Don't suggest that Unions should benchmark themselves against everyone else's reality

"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78) 09/23/2019 at 13:05 • Filed to: None

1

39

That is all.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

On the FP, I normally try to keep it brief due to sheer volume of comments , but apparently my casual suggestion that unions look at what everyone else is doing in not a popular one, based on most of the replies.

What I’m really proposing is that unions can’t permanently have BOTH great wages AND excellent healthcare at the same time, it’s not sustainable . It’s not as if every private sector, non-union company is just evil and trying to screw us all. Some, yes. But with UE at historic lows and turnover high, it’s easy to change jobs. The problem is they all suck — you’ll pay one way or another.

Complaining about this really takes the pressure off the real problem — the healthcare system — and puts it on a bogey man...all employers. Who are all apparently colluding against us non-union folks to just screw us over completely. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of healthcare, nor the false bipartisan notion of “shopping around for the best care” that has failed us all for many years now.

Nope, I really need to unionize to solve all of this.

/s

facw > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:24

3

So it seems obvious that healthcare should not be something provided by the employer. I don’t like the attitude that “they already make more than me, or they already have better benefits than me, so they are just being greedy”. Labor is getting an increasingly small share or profits so it’s really not like they are being unreasonable for demanding more, and if “ you” get less, you probably should be demanding more as well. The money is there, if we stop letting the people at the top capture it all.

But yeah the non-sustainable growth of healthcare costs is a real problem. I had hoped the Obamacare exchange would be effective, but you have the dual problem that with employer-sponsored healthcare for many people, you don’t have a broad enough cohort on the exchange to drive prices, and (from years now of talking to people about healthcare) it’s clear that it’s not reasonable to expect most people to make informed decisions about what sort of plan they should get. If you wanted to make an exchange work, you’d need more people in it, and you’d need to standardize plans even more so that people can come to a reasonable decision. Markets can work wonders, but they won’t if they are two complicated for their buyers to understand. At this point I feel confident that some universal single-payer system is the way to go.

fintail > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:28

1

Single payer, problem solved. Too bad the middleman has lobbied his way into a cradle-to-grave goldmine that nobody has the cojones to touch.

If not for the TEM Syndrome plaguing the lowest common denominator shitshow known as American society, maybe there could be a massive general strike about the devolving socio-economic condition, of which healthcare is just a facet. Nah, that would be socialism or something.

Deal Killer - Powered by Focus > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:30

3

A lot of people who have gold plated health care plans, either because of union rep or within a large, well run company, have no idea how much it costs outside of their bubble. Before the ACA was put into place, I was paying over $1,100 per month in just health insurance premiums, and that was an employer based insurance, not private. Because of the ACA, I was able to quit that job and take a position in a much smaller company, and pay “only” $600+/- per month for a better insurance plan. Neighbors across the street work in city government, and pay less than $100/month for their insurance plan. Low deductible and co-pay. They couldn’t wrap their head around how much my wife and I were paying each month. We still pay about $650 or so a month, with a $8,000 deductible. This is one of the reasons I’m still driving a 13 year old car. The amount of money I spend on health care would easily take care of two car payments. I’m not sure if single payer is feasible in the US, but somethings got to be did. I don’t see the Republican party doing anything beyond rote statements of “ free market competition” in a decidedly closed market system.

Ash78, voting early and often > facw 09/23/2019 at 13:34

2

Fair point, and even as a quasi-conservative, my recent experiences have taught me that healthcare absolutely needs to be regulated more like a utility, if not totally government-provided. But in terms of some groups getting better benefits than others, depending on the arrangement it can often be one group subsidizing another. All insurance works that way to some degree, and we just have to accept that. But with unions there comes a point where all reasonable demands have been met and the stone has been squeezed enough. They have to be willing to give a bit.

One more quick anecdote from last week: At my third doctor in 5 days (yeah, I missed a lot of work and got passed around) I was told they could make me a custom splint. Great, since I have to wear it for 2 months.

Price if they file with insurance: $200 out of pocket, all towards my deductible.

Pay cash, no insurance filed: $43.

Guess which one I chose? Still scratching my head over this...and waiting to see how many bills I get. The second doctor, the one who basically said “Sorry I can’t really do anything for you, here’s a referral”? Anywhere but in the medical field, there would be no charge for that.

The biggest reality check needs to come from that side. Post your prices clearly. Empower people to explain things. Make it all clear and transparent. Until then, how can we make a “free market” choice? I love that we in the US have access to great healthcare quickly...if we can afford it, and if we can navigate the system and get just the right referral.

