Tag: benefits
With Threat To Cut 'Large Number Of People' From Health Care, Trump Hails Shutdown

With Threat To Cut 'Large Number Of People' From Health Care, Trump Hails Shutdown

President Donald Trump threatened to cause Americans pain if the government shuts down at midnight on Tuesday, saying he could use a shutdown to make "irreversible" cuts to health care and other benefit programs.

"We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them," Trump said in the Oval Office in response to a question from a right-wing activist masquerading as a reporter. "Like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like."

Trump went on to say that Project 2025 mastermind Russell Vought, who now serves as director of the Office of Management and Budget, will use a shutdown to "trim the budget to a level that you couldn't do any other way."

"Because of the shutdown, we can do things medically, and other ways, including benefits. We can cut large numbers of people out," Trump said, appearing to catch himself realizing that deliberately cutting medical benefits to Americans would be unpopular.

"We don't want to do that," he claimed.

Rather than negotiate with Democrats on a government funding bill, Trump has instead been threatening to cause pain to Americans during a government shutdown.

Democrats want Trump to agree to extend Medicaid subsidies that allow millions of Americans to have health insurance, something the White House said Trump is not inclined to do.

“He read all the shit they’re asking for, and he said, ‘on second thought, go fuck yourself,’” a White House official told Politico of Trump’s feelings on health insurance negotiations.

Already, Trump has threatened massive cuts to the federal workforce—which he was likely going to make whether or not the government shut down.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday also said that if the government shuts down, low-income Americans wouldn’t get their benefits—even though contingency funds are available that could fund those programs for one month in the event of a shutdown.

"The overwhelming majority of the American public wants to keep the government open,” Leavitt said. “They want food assistance programs for women and children and impoverished communities to continue going out the door. All of that will come to an end if Democrats vote against this clean CR that Republicans are proposing."

But now, Trump is clearly confirming that he will use a shutdown as a pretext to cut Medicaid benefits even more than he already did when he signed the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Already, polling shows voters would blame Trump and congressional Republicans—who have unified control over Washington—if the government shuts down.

A New York Times/Siena College poll released Tuesday found that 26% of registered voters would blame Trump and Republicans in Congress for a shutdown, while 19% would blame congressional Democrats.

If Trump decides to use a shutdown to purposefully hurt Americans, the polling could swing even harder against his party.

But Trump is hell-bent on trying to blame Democrats for a shutdown, rather than negotiate.

On Monday, after meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Trump released a vile deepfake AI video that puts words in Schumer’s mouth and depicts Jeffries in a sombrero.

Don’t be fooled by any of the GOP rhetoric and lies: Trump wants a shutdown so he can hurt poor people and Democrats.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Former Officials Warn Social Security Purge 'May Delay Retiree Benefits'

Former Officials Warn Social Security Purge 'May Delay Retiree Benefits'

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is now confirming that it plans to lay off 7,000 workers as President Donald Trump's administration proceeds with its mass firings of federal employees.

CNBC reported that while the SSA won't be laying off 50 percent of its workforce as it previously suggested, it's aiming to reduce its number of employees from 57,000 to 50,000. While the agency won't be gutted by the firings, Greg Senden— a paralegal analyst who worked at the SSA for 27 years — said it's likely the layoffs will harm beneficiaries.

""It's going to extend the amount of time that it takes for them to have their claim processed," said Senden, who helps the American Federation of Government Employees administer Social Security benefits to its retirees in six states. "It's going to extend the amount of time that they have to wait to get benefits.

The SSA, which is now led by acting commissioner Leland Dudek, said it aims to achieve most of its layoffs through offering early retirement to longtime employees and voluntary reassignments. It also hunted at "reduction-in-force actions that could include abolishment of organizations and positions."

Dudek, who the Washington Post reported praised South African centibillionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on social media, leapfrogged several more senior officials at the SSA to lead the agency last month. He took over after former acting commissioner Michelle King was effectively forced out after refusing to allow DOGE officials to access sensitive Social Security data.

