Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/16/2009 1:46:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/16/2009 1:47:12 PM EST by 2tired2run]
Well they're going to tax your health care benefits to pay for those who are to lazy or to cheap to get their own or illegal but if you're in a Union you'll be exempt.


Dems seek to trim health bill as estimates soar


By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – Confronting cost estimates as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Democrats agreed Tuesday to scale back planned subsidies for the uninsured and sought concessions totaling hundreds of billions of dollars from private industry to defray the cost of sweeping health care legislation. At the same time, key Democrats disagreed openly among themselves over a proposed tax on health insurance benefits to pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured.

And attempts to reach a compromise with Republicans over a role for government in the insurance marketplace proved elusive.

Despite numerous uncertainties, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., announced that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would begin formal work Wednesday on legislation to provide "successful, affordable, quality health care."

The meeting would mark the first public drafting session in either chamber on legislation to control the costs of health care while expanding coverage to the nearly 50 million who lack it — a goal that President Barack Obama has placed atop his domestic agenda.

Separately, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to begin work next week on a companion measure. Several officials said the Congressional Budget Office had issued a cost estimate of $1.6 trillion, with only about $560 billion paid for. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying the matter was confidential.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the panel, dismissed the estimates as outdated, and officials predicted the final bill would come in under $1 trillion.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that with cost estimates coming in so high, "It is clear there have got to be changes made to make the whole package affordable."

In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Baucus also disclosed he was "very close" to agreement with a handful of industry groups for them to accept hundreds of billions of dollars less in Medicare and Medicaid fees than they currently are projected to receive. He said the talks have involved insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical firms and the makers of medical devices, among others, but did not provide a specific figure for the savings overall.

At the same time, officials said cost constraints were forcing Democrats in both committees to refine their plans of offering federal subsidies to help the uninsured buy health coverage.

At the Senate Health panel, officials said that after penciling in subsidies for families with incomes as high as $110,000, or 500 percent of the federal poverty level, they would limit the help to families up to $88,000 in income, or 400 percent of the poverty level. A preliminary CBO estimate on that measure, released Monday, calculated a cost of $1 trillion.

The emerging Finance Committee bill also cuts off subsidies at 400 percent of the poverty level, but officials said that might be lowered due to cost concerns.

These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing confidential deliberations.

To pay for the legislation, Baucus has signaled he intends to propose a tax on health insurance benefits for individuals with the costliest health insurance coverage, possibly plans with premiums totaling more than $15,000 between employer and employee combined. Obama campaigned aggressively against the idea when Republican rival Sen. John McCain proposed it during last year's presidential campaign.

While the president has recently signaled flexibility on the issue, Dodd criticized it for potentially penalizing individuals and families at a time they are under financial pressure. "I'm not attracted to that idea," he said.

Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition, although Baucus has told reporters he could exempt health benefits included in union contracts from the tax.

Baucus has been negotiating privately with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican on the committee, over the role of government in insurance.

Democrats generally favor allowing government to offer insurance in competition with private companies, and Republicans oppose it.

Conrad last week offered a compromise that would allow nonprofit cooperatives to sell policies.

Grassley said nothing was finalized yet, and indicated the sticking point was Baucus' insistence that the federal government play a behind-the-scenes role.

Baucus told reporters, "The goal of public option is to keep the health insurance (industry's) feet to the fire. Make sure they do all the things we tell them to do in the legislation." He said another goal is to keep costs down.

But, he added he remains open to "another way to accomplish the same result."

In an interview with The Associated Press, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the issue of a public plan. She spoke positively of the compromise proposal of cooperatives, which she said could receive seed money from the Treasury but then be free of control.

She predicted that in the end, the insurance industry will blink first in a showdown over the issue.

"I think they understand there's a lot of momentum both in the House and in the Senate for something to pass, and they'd much rather be inside the room, having those discussions, and helping to shape it as much to their liking as they possibly can," she said.




Unbelieveable

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 2:17:41 PM EST
U6 will equal 22%
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 2:23:23 PM EST
Whatever plan they come up with will benefit their political allies, severely penalize their political enemies and the Republicans will not be able to do ANYTHING to stop it.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 2:53:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 2:57:55 PM EST
so...... how do you start your own union????? maybe everyone can just start sham unions and dodge the taxes.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 2:59:16 PM EST
I wonder how that will work in 'Right to Work' states. Where you can work in a union shop, get union pay, and not pay union dues?
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:00:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By twistedLV:
I wonder how that will work in 'Right to Work' states. Where you can work in a union shop, get union pay, and not pay union dues?


