McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

[estesbob]

You don’t have to buy insurance, you can just pay more on your taxes. The reality is that if you can afford to pay for any health issue that might befall you out of pocket, the fine won’t break your bank account.

The Obama administration claimed emphatically that the new healthcare law did not entail any new taxes , other than on so-called Cadillac insurance policies Now you tell us that one could reject insurance insurance and be forced to pay ntaxes. Either you didn’t understand what was in the bill or the Obama administration didn’t understand was in the bill???

You might read the judge’s opinion allowing this lawsuit against this bill to go forward. He pointed out the absolute absurdity of the Obama administration claiming, when trying to get the bill passed ,that it involved no taxes and then asking for the lawsuit to be dropped claiming the law falls under the power of the government to levy taxes. You really don’t know what’s in this bill, do you?

 

[estesbob]

From my experience, workers who organize tend to always receive higher wage’s then their non-union counterparts in addition to health benefits, job security and a voice in the workplace; something which their non-union counterparts as a rule do not enjoy.

All the while bankrupting companies as they could no longer afford to compete and heading to the general level of unemployment in the country. It is no accident that the only place unions have any traction is with government jobs and as local and state government entities continue to feel the pinch of outrageous contracts their power there will wane also.

 

[gamewell45]

All the while bankrupting companies as they could no longer afford to compete and heading to the general level of unemployment in the country. It is no accident that the only place unions have any traction is with government jobs and as local and state government entities continue to feel the pinch of outrageous contracts their power there will wane also.

Bob, I have to disagree with you. Any union which would try to bankrupt a company would be doing a dis-service to its membership and to itself. If the companies were to fold up, that would mean union members out of work which translates to less dues monies which are needed to properly operate the union.

Furthermore, what company in their right mind would agree to terms and conditions that would put itself out of business??? It would defy common sense.

Unions may have “traction” with government jobs; that’s why they support pro-labor candidates. Much like big businesses who support the US Chamber of Commerce; they represent the best interests of business; certainly not the workers. Its all relative and if the contracts were so onerous at the government level, then the voters will hold those responsible accountable at election time. So far we haven’t seen it too much on the state or federal level to any large degree. If enough voters feel that the contracts are so onerous that its pinching the taxpayers, then you’ll see change, but until then its just the way things are for now.

 

[wabrams]

I suspect you are projecting. Just because you refused to learn about its contents doesn’t mean everyone else did. Many people did know what was in the bill; surveys showed that the more informed people were about the bill, the more likely they were to support it.

You got any links to those surveys?