Last month, Martin O'Malley — the Democratic Maryland ex-governor who served as SSA commissioner under former President Joe Biden — warned that if DOGE made drastic cuts to the agency, retirees could soon feel the brunt of it in their pockets.

"At this rate, they will break it. And they will break it fast, and there will be an interruption of benefits," O'Malley said. "I believe you will see that within the next 30 to 90 days."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits

After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits

By Rebecca Beitsch, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, some states that offer health and retirement benefits to their employees’ domestic partners are considering changing those policies, in large part to save money or avoid discrimination lawsuits.

Before the ruling, 34 percent of state and local governments allowed unmarried same-sex couples to receive health care benefits, while 28 percent did so for domestic partners of the opposite sex, according to a study of public sector benefits by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Based on what happened in states that legalized gay marriage on their own, those numbers are about to dwindle.

Maryland ended domestic partner benefits for state employees, which it offered only to same-sex couples, just a few months after it legalized same-sex marriage in 2013. Arizona did the same after its legalization in 2014. Alaska still offers same-sex domestic partner benefits to the roughly 6,000 state employees it covers, but it is now reviewing that policy. The majority of Alaska state employees get their health insurance through state-funded union health trusts, and the state’s largest union, the Alaska State Employees Association, ended same-sex domestic partner benefits for the more than 8,500 state and municipal employees it covers.

Connecticut and Delaware never offered domestic partner benefits to their workers, but they did allow those in civil unions to add their partners to their health and retirement plans. The two states scrapped those benefits once same-sex couples could marry.

Of the 13 states that prohibited same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court’s June ruling (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas), only Michigan offered anything similar to domestic partner benefits, as employees could add to their plan one adult they were not related to. Matthew Fedorchuk with the Michigan Civil Service Commission, which oversees state benefits, said the fate of those benefits could be hashed out in ongoing labor negotiations.

Government workers are likely to see more changes than those in the private sector.

Bruce Elliott, manager of compensation and benefits for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), cited a survey of 153 companies by Mercer, a health care advocacy group, which found that although some companies had plans to get rid of their domestic partner benefits, many were not planning changes. Of the 19 percent that offered domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples, 23 percent said they would drop the option in the next year, while another 23 percent said they would do so over the next two or three years. The majority of companies offered domestic partner benefits to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, and 62 percent of those said they were not planning any changes.

Elliott said domestic partner benefits may be more vulnerable within state and local government, where competition over employees isn’t as fierce as in the private sector and where leaders have been under pressure to keep finances in check since the recession.

Cathryn Oakley, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said the group is encouraging public and private employers to keep offering domestic partner benefits. But she said employers that offer domestic partner benefits exclusively to same-sex couples should extend them to heterosexual couples to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

That risk is part of the reason the capital city of Annapolis, Md., decided to end its domestic partner benefit program.

“We had added it because the law didn’t treat people equally,” Paul Rensted, former human resources manager for the city, said of the program, created in 2010. Now all city employees must be married to add an adult to their benefits package, and Rensted said couples were given six months’ notice, with four employees ultimately marrying.

Many in the gay rights community say keeping domestic partner benefits would continue to benefit some in the gay community as well as other nontraditional families. But straight couples would continue to be the biggest user of the benefits, they say.
“Millennials are waiting longer to get married, but that doesn’t mean they’re not living together — they’re not all living with mom and dad,” said SHRM’s Elliott.

Nancy Polikoff, a family law professor at American University Washington College of Law, said she likes “plus one” policies that allow employees to take care of their families, whether it be a spouse, a partner or an aging relative.

“The purpose of providing benefits is to help employees fund the financial and emotional obligations in their homes, and marriage is not always a part of that,” she said.

She pointed to Salt Lake City’s plan as a model. City employees can add any adult to their plan as long as they live together.
Jodi Langford, who oversees the benefits program for the city, said it has been used to cover parents, siblings and unmarried children older than 26 who would otherwise age out of their parents’ health insurance plans. Of the 60 people on the plan before same-sex marriage was made legal, only about 10 have switched to spousal benefits.

“If we stop, we would have parents, siblings, boyfriends and girlfriends who would be without benefits,” Langford said. While the program is secure for now, she said there’s been some talk about reviewing it within the next year.

