(Bloomberg) -- The AFL-CIO will vote on a resolution that calls for changes to the Affordable Care Act, revealing divisions within the labor movement over whether the landmark health care law is good for union members.
The labor federation’s executive council approved the resolution Wednesday, sending it to the delegates for debate during the final sessions of the group’s quadrennial constitutional convention, says Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborer’s International Union of North America. More than 1,600 delegates and guests of the nation’s largest labor federation are meeting this week in Los Angeles.
“I didn’t hear any votes against it,” O’Sullivan said after a meeting of the executive council.
Drafts of the resolution call for changes to several provisions in the law, such as one that requires employees under certain plans to pay a fee to maintain coverage. Or one that classifies multi-employer plans as group plans to deny them subsidies. Republicans in Congress are vowing to block the changes sought by labor.
“We want to offer some constructive suggestions” to President Barack Obama, says Fred Redmond, a vice president with the United Steelworkers Union and a member of the AFL-CIO executive council. “We’re walking a balance to make sure that our message to the president is not disrespectful and should not imply any lack of support for the plan.”
O’Sullivan says without subsidies, some of the health funds used by his members could be forced out of business. He also opposes a temporary reinsurance fee to offset costs of expanding coverage.
“It can have a devastating impact on our ability to provide health insurance,” O’Sullivan says. “The one thing that is not acceptable at the end of the day is our members losing health insurance or our health and welfare funds going out of business because of Obamacare.”
Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and an executive council member, says Wednesday’s action is only the first step in the bid to fix the health care law.
“The resolution is just coming out of the frustration people have about health care in America and it’s going to take a lot more than debate and resolutions to change that,” Cohen says. “I don’t think this is going to get fixed in a meaningful way in the weeks ahead.”
Sen.Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah and Rep. Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, questioned the legality of the changes. Republicans opposed the 2010 law and have sought repeal.
“We will do whatever is within our power to ensure that the administration does not once again provide a special exemption to unions at the expense of American taxpayers,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
U.S. Sen.John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, this week introduced legislation that would make it illegal to provide subsidies for certain existing health care plans.
A key issue in altering the law is whether the fixes sought by the unions can be implemented by the administration without congressional approval, according to Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va.
For example, changing the part of the law that classifies multi-employer plans as group plans can only be made by Congress, Jost says.
“The Republicans aren’t going to fall all over themselves to make things better for the unions,” Jost says.
There were 14.4 million union members in 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average subsidy per eligible enrollee buying insurance through exchanges the law mandated is projected to be $5,300 in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Republicans will use labor opposition to the law to continue their attacks, according to Jost. Unions, which represented 11.3% of workers in 2012, helped Obama’s campaign in 2008 and 2012 by getting Democratic voters out to the polls.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the federation of 57 labor unions with 12 million members, supported the law when it was passed.
He has called for changes to a provision that defines a full-time workweek as 30 hours instead of the traditional 40. It has led some employers to create jobs with 29 1/2 hours of work a week to avoid paying for health care.
At a press briefing last month, Trumka said he has held meetings with White House officials over the law and would support legislation to fix what the unions perceive as problems.
The AFL-CIO resolution is also likely to target several specific provisions of the law such as the penalty for employers that don’t offer health care to workers, Redmond says.
“We think that the penalty of $2,000 for employers to pay per employee may not be enough to discourage employers from not offering health care,” Redmond says.
Register or login for access to this item and much more
All Employee Benefit News becomes archived within a week of it being published
Community members receive:
- All recent and archived articles
- Conference offers and updates
- A full menu of enewsletter options
- Web seminars, white papers, ebooks
Already have an account? Log In
Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access