I had THREE freaking sets of X-rays taken last week at all three places. I will be fighting for reduced charges on ALL of them, but why should that hassle fall on me entirely?

Ash78, voting early and often > fintail 09/23/2019 at 13:38

6

I heard a great anecdote from Dave Matthews on the radio yesterday in between songs. He was talking about a buddy of his who is a “socialist” — and he said “Imagine the uproar if libraries had never been invented, and we tried to introduce them now. Free books for everyone, paid by taxes? SOCIALISM!”

merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc > facw 09/23/2019 at 13:38

1

I don’t necessarily think ash is meaning the unions are greedy, but instead they are living in an alternate reality that most of us don’t live in. Where we pay, or our employers pay on our behalf, a good chunk of money to provide health care that still costs a bunch out of pocket. I take it more as the union workers need to realize that their job doesn’t command what it once did. And to try to prop up that notion will be foolhardy in the long run.

And I agree with you that the top level money Could be better distributed to their workforce, however, if you look at the costs of their health coverage as a part of their pay, I would imagine the numbers would show the union worker receiving a lot of money on their behalf that’s paid by the employer.  And if that were translated to a higher hourly wage and they paid out of pocket what the rest of us pay, then their wages would look more impressive by comparison.  

Ilikeredcars > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:41

0

Be reasonable, demand everything.

fintail > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:42

2

Some libertarian hot-takers out there would have a field day. Same thing with interstate highway construction (many of them are still upset that their fuel taxes aren’t used in their town).

In my anecdotal experience, virtually all who use “socialism” as a pejorative couldn’t provide an original working definition of the term if their lives depended on it. More of the group who exemplifies the line about those who preach most about hard work and winning are those who inherited a farm or store from their father.

facw > merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc 09/23/2019 at 13:46

1

Of course that’s sort of the point of collective bargaining. You have greater leverage to demand concessions and so you’d expect to be paid better. I tend to think unions often go after the wrong concessions, creating some perverse incentives, but it seems to be on the whole that scenario is working as intended.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 13:56

2

What about the reality that in many compani es big enough to have unions, the people at the top take home millions more than they actually need? I bet the t op ten s hareholders of my empl oyer could halve their dividends, still maintain their standard of living, and the money saved would completely cover healthcare for every single employee.

WiscoProud > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 14:04

1

My copay is only $20 once I’ve hit my deductibles. Thanks to my wife having a baby this year, we maxed our family max deductible ($2,000) early on. After that its just $20 over and over. 

Ash78, voting early and often > WiscoProud 09/23/2019 at 14:28

0

My wife had gallbladder surgery a couple years ago and we hit out our out of pocket max of $6,000 almost immediately. Everything was 100% covered for the rest of the year. Yes, we took full advantage of that. No, it’s now how the system was intended to work.

Ash78, voting early and often > merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc 09/23/2019 at 14:44

1

I don’t necessarily think ash is meaning the unions are greedy, but instead they are living in an alternate reality that most of us don’t live in.

I think this is well said — I don’t know a lot of unionists personally, but I do know quite a few government workers (teachers, or state/local, or feds). They’re not saying things like “Just demand better healthcare!” the way the pro-union people are saying on the FP.

They’re just blissfully unaware that anything has changed in 20 years. When they hear about the reality that 75%+ of workers face, they don’t seem grateful to be in a protected minority. They think I just work for a bad employer or something. Then they keep hearing it over and over from everyone.

For a really long time, unions have propped up entire communities to the point of overinflating purchasing power and creating mini housing bubbles. It was all well intentioned , but when a union machinist is earning more than twice a non-union person with similar skills in the same town , something is fishy and probably unsustainable. (or the same with the disparity in benefits).

fintail > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 09/23/2019 at 14:44

1

We don’t want to “punish success”! ( or other so- called right weasel phrases)

Chuckles > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 14:54

1

At my company, HR brought in an outside firm to run focus groups asking us about how we liked our benefits. When asked, I told them that I was really disappointed in our health insurance because they essentially pay $0 until you spend $4,000 annually (on top of your insurance premiums). I told them that I haven't been to a doctor in 3 years because our health insurance actively encourages us to never go to the doctor. Some jerk from the corporate office chimed in "well actually, our benefits are very competitive compared to other companies in our industry." The fact that they might be competitive doesn't make them less terrible. And for reference, my company is owned by Warren Buffett. 