In Florida, public universities are planning to review their domestic partner benefits. Because only spouses are eligible for state-funded benefits, state universities had to come up with creative solutions to offer benefits to gay employees’ domestic partners. It was an anonymous gift that covered the additional cost of adding an adult beneficiary to a health plan at Florida State University (FSU) starting in 2014, while the University of North Florida (UNF) began covering the additional cost to employees through its fundraising foundation in 2006.

Spokesmen for both universities said the programs played a role in attracting talent. UNF is winding down its program, which had only been offered to same-sex couples, said Vice President and Chief of Staff Tom Serwatka.

“When we went to this, we did so on the basis that heterosexual couples had a choice whether they wanted to marry and understood the full implication of that choice. Homosexual couples didn’t have that choice.” Now that they do, Serwatka said, it makes less sense for the university to raise private funds to pay for the benefits.

“The university wasn’t trying to change the idea of marriage as the policy for the state, and state funding required marriage,” he said.

FSU is reviewing its program, which only paid for health insurance for domestic partners who could not get insurance through their work, said spokesman Dennis Schnittker.

“The gift was made under the belief of the donor that the state would be funding the benefit in the near future,” he said.
In some states, however, domestic partner benefits are likely to continue.

California’s domestic partner benefit statutes remain intact, and in Massachusetts the policy is part of a still-standing executive order. Maine and Vermont, which was the first state to offer domestic partner benefits, are not planning to change their programs.

“We wouldn’t just get rid of it because same-sex marriage has come about,” said Tom Cheney, deputy commissioner for Vermont’s Department of Human Resources. “The state of Vermont has long seen the value in offering domestic partner benefits to couples of all types. It’s a useful recruitment and retention tool for the state as an employer.”

Elliott believes it’s too early to know what most employers — both public and private — will do with domestic partner benefits.

“Once we get past this year into next year’s open enrollment, we’re going to see some real change. The tea leaves haven’t dried yet,” he said.

Photo: Paola Perez, left, and her partner Linda Collazo, dressed as bride and groom, kiss as they march in the annual Gay Pride parade in Greenwich Village, in 2011 in New York. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

On Docks, Workers Still Have Power

On Docks, Workers Still Have Power

By Chris Kirkham and Andrew Khouri, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

LOS ANGELES — More than 4,400 ships bring nearly $400 billion worth of goods through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach every year, a crucial link in the global supply chain of factories, warehouses, docks, highways and rail lines.

Wages for most blue-collar workers along the chain have fallen with the quick rise of global trade. But the longshoremen who move the goods the shortest distance, between ship and shore, have shrewdly protected pay that trumps that of many white-collar managers.

About half of West Coast union longshoremen make more than $100,000 a year — some much more, according to shipping industry data. More than half of foremen and managers earn more than $200,000. A few bosses make more than $300,000. All get free health care.

Longshoreman pay dwarfs that of almost all other transit employees, such as trucking, railroad or airline workers. At massive warehouse complexes in the Inland Empire, just an hour’s drive from the ports, goods for the nation’s largest retailers are shuttled around by temporary workers making as little as $10 or $11 an hour, with no benefits or job security.

The unique clout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union came into sharp relief recently with the partial shutdown of 29 West Coast ports. The crisis passed with a contract deal a week ago, but it will take up to three months to clear the backlog of cargo on the docks and ships stranded offshore. Many businesses and workers won’t recover the money they lost because of port gridlock.

Union spokesman Craig Merrilees said the shipping companies’ pay figures fail to account for the more than 8,000 so-called casual workers — part-timers who don’t receive benefits and often work for years to become registered union members. The data, released by the Pacific Maritime Association, reflect 90 percent of the “registered” union members or more than 12,000 workers.

The association declined a Los Angeles Times request for similar pay data for casual workers and about 1,100 lower-tier union members.

“They don’t want to talk about the other workers,” Merrilees said. “I don’t think it’s responsible.”

How the Pacific longshoremen have weathered forces that have crippled many other unions is a tale of foresight, geography, and technology.

