Casual observers of the political scene got an insight into union politics when a small storm erupted over a flyer distributed by Nevada’s Culinary Union attacking Bernie Sanders and his Medicare for All proposal.
Politico has a piece surveying similar disputes in other states and nationwide. Some unions, like the building trades and the Teamsters, want to keep the insurance plans they’ve negotiated for their members; most others want universal public insurance.
Aside from the specifics of each individual bargaining agreement and its health care provisions, this issue reveals the fundamental difference between two forms of unionism.
Business unionism is based on the idea that union members, drawing on their own resources, can create the best conditions for their work. From this point of view, the greater the difference between how well off union members are compared to the nonunion workers around them, the more attractive the union will be, the more members it will have, and the more benefits they can win at the bargaining table.
Social unionism also wants to promote the interests of its members, but it believes that what can be achieved society-wide, through coalition-building and political action, is far greater than what any single union can achieve on its own. Instead of increasing the gap between union and nonunion workers, social unionists want everyone to move up together as far as possible.
Hi Peter: Edited
Healthcare polices in companies has not attracted the high powered people it should to negotiate with commercial healthcare insurance companies. As a result, they have either gotten less benefit or paid too much for what they did get from negotiations. I would guess the same is occurring with union plans also. Forcing a company to pay more only gives them more reason to capitalize production or move it offshore.
Much of the problem with healthcare insurance today is not pushing back on healthcare insurance companies early on and a couple of decades ago when it was easier to do because they were not so concentrated. The companies were smaller in comparison to the companies and unions. As one single payer expert said to me, the ACA created two 1000 pound gorillas with the implementation of ACOs and the mandate of insurance. The former is highly concentrated regionally and can force insurance companies to pay what they wish. The latter has benefited insurance companies and they too are consolidating with drug distribution centers and drug store chains. Whatever insurance companies negotiate, they are less likely to pass to consumers.
The key is to convince them they are better off with single payer or a path to it over the years.
I hope this makes sense.
A good read.