it, the likelihood of achieving other benefits of the peace dividend fades, as the military workers and our unions cling to militarism.

“The military budget is so enormous that the goals of all three of the groups who would reduce it can be addressed. To fully achieve them, we need new taxes on people who can afford to pay.”

By Axel Caballero

In January 2013, the staff at Cuéntame received a phone call from 9 year old Stephanie Pucheta and her mom María Ortiz. Their request seemed simple and straightforward at the time: Would Cuéntame help in preventing the deportation of Stephanie’s dad, Julio Cesar Pucheta?

María and Stephanie were desperate; they had tried many avenues and contacted different immigration lawyers to no avail. Virtually broke and seemingly with nowhere else to turn to, they made the call after seeing one of our documentary campaign videos on immigration cases. Stephanie’s father had been in detention for over a year after a traffic violation and his removal proceeding was eminent. The Pucheta family story seemed all too common – reflecting precisely the horrors of our broken immigration system: A family on the verge of separation – with no resources, no legal remedies and no access to effective representations.

As with the many stories we receive, we immediately attempted to contact volunteer and human rights’ groups in the state of Georgia – where the family was located – in a last minute effort to help with their case. It was too late; Stephanie’s dad had already been deported. It didn’t come as a surprise, it happens all too often. We contacted Stephanie and María again who by then had enlisted the help of a pro bono lawyer, and asked if they wanted to tell their story. We explained to them that Cuéntame’s (which translates to ‘count me OR tell me your story’) mission was precisely that to tell stories that like theirs so often go unnoticed. Our hope was to create a small interest in the case, knowing that the system is so overwhelmed that they are viewed as another number and another file.

Stephanie was particularly keen in telling us her experience and her perspective. In an effort to capture her thoughts as pure and as best possible we decided to send Stephanie a personal camera and asked her to tell us her account of the events. Over a period of two weeks, Stephanie diligently clicked on the camera every morning and recorded a few minutes every day – a personal video diary of sorts.

Once she was done, she mailed the camera back to us so that we could see, hear and spread the message she had sent. We didn’t know what to expect. We had heard it all and seen it all. Yet, as soon as we turned on her first 9 minute clip, we knew this was different:

After watching the clip, we felt urgency, anger and shed tears. How can all of this happen? How can a Stephanie and thousands of children like her have to go through this? Couldn’t we do something about it? Wasn’t there an immigration reform bill being discussed to address these same issues? Stephanie’s story is emblematic of the over 25,000 immigrants who apply for family unity waivers each year only to be torn apart by an immigration system that emphasizes blind enforcement policies over sensible and human rights’ solutions.

As we move into a very serious, prominent and real immigration debate we see that our legislators once again have put the security industrial complex ahead of individual and human rights. Billions of dollars are being poured into the militarization of our borders, the fueling of private immigrant detention facilities and the continuation of raids and arbitrary deportations that have all but shredded basic and human rights. It is often futile to talk in these terms as the issue of immigration has been so criminalized, and tarnished with hate rhetoric by anti-immigrant groups that the mere discussion of human rights seems like an abomination in it of itself. Our families are facing a humanitarian crisis but our legislators have decided to prioritize talking about how to double up on these efforts?

We hope that our public officials listen to Stephanie and the thousands of migrant children looking for a solution. How about an immigration policy that enforces immigrant rights and deports hate?