Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (19984)	11/12/2010 9:35:50 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

After all, it is has become a huge issue for them now. The inference is that unions would never have pushed for health care at all if someone hadn't had the bright idea of using it in lieu of salary. I don't think that's likely. Health care and other benefits would have become a sweetener at some point either way. Of course there's no way to know either way what might have happen. But I still submit that the idea has to come from somewhere and I can't imagine where it would have come from. The government would be the first place, and that happened. But the unions? That would take either some model to copy, more originality than I would expect from union reps, or some shot in the dark. It may seem inevitable in retrospect but things can seem that way simply because we're used to them. Imagine a union negotiation scenario. Unions will ask for more money first and foremost. They only way they would ask for something in lieu of money is if the employer had something of value to offer that was worth more than money or if the employer were short on money but could offer something of value that it owned like discounted product, use of facilities, etc. Unless the employer were a medical service provider, medical services would not have cropped up as a benefit any more than pony rides for children or toasters or trips to Disneyland or cars. If unions wanted to go after some benefit not directly related to employment, I could see a progression from paid vacation time to paying for the vacation itself. If they wanted to make a leap to something with even less connection to their employment, housing might be first on the list followed by cars. Health care is considerably further afield. Remember, paying for health care wasn't a big issue back then. Health insurance wasn't that expensive and not on anyone's mind. It only got expensive once it became an employee benefit.

To: i-node who wrote (19984)	11/16/2010 5:11:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

While employer sponsored care evolved "in lieu" of salary, I don't doubt unions would have pressed for it in ADDITION to salary. Its pretty much always in lieu of salary. It might be granted as an additional benefit on top of the salary, without actually cutting the salary, but if the unions, or the employees acting outside of unions, had the power to get additional compensation in one form, than they have the power to demand it in another from if that's what they want. They could have had additional salary or higher wages, or other benefits, instead of the health insurance benefit, so even if its nominally "in additional" its really "in lieu".