Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Unions. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Unions. Afficher tous les articles

jeudi 19 septembre 2013

Unions' Obamacare Demand Won't Be Met, Obama Administration Says

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The Obama administration won't give in to organized labor's demand that it bend the health care reform law to protect some union member's health insurance plans, the White House said Friday.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other unions were informed of President Barack Obama's decision that the unions aren't getting what they want during a meeting at the White House about the Affordable Care Act on Friday afternoon. The Treasury laid out its rationale in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who previously wrote to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to express opposition to granting the unions' demand. The Washington Post first reported on the Obama administration's decision Friday.

The dispute over the impact of the 2010 health care reform law on some union health plans has caused a rift between the AFL-CIO and the White House. The labor union approved a resolution at its national meeting Wednesday calling for significant changes to the law -- and threatening to support its repeal if their terms weren't met.

Among its demands, the AFL-CIO wants union members belonging to so-called multiemployer plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans, to receive the same tax credits that will subsidize health insurance premiums for low-income people who don't get health coverage at work. Those lacking employer-sponsored coverage will use the state-based health insurance exchanges scheduled to open Oct. 1 for plans that take effect in 2014.

Multiemployer plans are utilized by union members who may work for more than one company in a year. The plans allow workers to maintain the same health benefits as they change jobs. Union leaders have claimed the health care reform law will be responsible for "destroying" these health benefits, in part because employers will prefer to end health insurance and direct workers to shop for their own coverage on the health insurance exchanges.

But the Treasury Department has ruled that these union plans will be treated the same as other job-based health plans, which are not eligible for tax credits. In single employer and multiemployer health plans, workers' premiums are subsidized by the company and the benefits are not taxed.

"An individual who is covered by an eligible employer-sponsored plan would not be eligible to receive a premium tax credit. The conclusion that an individual cannot benefit from both the exclusion from taxable income for employer-provided health coverage under such a plan and the premium tax credit by the A.C.A. [Affordable Care Act] applies whether the individual is covered by a single-employer plan or a multiemployer plan," Alastair Fitzpayne, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, wrote Hatch and Camp Friday.

The AFL-CIO had no comment on the White House's decision, spokeswoman Amaya Tune wrote in an email to HuffPost.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced legislation this week to forbid providing tax credits to union members with multiemployer plans.

D. Taylor, president of UniteHERE, Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Trumka were among the seven union leaders at the meeting, according to a background statement from a White House official. "The administration will work with multiemployer plans and other non-profit plans and encourage them to offer coverage through the Marketplace, on an equal footing, to create new, high-quality, affordable options for all Americans," the official said in a written statement.

Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett attended the meeting, according to the official.

Trumka declined to comment to reporters after the White House meeting, Politico reported.

This story has been updated with an email response from the AFL-CIO.

Related on HuffPost:

Subscribe window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode:'autosized-1r-organic',container:'taboola-autosized-1r-organic'});_taboola.push({mode:'autosized-1r-sc',container:'taboola-autosized-1r-sc'});window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({flush:true});

vendredi 2 août 2013

Paul Gorrell, Ph.D.: The End of DOMA Means the End of Civil Unions

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Get Gay Voices Alerts: Sign Up

We anxiously await the Supreme Court decision on two cases related to gay marriage. There is good potential for SCOTUS to strike down DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton. This would open up federal marriage benefits to individuals married in states where same-sex marriage is legal. While many want the gay marriage fight to be state by state, we need to remember that there are federal benefits for married couples that elude gay couples who are legally married all because of DOMA. If DOMA is struck down, there is one sure of victim of this victory: Civil Unions.

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships were an attempt to provide some legal recognition to same-sex couples while not allowing the usage of the word "marriage" to describe the relationship. This created a "separate, but equal" status for same-sex couples. This model was endorsed by some conservatives, even fiercely anti-gay marriage proponent President George W. Bush, as a kind of compromise that often offered the same exact benefits that straight married couples receive at the state level. Since DOMA prevented every gay couples from the federal benefits of marriage, whether legally married or in a civil union, the argument was that civil unions were a balanced compromise.

My partner and I decided to have a civil union in our home state of New Jersey because our financial advisor put the benefits and protections in front of us on paper and we could not deny that it was a protection for us at the state level and with any potential inheritance fights that could occur when one of us dies. But, something about it has always bugged me. While I am no longer a religious person, the word marriage has more transcendence to it while the notion of a civil union seems transactional.

There are moments when this is clearer to me. For instance, whenever you go to a hospital or doctor's office and fill out the many forms they give you, they ask for personal information that includes your marriage status. The options are single, divorced, married, widowed. I have never seen an option for a civil union. I make a point to let the person at the desk know that my legal relationship is not recognized on the form. They often ask, "well isn't it marriage?" And, I answer, "not according to the law of our state." After some complaints, Facebook added civil unions and domestic partnerships to its profile page. In the end, civil unions take care of the legal aspect of your partnership. But, they don't help you manage the societal aspect of your partnership. This is why marriage matters.

When my partner and I had our ceremony, we decided to downplay it. We had a surprise ceremony inviting about 10 friends for a dinner at our house. The mayor showed up, we announced our civil union, and the ceremony began. It was a very happy evening with a lot of joy. We joke that we became "civilized" or "unionized." In humor is truth, we are not married. And, knowing that our relationship is not the same as our straight friends just seems unfair. I feel that sense of injustice every single time I say to someone that we are in a civil union. It never leaves the conversation about our relationship. The law removes the joy.

Politicians who like the "separate, but equal" compromise will no longer have that option if DOMA is struck down. Why? Because, now they will be the ones who block their state's residents from receiving federal benefits. They will be the ones who do harm to their constituents; they won't be able to blame DOMA anymore.

Follow Paul Gorrell, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulGorrell

Get Alerts