LOS ANGELES — When President Obama phoned the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. last month, he shared some news that the labor leader had long wanted to hear — the administration would propose measures to reduce workplace exposure to disease-causing silica dust.þþBut their conversation soon moved to what has become a contentious topic this summer: labor’s renewed anger over Mr. Obama’s health care law and decisions surrounding it, especially the postponement of an employer mandate to ensure coverage for workers and the potential effects of the coming health insurance exchanges on existing plans.þþAccording to officials briefed on the call, the president voiced concern about labor’s criticisms, prompting the union federation’s leader, Richard Trumka, to promise that he would try to soften the harshly worded resolutions that several unions planned to push at this week’s A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention in Los Angeles.þþDespite overtures on both sides — with Mr. Obama agreeing on the call to sit down with some union leaders to address their concerns at the White House, and Mr. Trumka initially hoping to quash such a public rift between the president and his party’s traditional allies — labor leaders criticized the administration and Congress on Wednesday at their convention.þþWhile praising the overall legislation, the delegates overwhelmingly passed a sharply worded resolution that demanded changes to some of its regulations, although Mr. Trumka made sure to strip out some proposals that called for repealing the legislation.þþAt the convention, though, several labor leaders spoke their minds.þþ“If the Affordable Care Act is not fixed and it destroys the health and welfare funds that we have fought for and stand for, then I believe it needs to be repealed,” said Terence M. O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. “We don’t want it to be repealed. We want it to be fixed, fixed, fixed.þþ“We’ve had our asses kicked on retirement security and we know our health funds are under siege,” he added. “We ask the president and Congress to do the right thing for the men and women we represent.”þþThe resolution asserts that the law, by offering tax credits to workers seeking insurance from for-profit and other companies in the exchanges, will place some responsible employers at a competitive disadvantage and destabilize the employment-based health care system.þþThe administration and health officials have repeatedly tried to assure critics that the legislation will not encourage companies to dump workers from employer-based plans into newly created health insurance exchanges, even if the employer-based coverage stands out as more generous and therefore more expensive for companies and even municipalities.þþAt the convention, Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez’s cautious response to questions about the leaders’ concerns underscored how the complexities of the president’s signature domestic accomplishment and a longstanding goal of labor continue to present political difficulties for Mr. Obama.þþIn his speech before A.F.L.-C.I.O. members, Mr. Perez praised labor for helping enact the health law, but acknowledged that “challenges remain.”þþDuring an interview here, he said, “The administration has been working to address questions and concerns raised by a wide array of stakeholders.”þþMr. Trumka declined to offer details about his telephone conversation with Mr. Obama, except to say: “We’re trying to solve problems.”þþHe and a group of union leaders also met late last month at the White House with Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, and Mr. Perez. Two other sessions have taken place since then with more junior administration officials, union officials said. The sit-down with Mr. Obama himself, Mr. Trumka and the union presidents is set for Friday.þþAny erosion of health care benefits poses a singular threat to labor leaders, whose arsenal of tools to attract workers into union membership has dwindled alongside the decline of their organizations and their concomitant loss of influence around the country. Many unions and retirees have lost some benefits since the recession began, especially in the public sector as governments froze pension plans.þþSeveral union presidents also expressed intense frustration with an administration that they have repeatedly aided on policy and politics, some citing their lingering disappointment over Mr. Obama’s decision not to campaign aggressively for labor’s signature legislative goal, a bill that would have helped unionize more workers.þþConservatives, of course, have bashed the Affordable Care Act since before it was passed in 2010, and aspects of the legislation remain unpopular across the country.þþAhead of the opening on Oct. 1 of the health insurance marketplaces created to cover the uninsured by the law, the president is facing rising anger from some of the most loyal members of his party base. Compounding the unions’ anger, the business community — often labor’s archenemy and a frequent Obama critic on health care — received an important reprieve this summer when the administration delayed for one year the requirement that employers offer their workers’ health coverage or face a penalty of $2,000 for each uninsured full-time employee.þþ“Our members are the exact type of people that Obamacare was supposed to take care of,” said D. Taylor, president of Unite Here, a union of hotel and restaurant workers that has about 200,000 members with Taft-Hartley plans, employer-provided coverage named after the 1947 labor law. “We were the first union to endorse Obama. We were big supporters of health care reform.”þþMr. Taylor cast doubt on the president’s assurances that those Americans who liked their health plans could keep them.þþ“Under the way the A.C.A. has been rolled out by the Treasury and I.R.S. regulations, it will make it completely impossible to live up to that,” he said. “We think this is an example of unintended consequences. And it’s completely disheartening that the biggest earlier supporter of the president hasn’t gotten the same listening and benefit of big business with the one-year delay in the $2,000 penalty.”þþLabor’s dismay is not new, but union leaders had been restrained, waiting for their closed-door negotiations with the administration on this issue to bear fruit. That anger burst into the open this summer when the so-called employer mandate was postponed.þþSome state labor federations have passed resolutions excoriating the health law. Mr. Trumka, torn between trying not to anger the administration while mollifying some of his unions, may have headed off a full-throated call to repeal the law entirely, but some union presidents say they believe they have no other choice.þþUnion leaders note that under the law, workers whose family income is less than four times the poverty line will qualify for subsidies in the form of tax credits to obtain health insurance in the exchanges, with insurance sold by for-profit, nonprofit and cooperative companies. The union leaders say they want similar treatment — for unionized workers to qualify for those tax credits to help finance their Taft-Hartley insurance plans, which covers about 20 million workers and retirees.þþ“We just want to be treated like equals — we don’t want special treatment,” Mr. Taylor said. “An employer will say, ‘O.K., your plan costs about $10,000 a year. Let me get this straight. I only pay a $2,000 penalty if I drop you. That’s an $8,000 saving for me.’ That’s actually going to happen all over this country.”þþBut others doubt that unions would get such a carve-out because it would also encourage many nonunion workers to seek tax credits to help with their employer-based plans.þþRepublicans are already trying to prevent any accommodation of unions on this issue. Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, introduced a bill earlier this week that would amend the health law to specifically bar Taft-Hartley plans from receiving any subsidies.þþRepublicans say unions are double dipping — through these new insurance subsidies as well as the tax breaks that union members receive by not having to pay income tax on the value of the health coverage their employers provide.
Source: NY Times