DipodomysDeserti > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 14:58

1

The base plan at my job is a $35 copay, and my employer covers 100% of the premiums. I chose an HSA plan they offer. No copay with a $3k deductible. However, on top of the covered premiums they deposit $600 into my HSA every year . My wife has our kids on her plan. Premium is $130/mo and they deposit $830 into their HSA. I thankfully don’t work for a Fortune 500 company.

Fuck corporate America.

Snooder87 > facw 09/23/2019 at 15:03

0

“Labor is getting an increasingly small share or profits so it’s really not like they are being unreasonable for demanding more”

The problem is t hat in the case of the UAW, this is demonstrably not true.

They get profit sharing, better than average p ay, and ridiculously good healthcare. And not that l ong ago, the company literally went bankrupt due to unreasonable and unsustainable benefits p ackages.

Ash78, voting early and often > Chuckles 09/23/2019 at 15:11

1

“well actually, our benefits are very competitive compared to other companies in our industry.” The fact that they might be competitive doesn’t make them less terrible. And for reference, my company is owned by Warren Buffett.

That’s it. They benchmark against their peers so they can all get worse together. I’ve heard our HR groups say, with no ironic cockiness, that we’re all sharing one employee pool. There’s a big perception in business that going to a smaller employer is a step DOWN in your career.  

It wasn’t until I jumped from a smaller, regional employer to a large multinational that I saw how much different it was. If you ask people on the street, the common misconception is that large companies have deeper pockets and can afford better benefits. My experience has been the exact opposite.

Same here, fully out of pocket until $5,800 for the family. I’m not tapped out until almost $10k OOP. And that’s the mid-tier plan.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > fintail 09/23/2019 at 15:16

3

“I worked hard to get where I am, I deserve a third yacht!"

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > fintail 09/23/2019 at 15:19

1

Sh areholder-run companies are a joke. When you put people in charge of deciding their own salary it's always going to go the same way.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 15:20

0

Yeah this is not the 1960's when every GM employee got a Chevelle and free health insurance with a upper middle class income.   

Chuckles > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 15:22

1

If I knew I had a lot of medical expenses, it might make sense. But I’m probably not going to hit my $4,000 mark in a year, so it’s doing nothing for me.

I started here not even 3 years ago. At that time, we had more options. One option took twice as much out of each paycheck, but it came with basically $25 copays for any type of visit. At least with a plan like that, I’d go to a doctor more often.

By year 2, that plan was gone and our only option was a high deductible plan.

One key difference between my job and the jobs of folks in the GM plants: my job isn’t physically demanding. I do feel that physically demanding jobs like theirs should have better health coverage than I do. To me, if your job makes you do a lot of walking, lifting, repetitive motions, there is an obligation for the employer to give you decent health care.

Snooder87 > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 09/23/2019 at 15:53

0

No, it wouldn’t. It really, really wouldn’t.

First, because “shareholders” aren’t just some rich asshole. Theyre mostly pens ions and banks. So yeah, if you want some retired fireman on a fixed income to get half of that income , sure we can halve their dividend.

Second, because generally splitting the money doesnt really end up giving all that much. Take GM. They have 45,000 UAW employees. M ary Barra made 2.1 million with a 4.5 million bonus. So 6.6 million. Divide her entire p aycheck, including bonus and each UAW employee would collect a massive, whopping $147 dollars. Woo.

merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 15:57

1

Yeah I was the beneficiary of a union provided health care plan for many years growing up via my Father.  So I’m not opposed to folks getting good care and good benefits.  And I’m all for folks making a good living too, it helps the community as a whole.  You put dollars in the hands of the working class, and they will spend every penny of it.  That’s why I thought the TARP projects were great...  but I digress.  Like you said, at some point folks have to understand times have changed and it’s not sustainable to keep paying certain wages for certain work.  

Ash78, voting early and often > Chuckles 09/23/2019 at 16:06

1

I totally agree with that last point and should have recognized that more clearly. Or if they were going to erode benefits, at least have full coverage for job-related injuries (or job-affecting injuries), but not necessarily when little Suzy has an earache and MIGHT need to see her pediatrician.

I pay $97 for that right now ;)

This creates a lot of fights at home because you’re putting a price on your kids’ health, in a sense. And if people stop going, then doctors stop detecting things early and the insurers can p ay more in the long run.

Chuckles > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 16:16

0

From a financial standpoint, I’m fortunate in that I don’t have kids and I never will. So it’s only my health at risk.