No brainer; it will force everyone to join the union.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:05:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:05:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:11:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By America-first:
Originally Posted By twistedLV:
I wonder how that will work in 'Right to Work' states. Where you can work in a union shop, get union pay, and not pay union dues?


No brainer; it will force everyone to join the union.


But they don't get any money....

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:18:21 PM EST
If that happens, we should riot. NO WAY should union fucks get a pass on this. Such a gross unfairness will not go unpunished. No one should have to pay this stupid tax to fund healthcare for wetbacks.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:18:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By twistedLV:
I wonder how that will work in 'Right to Work' states. Where you can work in a union shop, get union pay, and not pay union dues?


Tax the benefits of non-union members.

If you have the opportunity to join the union, but refuse then you are obviously not on board with the program. You get NOTHING from this regime but the back of the hand.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:20:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By wingnutx:


+1

But more pissed offer.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:27:10 PM EST
So it's unbelievable that unions would be exempt? Obviously the dems are in the unions pocket and have been for some time, however union companies pay a lot of money into healthcare already. My company pays 7.35 per hour for my health and welfare package. For a 40 hour week this is $294. Yeah you read that right, that's per WEEK! Thinks that needs to be taxed more? Who is that going to hurt? I can guarantee you that in Jan they will be adding another $.50 per hour to that total. Last year my company paid over $14,000 for just my health and welfare package alone. To put that in perspective I got a quote from my insurance company for almost the same coverage and it was about $220 per MONTH! I wish I could opt out and buy my own! Haha yeah right.

Don't think I am some union blowhard, quite the opposite. I would gladly work non, and did before, 'cept my boss is great and all the people I work with are great and non pays about 10 dollars and hour less for what I do. Probably part of the reason work is so slow now and we seem to keep getting outbid even when we have barely 2-3% in our bids, but that is another subject.

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:30:13 PM EST
Thats unconstitutional on several levels, but these usurpers dont care about that.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:36:32 PM EST
For those of you who are healthy and young who are offered health benefits through work.
If the government starts taxing these benefits, will you considering opting out of some of these
offerings which you don't anticipate needing? It's a calculated risk for sure, and perhaps a dumb
way to flip off the government, but will anyone do it?
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:41:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By Stock_Pile:
For those of you who are healthy and young who are offered health benefits through work.
If the government starts taxing these benefits, will you considering opting out of some of these
offerings which you don't anticipate needing? It's a calculated risk for sure, and perhaps a dumb
way to flip off the government, but will anyone do it?


No, because you will have to obtain some kind of coverage or you'll get penalized.

It is a zero sum game. You either get taxed to death on benefits through your employer or you sign on with Uncle Sugar.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:42:34 PM EST
The unions have already been a huge benefactor of the Chrysler\GM mess in terms of gaining more power. Just the mention of such an unfair plan by those who preach fairness as a political tool is madening. If voters aren't ready to toss these shitbags out then there is no hope. This Obama-Care thing will be the largest piece of his People's State puzzle. Put a fork in us.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:45:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sig_Fan:
Originally Posted By Stock_Pile:
For those of you who are healthy and young who are offered health benefits through work.
If the government starts taxing these benefits, will you considering opting out of some of these
offerings which you don't anticipate needing? It's a calculated risk for sure, and perhaps a dumb
way to flip off the government, but will anyone do it?


No, because you will have to obtain some kind of coverage or you'll get penalized.

It is a zero sum game. You either get taxed to death on benefits through your employer or you sign on with Uncle Sugar.


Yes, God forbid people strive to remain healthy so they don't need the insurance until later in life.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:04:36 PM EST
CoC prevents me.....





Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:04:47 PM EST

fook them in the eyeball.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:07:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/16/2009 4:07:53 PM EST by PlaymoreMinds]
Wanting to tax the employer contribution of healthcare has been on the table since he took office.
The part about letting unions scate? New...and wanna know why?

Because the UAW works for the Govt., now, don't they?

Do the math .

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:10:48 PM EST
Mikuhl, So what your saying is, in Indiana, in the same field as you, contractors that hire non union employees that make $10.00 per hour less than you but still struggle to beat your firm out at bid time by less than 3%?
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of profit margins do your project managers figure in to stay competitive without target funding?
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:14:47 PM EST
Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition


hmmmm.....seems to be some opposition to the bill by unions also. Why not stress that?

