It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Union officials say the President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act is being used as a convenient excuse to cut benefits."The reason why the employers are doing this is it's a big money grab," said Tom Geiger of UFCW Local 21.
“We are preparing for a strike” unless Seattle supermarket operators come forward with an acceptable contract offer by the end of this week, UFCW Local 21 spokesperson Tom Geiger tells Working In These Times. A total of 30,000 grocery workers across the Seattle metropolitan area stand ready to hit the picket lines at four separate supermarket chains that are united in demanding health care cuts, wage freezes and other give backs, Geiger says. Last week rank-and-file members voted “overwhelmingly” to authorize a strike, he reports.
The grocery chains Safeway and Albertsons, along with Fred Meyer and QFC (subsidiaries of Kroger Co., the largest supermarket owner in the country), are seeking to eliminate healthcare coverage for a total of 8,000 union members who work 30 hours or less per week, citing the Obamacare provision that says employers are not required to cover part-timers, according to Geiger.
“They are trying to make a bogeyman out of Obamacare," Geiger says. "Obamacare is supposed to provide coverage for the uninsured, but our members are insured right now. There is nothing in the law that requires them to eliminate coverage. It’s just an attempt to save money."
Obamacare Complicates UFCW Talks; Seattle Workers on Brink of Strike
Battleline
reply to post by xuenchen
I thought the unions got a pass on Obamacare for a year.
If the membership are just figuring out the union's can not defend and give them benefit's then the union becomes redundant.
edit on 12-10-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)edit on 12-10-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)
3.) The Heritage Foundation created the individual mandate
This is one of the most ubiquitous components of the myth amongst the left and the media. I don’t consider this surprising, since the Heritage Foundation is the most well-known “conservative” think tank in America. It’s a massive, far-reaching enterprise and it has spent decades as the standard-bearer of American conservatism for most national observers.
On a technical level, I would argue that the myth is incorrect. It’s true that Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation was the first to propose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance in 1989. Some have said that the individual mandate first appeared in a paper by economist Alain C. Enthoven of the Jackson Hole Group, but that paper was actually published three years later in 1992.
While Butler did create the individual mandate, it would be misleading to say that the Heritage Foundation created it. If Butler were officially calling for the individual mandate as a spokesman for Heritage, it would be very different, but that’s not the case. Please note the clear disclaimer at the start of Butler’s essay:
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
So, while Stuart Butler may be appropriately named the Father of the Individual Mandate, the Heritage Foundation itself can claim no such paternity. May the Heritage Foundation bear a little bit of the blame for promoting Butler’s individual mandate later on in response to HillaryCare? Perhaps, but that’s very different from creating it.
And what about Butler himself? Is he still a conservative even though he created the individual mandate? Well, yes. We all make mistakes, as human nature is obviously flawed. At times, we make arguments that we haven’t fully thought through for the purpose of winning a debate, or out of desperation. With the potentially disastrous idea of an employer mandate floating around health care policy circles for years prior to Butler’s essay, he understandably wanted to make a case for an alternative reform.
His alternative reform proposal turned out to be a bad idea as well, but he has at least admitted as much. A note on that article: In it, Butler claims that he came up with the individual mandate in order to provide a “viable alternative” to President Clinton’s plan. However, since President George H.W. Bush was still in office when Butler first proposed the individual mandate, I consider this a misleading claim.
He also points out three differences between the individual mandate that he proposed and the at the heart of ObamaCare, but I would argue that those differences are important only on a technical level. The principle of government compelling people into commerce was the same. There are several other debatable points in the essay, but I’ll leave it at that for the sake of brevity.
Debunking the “ObamaCare is Conservative” Myth, Part 2
Kali74
reply to post by badgerprints
No.
What you missed is the fact that the union isn't striking because of the ACA.
The irony was your accusation of ignorance while practicing your own.
buster2010
What a surprise Breitbart left out the real reason why these people are going on strike.
Obamacare Complicates UFCW Talks; Seattle Workers on Brink of Strike
“We are preparing for a strike” unless Seattle supermarket operators come forward with an acceptable contract offer by the end of this week, UFCW Local 21 spokesperson Tom Geiger tells Working In These Times. A total of 30,000 grocery workers across the Seattle metropolitan area stand ready to hit the picket lines at four separate supermarket chains that are united in demanding health care cuts, wage freezes and other give backs, Geiger says. Last week rank-and-file members voted “overwhelmingly” to authorize a strike, he reports.
“They are trying to make a bogeyman out of Obamacare," Geiger says. "Obamacare is supposed to provide coverage for the uninsured, but our members are insured right now. There is nothing in the law that requires them to eliminate coverage. It’s just an attempt to save money."
Obamacare is being used as a scapegoat by the greedy owners who think people should work for slave wages.
badgerprints
I find it absurd that the ones who helped push the political agenda are now against the ACA.
It's almost as if they had no idea what they were supporting.
OK
Wait....
Answered my own question.
Carry on.
74 - Special Message to the Congress on Health Care.
March 2, 1972
THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PARTNERSHIP ACT This proposal for a comprehensive national health insurance program, in which the public and private sector would join, would guarantee that no American family would have to forego needed medical attention because of inability to pay. My plan would fill gaps in our present health insurance coverage. But, beyond that, it would redirect our entire system to better and more efficient ways of bringing health care to our people.
There are two critical parts of this Act:
1. The National Health Insurance Standards Act would require employers to provide adequate health insurance for their employees, who would share in underwriting its costs. This approach follows precedents of long-standing under which personal security--and thus national economic progress--has been enhanced by requiring employers to provide minimum wages and disability and retirement benefits and to observe occupational health and safety standards.
Required coverages would include not less than $50,000 protection against catastrophic costs for each family member; hospital services; physician services both in and out of a hospital; maternity care; well-baby care (including immunizations); laboratory expenses and certain other costs.
The proposed package would include certain deductibles and coinsurance features, which would help keep costs down by encouraging the use of more efficient health care procedures.
It would permit many workers, as an alternative to paying separate fees for services, to purchase instead memberships in a Health Maintenance Organization. The fact that workers and unions would have a direct economic stake in the program would serve as an additional built-in incentive for avoiding unnecessary costs and yet maintaining high quality.
The national standards prescribed, moreover, would necessarily limit the range within which benefits could vary. This provision would serve to sharpen competition and cost-consciousness among insurance companies seeking to provide coverage at the lowest overall cost.
Any time the Federal Government, in effect, prescribes and guarantees certain things it must take the necessary follow-through steps to assure that the interests of consumers and taxpayers are fully protected.
Accordingly, legislative proposals have been submitted to the Congress within recent weeks for regulating private health insurance companies, in order to assure that they can and will do the job, and that insurance will be offered at reasonable rates. In addition, States would be required to provide group-rate coverage for people such as the self-employed and special groups who do not qualify for other plans.
xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd
But they're setting the cut off at 30 hours and eliminating the 16 hours currently given.
From there, they can reduce hours to below 30 and force more people onto the exchanges.
The 30 hour rule never existed until it was established by PPACA.