I know I’d be better off going to a doctor. And I would go if it cost $25. If it costs $125, I’m more inclined to just not go. And if the doctor prescribes $200 worth of drugs every month and my insurance forces me to enroll in a mail order, auto-refill program (which mine does), well then I’m just not going to fill those prescriptions.

My girlfriend is on Medicaid. She works part time 2 days a week and can’t get insurance through her employer. We aren’t married so it doesn’t make sense to have her on my insurance. So she goes to the doctor regularly and doesn’t pay much, and then she tends to get angry at me for not going. If  I had her insurance, I would go.

nermal > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 16:45

0

On one hand, get some if you can.

On the other hand, the paychecks and benefits costs for these jagoffs are completely passed on to the end consumer . In addition to the costs of the bribery and corruption of the union itself, of course .

The solution here is to vote with your wallet and buy a Tesla, or other non-union-made vehicle.

fintail > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 09/23/2019 at 17:13

0

Backstory: daddy paid for a 6 year full ride, fronted the monies for junior’s first house, and provided connections that led to the C-level job.

Snooder87 > Chuckles 09/23/2019 at 17:16

0

Dude, go. You really think saving $100 a year is worth risking your health on?

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 18:06

0

Your healthcare system is one of the things that makes me grateful I don’t live in the USA.

Ours is far from perfect but at least I can afford to go to a doctor and my aged father can have treatment for gall stones and be cared for in his own home for virtually no cost to him.

Chuckles > Snooder87 09/23/2019 at 18:27

0

I'm talking about a lot more than $100 a year but ok.

Under_Score > Ash78, voting early and often 09/23/2019 at 19:03

0

You’re in the south, too. Do you ever hear about complaints from the factory workers at the Kia, Hyundai, and Honda plants? I don’t think I have.

It’s always the domestic company plants that worry about losing jobs, yet do nonsense like this.

Ash78, voting early and often > Under_Score 09/24/2019 at 09:39

1

I have never heard a single union-type complaint from anyone at Honda, Mercedes, or Hyundai, and I’ve known people at all three. They’re all making a little better money/benefits than comparable jobs and have no complaints (other than the usual “work sucks” moaning that we all do). The unions don’t fail get a foothold there because they’re forcibly kept away. It’s because the workers mostly don’t want the extra layer of hassle for little extra benefit, or the notion that the whole plant could fail because of a union action .

The cynics just say the companies were opportunistic and taking advantage of cheap labor, tax breaks, and cheap land.

Sure. But you could also say they wanted to escape the generations of corruption, inflated wages, and overly-generous benefits of the union zones.

Both are correct.

Under_Score > Ash78, voting early and often 09/24/2019 at 16:58

1

The south knows what’s up.

Ash78, voting early and often > Under_Score 09/24/2019 at 17:02

0

Shhh! Don’t let the secret out or everyone will move here and every city will look like Atlanta or Houston :)

Under_Score > Ash78, voting early and often 09/24/2019 at 22:44

0

I live in a part of metro Atlanta that’s seen RAPID growth in my lifetime. I know what’s going on. Rare  snow, plenty of jobs, low taxes. My question is why people live in places like Illinois and California. 

Ash78, voting early and often > Under_Score 09/25/2019 at 08:44

1

Same. I’m in suburban Birmingham — a quarter the size of ATL’s metro, but same basic idea. Affordable, pretty good infrastructure, plenty of culture, great education (in the suburbs, at least). All that stuff that people look for in a place to live, but without the crazy housing prices and nutty taxes .

Most of the South will always be hampered by history, but if the reputation keeps the crowds down....

/actually thinking about moving to Chattanooga now

Under_Score > Ash78, voting early and often 09/25/2019 at 09:02

0

The south is getting pretty blue (and I mean like white liberal progressive seen in CA, not counties in the Black Belt that consist of black Democrats) in some places, so white  people who call the south “backwards” can move to Dekalb County and feel safe.

Ash78, voting early and often > Under_Score 09/25/2019 at 09:11

1

I have a stark differentiation for The Left — one is “Earned” (eg the Black Belt, or others who actually experienced long-term disenfranchisement first hand) and the other is “Paid for” (eg wealthy, paternalistic do-gooders).

There are plenty in the middle, but it’s just interesting. You’re right that the South has a lot more of the latter group lately. Putting a “bright blue dot” sticker on your car is like having a country club membership for some ;)