Oh, yeah. Doesn't fit the "anti-union agenda" some folks here have.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:28:21 PM EST
So whats your point?
As if the union fan club could ever could ever agree on anything,
Some of them here when pressured, claim to have voted straight republican since Reagan.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:51:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/16/2009 6:30:21 PM EST by JarheadPatriot]
Originally Posted By indysteve:
So whats your point?
As if the union fan club could ever could ever agree on anything,
Some of them here when pressured, claim to have voted straight republican since Reagan.


I cast my first republican vote last November. I have quite a knack for voting for the loser.

I am in a union because my boss, who happens to also be a friend, runs a union shop. I was with him when he lost the union vote. I voted "no", and left the company. After working for 3-4 years for non-union companies, with no benefits, he and I talked. I was convinced to at least give the union a try. I now have a good medical plan, eye, dental, and a pension. NO non-union competitor is offering any of that at this time, not in this current construction downturn. As of right now, I do NOT get paid holidays, nor do I get a paid vacation. Due to current conditions, I average about 30 hours a week. That's a 25% decrease in my hours. Two years ago, we had work scheduled 2-3 weeks in advance. Now, I rarely know what I'm doing the next day. Everybody is slow. Union, and non-union alike. At least in the construction trades.

I can agree with the fact that there are many union idiots. I have seen several come through our company. But the endless drivel that we are all some kind of left wing tree hugging liberal pieces of shit is growing old.Truth be told, many of the people bitching just sound like they are pissed, and jealous that they're not the ones with the benefits. I'm sure if their employer offered the same things as a union, there would be less griping. The whole " haves vs. have nots" thing.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:09:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:
Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition


hmmmm.....seems to be some opposition to the bill by unions also. Why not stress that?

Oh, yeah. Doesn't fit the "anti-union agenda" some folks here have.


If you read the article the proposal to exempt unions is an effort to buy them off on the idea of taxing employer provided benefits. If Unions were really for the working guy they say hell no to the whole thing, but I don't hear that. Don't get sidetracked this article is strictly about costs and how to pay for them. I'm against the whole .gov health care idea, but the union exemption is nothing more than a bribe so pro-union senators don't try to block this shafting.

Honestly I was actually counting on the unions to fight this because their benefits are so good but if their going to be exempted, then we have little hope of this thing being derailed.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:14:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By indysteve:
Mikuhl, So what your saying is, in Indiana, in the same field as you, contractors that hire non union employees that make $10.00 per hour less than you but still struggle to beat your firm out at bid time by less than 3%?
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of profit margins do your project managers figure in to stay competitive without target funding?



I Don't really know what you're asking.

I have no idea what kind of profit margins my employers expect. I don't know what 'target funding' is.

I have heard of several jobs that we have lost where the winning bid was less than our COST to do the job. No profit included at all! On a few of these we were beat by another union company!

I said my company will have 3% profit in a bid and still get beat, not that we are getting beat by less than 3% total.

I never said anything about contractors struggling to beat us, I feel like you are baiting me into saying something. but I can't imagine what.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:16:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By Semiautots:
If that happens, we should riot. NO WAY should union fucks get a pass on this. Such a gross unfairness will not go unpunished. No one should have to pay this stupid tax to fund healthcare for wetbacks.


IBTB
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:17:03 PM EST
Bend over, and get ready for a little hope and change.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:31:54 PM EST
Everyday I can count on something that communist will do to make me want to bug out. We can't handle this pressure cooker much longer. The unions fellated the potus, now they are going to get paid back. Just like ABC news. Really, you union guys may be able to sleep at night and tell your family and friends how good and loyal you are to the right, but y'all took part in the financing of the destruction of America.

I'm thinking about starting one down in NC if we get this forced on us. Anybody else want to join? We will orgainize and have our meetings once a week, they are mandatory. You have to sit down at the lake and drink beer and tell lies about women and fish. We start at 9:30 this Friday.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:34:25 PM EST
Article states that benefits gained under "union contract" would be exempt, this does not necessarily mean that the person receiving the beni's is a union member. Were I work the non-union members outnumber the union members but we still work under the terms of the union contract.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:37:01 PM EST
This violates the 14th amendment.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:55:03 PM EST
OK, You explained your position.
If you are working for a contractor who is bidding 3% profit margin currently in the Indiana construction industry you are basically bidding work just to get it. Without knowing who you work for on this current path, keeping the doors open would be a major concern. Projects come in all shapes and sizes, the labor burden doesnt.
what you need to be concerned about with the union is the greybeards (which I'm assuming you are one of) rule when they have good relationships with contractors or owners reps and everyone is fat, happy and working.
Those days are over and extending unemployment benefitts to people who actually want to work is just one another pathetic example of big labor. Think seriously about what you want to do with the rest of your life, get some schooling and move on.
BTW target money is what the union uses to compete with fair bidders.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:09:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By raven:
This violates the 14th amendment.