A deal cut by union leaders half a century ago allowed workers to share in the gains from innovations in efficiency, such as modern shipping containers. Another key move: organizing all West Coast ports in the 1930s under a single contract, which prevents shipping companies from pitting workers at neighboring ports against one another.

More recently, longshoremen benefited from the rise of U.S. trade with other Pacific Rim countries, positioning the ports as a strategic nexus, another key leverage point in wage talks.

“So many labor unions don’t have that power anymore,” said Ruth Milkman, a professor specializing in labor movements at City University of New York. “Here’s a place where globalization has benefited the union, whereas the opposite is true in manufacturing.”

Since 1980, container traffic through West Coast ports has grown more than sixfold, according to the most recent data from the American Association of Port Authorities. Pacific ports now handle 52 percent of U.S. cargo volume, compared with 41 percent at East Coast ports.

Unlike factories, ports can’t be moved to low-wage countries. The jobs are “impervious to outsourcing,” said John Ahlquist, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison who has studied port unions worldwide.

The longshoremen’s union has served as a gatekeeper for new entrants to the industry. There are more than 13,000 registered union longshoremen, clerks, and foremen, according to West Coast shipping industry data from 2013.

But the more than 8,000 casual workers compete daily for hours of dock work, hoping to snag leftover shifts after union members get first pick. Many toil for years in a part-time holding pattern, waiting for a new round of hiring.

Patience can pay off. Full-fledged union members are divided into three classes: longshoremen, clerks, and foremen/walking bosses.

The majority are longshoremen, about half of whom — 4,900 — made more than $100,000 in 2013, according to shipping company data; 1,400 longshoremen made more than $150,000 in 2013, according to the data.

More than half of the 600 foremen and walking bosses took home more than $200,000. At the top end, 85 of them earned more than $250,000.

Overtime, paid at higher rates, accounts for about a third of all hours worked, according to the shipping industry. Longshoremen also get bonuses for specific skills and night shifts.

Michael Dimon got his start on the docks in 1978, following his father and great-grandfather. He’s proud of the wages he earns and credits collective bargaining for allowing him to buy a home and save money for his two children to attend college. Dimon never finished high school.

Before 2013, he said, he never made more than $100,000 a year. That year he made $117,000, he said. Last year, he made more, as port traffic at Los Angeles and Long Beach surged to the third-busiest year on record. He declined to say how much.

“I would never pretend to be ashamed of the wages that we negotiate and fight for — absolutely not,” Dimon said. “What it allows me to do is live the American dream. And sadly to say, it’s dying here in America.”

The longshoreman’s dream was forged by a series of strategic decisions that have given the ILWU unparalleled strength.

In the 1930s, West Coast port union leaders succeeded in negotiating a single contract that linked ports from the Pacific Northwest to San Diego.

In 1960, the ILWU cut a deal that paved the way for a revolution in shipping. For centuries, longshoremen had used highly labor-intensive methods when loading and unloading ships — nets, metal hooks, and pallets. The union offered to embrace the use of containers in exchange for higher pay and benefits, along with richer pensions and buyouts for displaced workers.

The strategy continues to define the union’s approach. In 2002, contract negotiations broke down in part over computer systems intended to replace clerical workers who tracked cargo. The deal led to the elimination of hundreds of clerical jobs, but the union negotiated substantial increases in pension benefits and held on to free healthcare.

In the contract talks resolved last month, one of the main sticking points was over who should maintain and repair the trailers that truckers use to haul goods from the ports. Shipping lines recently outsourced the equipment to third-party companies, threatening the union’s maintenance jobs.

Merrilees, the union spokesman, said the union retained the right to do some inspections and repairs on the trailers. But trade experts said the presence of third-party companies could continue to complicate the issue.

Experts point out that the ILWU’s unique place in the supply chain has allowed it to benefit despite automation. But it’s unclear how long the union can prevent technology from eroding pay and job security.

The union may struggle to maintain high wages in a low-wage transportation network, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a history professor and director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

“The nail’s sticking up,” he said, “and people have hammers.”

Photo: John Morgan via Flickr

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World