Comments on: Will Trumka Kick the “Triggers” Football?

By: laborite57

laborite57 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:09:26 +0000

I apologize for trying to sound like a know-it-all. I am not. But I worked in the labor movement for about ten years and I find it very disconcerting that even in progressive, pro-union places like FDL that there is so little understanding of unions and how they work.

UAW is silent on ALL the major public policy issues of the day, including health insurance reform, for the obvious reason that it is fighting for its own life right now. It is not it a position to bring anything to the table except a begging bowl. Obama’s auto bail out demanded huge sacrifices from the UAW, despite what you may have heard, and they are currently concentrating on the painful issue of a new round of concessions in the Ford Motor Co. contract.

In my view, the current leaders of the UAW are wise to keep a low profile. We saw the vicious attacks on them when the bail out program was announced, and those attack could be renewed at any time. It is to their own advantage, and to Obama’s, to keep out of the health care spotlight right now.

And no, I don’t think the UAW silence is a “big dog not barking.” On the health care issue anyway, UAW is not a big dog in any sense.

By: Rayne

Rayne — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:17:59 +0000

Since you appear to know so much about unions, can you tell us one thing?

Where the hell is the UAW on the public option?

Hmmm??

Rather big dog not barking, don’t you think?

By: FlashMan

FlashMan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:16:50 +0000

Jane, I think you’re asking good tough questions, and I’m struck by the parallels between this discussion and the one that occurred back on 8/20 after Marcy posted about an interview Andy Stern gave to ABC in which he reportedly said that triggers would be a more acceptable compromise than co-ops. Many people shouted her down, saying now is not the time to engage in public self-criticism within the coalition. I didn’t agree with that position because I think Stern acted unilaterally and without debate to undercut the coalition – at a time when Obama’s apparent cave-in on the public option was by no means a foregone conclusion. I’m not sure Trumka’s word-parsing is on a par with that. A week after Stern’s interview with ABC, Trumka was still calling for a strong public option without triggers. If anybody in the house of labor should be called out here, it’s certainly not Trumka.

By: laborite57

laborite57 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:39:32 +0000

Jane, you are very lovable, but you don’t know very much about labor unions.

Yes, Rich Trumka is running for president of AFL-CIO and wants the support of as many of the member unions as possible, including AFSCME.

But he is running unopposed and already has the announced support of most of the larger unions, so he doesn’t need AFSCME President McEntee’s vote to get elected. McEntee is a notorious egomaniac and likes to think of himself as a kingmaker, but the truth is that Trumka neither needs his vote, nor has any reason to tailor AFL-CIO policy to suit him.

By: milagro

milagro — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:25:10 +0000

Unfortunately, the unions are far less powerful than they once were. Union power has fragmented with the industrial base of the country. At least during Clinton reform, the unions could bring large employers to the table. Today is not even close. Further, some unions are in charge of major health trusts, which means many behave more like insurance companies (albeit in the nominal interests of covered members) than an independent political working class voice.

Not to say they can’t and won’t have an impact. But the moral imperative is under severe strain in America’s unions. Plus, Trumka needs the votes. I’m holding my breath for now.

By: Mason

Mason — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:22:50 +0000

I cannot imagine how the health insurance companies could have screwed things up worse than they already have managed to accomplish.

If a bill is passed with a mandate but no public option (which is the worst possible outcome and worse than the current situation because it will require most of the uninsured to purchase unaffordable insurance without controlling escalating costs) it won’t go into effect until 2013. Yet, they want additional time to loot the country at will before their performance is evaluated pursuant to some as yet undefined set of factors that will be plugged into some as yet undefined mathematical formula producing a score that might trigger an as yet undefined public option depending on what will be defined as a passing score.

This has to be the most absurd and ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard. We’re watching an immense fire burning out of control and Obama apparently has decided to feed the fire with gas (i.e., the mandates) and watch what happens for 4+ years at which point the metrics will be crunched through a formula to decide whether to appoint another bipartisan panel to work out another stunning bipartisan solution to a public option.

This “solution” is a license to steal more than the insurance companies are stealing now, subject to the future application of a set of undefined metrics that cannot measure human pain and suffering to determine if Congress should return to where it is now and decide what the public option will be.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

By: xargaw

xargaw — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:12:15 +0000

First, I live in Washington State and I have had an individual policy with Regence Blue Cross since 1996. My rate jumped 37% as of Sept. 1st. My benefits have diminished over the years, my deductable has dramatically increased and I am now paying considerably more for myself than I paid for my spouse and myself together just a few years ago. The insurance business is legal extortion and nothing less. If Obama does not deliver a public plan, he can bid goodbye to people across the country that took him at his word during the campaign. We won’t be spun. This is too important for the political two step. It’s time for some LBJ arm twisting. He said he knew how to play rough and tumble Chicago style politics. It’s time to prove it.

By: TomWells

TomWells — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:53:46 +0000

We will see. Trumka has been good so far.

I think he can stand up to Obama.

By: MrCleaveland

MrCleaveland — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:43:25 +0000

Mike Stark has bragged that he was a conservative talk radio troll. Why is it okay for him but not for me?

I know, you have no answer for that.

By: Ann in AZ

Ann in AZ — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:43:03 +0000

one came away from the article understanding how vitally important a reaction, a response was to them and how crushing it was not to get a rise from their targets

I so totally agree with you. In fact, I do believe I’m hearing some gasping for breath, gurgling sounds already!