And who is going to point that out in a place that matters. Republicans? HA!


We're a socialist country now. Some are more equal than others.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:14:32 PM EST
Heard about that this morning.

Unions are run by the silliest fucking spoiled bastard children. They insist they get what they want when they want it. And they still do it, knowing they have made their own way of life economically untenable. It's a rush to grab what they can while it's there.

It may not be during this recession, but unionized employment in general is going to blow up. Sooner or later employers simply won't have the means or will to deal with them any more. And when it does it is going to be an incredible fucking mess that union workers could have avoided if they hadn't been such shortsighted, overindulgent asshats. They will drag a whole lot of honest folks with them.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:22:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:
Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition


hmmmm.....seems to be some opposition to the bill by unions also. Why not stress that?

Oh, yeah. Doesn't fit the "anti-union agenda" some folks here have.


An agenda implies organization. There isn't any organization I am aware of. Liking or not liking unions is a personal choice. There isn't any agenda I'm aware of.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:24:48 PM EST
Lets start a gun owners union and use it as a tax shield.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:26:04 PM EST
jarhead, Sounds like you have the perfect job, hope it lasts.
The biggest problem I have with big labor is they have no business planning what to do with my retirement, health care or my life.
I didn't vote for these pricks I'm not going to let them plunder my 401K, jack up my property taxes to pay for union bid only contracts, mandate my health care provider to treat the untreatable or buy their shitty defective cars or all the other garbage they can think of in the next 4 years.
Just the way I am and I'm sure I"M not alone.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:32:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By indysteve:
jarhead, Sounds like you have the perfect job, hope it lasts.
The biggest problem I have with big labor is they have no business planning what to do with my retirement, health care or my life.
I didn't vote for these pricks I'm not going to let them plunder my 401K, jack up my property taxes to pay for union bid only contracts, mandate my health care provider to treat the untreatable or buy their shitty defective cars or all the other garbage they can think of in the next 4 years.
Just the way I am and I'm sure I"M not alone.


If I had a paid vacation, and paid holidays, it'd be a lot more perfect. I wouldn't mind some forty hour paychecks either.

But, I have a job to complain about, so I am grateful.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:00:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 3:06:27 AM EST by FMJ3]
Originally Posted By Mikuhl:
So it's unbelievable that unions would be exempt? Obviously the dems are in the unions pocket and have been for some time, however union companies pay a lot of money into healthcare already. My company pays 7.35 per hour for my health and welfare package. For a 40 hour week this is $294. Yeah you read that right, that's per WEEK! Thinks that needs to be taxed more? Who is that going to hurt? I can guarantee you that in Jan they will be adding another $.50 per hour to that total. Last year my company paid over $14,000 for just my health and welfare package alone. To put that in perspective I got a quote from my insurance company for almost the same coverage and it was about $220 per MONTH! I wish I could opt out and buy my own! Haha yeah right.

Don't think I am some union blowhard, quite the opposite. I would gladly work non, and did before, 'cept my boss is great and all the people I work with are great and non pays about 10 dollars and hour less for what I do. Probably part of the reason work is so slow now and we seem to keep getting outbid even when we have barely 2-3% in our bids, but that is another subject.

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.


Yep, why should the unions continue to feed off the system they are dragging down
Why are they being exempted - politics plain and simple.

Just checked and my company covers $38K of backend expenses (Ins, Tier 1&2, Medicare, 401k, etc) for me annually - and I'm not union. I guess they don't pay enough (to obama) to be exempt

ETA: Most people have no idea how much money the company pays on their behalf outside of their paycheck
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:10:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 3:39:12 AM EST by PlaymoreMinds]
Originally Posted By Mikuhl:

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.



Not quite.
We're pissed because that exemption is unconstitutional.
We're pissed because that exemption is unlawful.
We're pissed because the rest of the world is expected to work to their own ability to benefit another's need.

I don't give a rat's ass what you pay. I only care about what *I* pay.
And I want the Govt and all the lazy asses who don't pay at all to stop caring about what *I* pay.

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:19:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Originally Posted By FMJ3:

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.



Not quite.
We're pissed because that exemption is unconstitutional.
We're pissed because that exemption is unlawful.
We're pissed because the rest of the world is expected to work to their own ability to benefit another's need.

I don't give a rat's ass what you pay. I only care about what *I* pay.
And I want the Govt and all the lazy asses who don't pay at all to stop caring about what *I* pay.



Hey, fix that quote!!! Someone might mistake me for a union sympathizer
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:25:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By indysteve:
So whats your point?
As if the union fan club could ever could ever agree on anything,
Some of them here when pressured, claim to have voted straight republican since Reagan.


Some of us have. Probably longer than you've been alive.
I voted for Richard Nixon. And I'm proud to claim I did.
Everybody here gets their panties in a wad thinking that labor organizations are out to screw everybody else.
The reason they exist is to aid the members in the work place.
As far as union benefits not being taxed, they are already taxed.
I'm a retired union member. Each year from my union retirement, I receive a 1099R and one W-2 for my life insurance benefits.
If you don't know what the difference between a 1099 and a W-2, look it up.
My personal opinion is that such an exemption for union members' benefits would not ever happen.
The gov't won't and can't turn it's back on revenue after all the money it is spending.
The IRS would make a ruling that would invalidate such an exemption anyway.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:31:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mikuhl:
So it's unbelievable that unions would be exempt? Obviously the dems are in the unions pocket and have been for some time, however union companies pay a lot of money into healthcare already. My company pays 7.35 per hour for my health and welfare package. For a 40 hour week this is $294. Yeah you read that right, that's per WEEK! Thinks that needs to be taxed more? Who is that going to hurt? I can guarantee you that in Jan they will be adding another $.50 per hour to that total. Last year my company paid over $14,000 for just my health and welfare package alone. To put that in perspective I got a quote from my insurance company for almost the same coverage and it was about $220 per MONTH! I wish I could opt out and buy my own! Haha yeah right.

Don't think I am some union blowhard, quite the opposite. I would gladly work non, and did before, 'cept my boss is great and all the people I work with are great and non pays about 10 dollars and hour less for what I do. Probably part of the reason work is so slow now and we seem to keep getting outbid even when we have barely 2-3% in our bids, but that is another subject.

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.



CAUSE

and

EFFECT

I get a tingly sensation when I see the laws of economics in action. Here's the bigger question, is your Union smart enough to recognize that the wages are not competitive and willing to renegotiate so your company can win some bids? You seem like a smart guy, but I bet you have to put up with alot of idiots around you that don't understand this kind of thing.


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:39:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By FMJ3:
Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Originally Posted By Mikuhl:

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.



Not quite.
We're pissed because that exemption is unconstitutional.
We're pissed because that exemption is unlawful.
We're pissed because the rest of the world is expected to work to their own ability to benefit another's need.

I don't give a rat's ass what you pay. I only care about what *I* pay.
And I want the Govt and all the lazy asses who don't pay at all to stop caring about what *I* pay.



Hey, fix that quote!!! Someone might mistake me for a union sympathizer


Fixed...sorry!

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:45:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 3:49:03 AM EST by tmleadr03]
Originally Posted By Mikuhl:
So it's unbelievable that unions would be exempt? Obviously the dems are in the unions pocket and have been for some time, however union companies pay a lot of money into healthcare already. My company pays 7.35 per hour for my health and welfare package. For a 40 hour week this is $294. Yeah you read that right, that's per WEEK! Thinks that needs to be taxed more? Who is that going to hurt? I can guarantee you that in Jan they will be adding another $.50 per hour to that total. Last year my company paid over $14,000 for just my health and welfare package alone. To put that in perspective I got a quote from my insurance company for almost the same coverage and it was about $220 per MONTH! I wish I could opt out and buy my own! Haha yeah right.

Don't think I am some union blowhard, quite the opposite. I would gladly work non, and did before, 'cept my boss is great and all the people I work with are great and non pays about 10 dollars and hour less for what I do. Probably part of the reason work is so slow now and we seem to keep getting outbid even when we have barely 2-3% in our bids, but that is another subject.

The point is the entire idea sucks and you are just pissed because union companies might be exempt from a tax on healthcare.



Really, your logic skills can not connect these two things? Either a paycut or a job loss is in your future. But the Union wont allow pay cuts.

ETA: Beat by 14 min on that one.
Top Top