[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                HEALTH CARE WINDFALL FOR ORGANIZED LABOR

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 15, 1994

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues might be 
interested in the op-ed written by our colleague, Representative Cass 
Ballenger. Representative Ballenger clearly spells out how the Clinton 
health care plan creates yet another Government-sponsored windfall for 
organized labor.

              [From the Journal of Commerce, May 6, 1994]

                     Health-Care Windfall for Labor

                          (By Cass Ballenger)

       With the help of millions of dollars in lobbying funds, 
     organized labor has sent a message: Passage of President 
     Clinton's health Security Act is labor's top priority. A 
     close inspection of the bill shows why. Mr. Clinton's health 
     plan would create yet another government-sponsored windfall 
     for organized labor.
       Mr. Clinton's plan will require virtually every employer to 
     pay for 80% of employees' health-care premiums. It also would 
     require employers to honor previous agreements, even if the 
     benefits exceed what is mandated in the national plan.
       Consequently, labor representatives in unionized companies 
     will press for new benefits in other areas, such as increased 
     wages or more generous retirement packages. But that's not 
     all. Under the Clinton plan, employers would have to 
     negotiate with labor representatives over who will pay the 
     remaining 20% of premium costs.
       Currently, under the National Labor Relations Act, issues 
     that may be negotiated by labor and management are separated 
     into two classes: mandatory and permissive subjects of 
     bargaining.
       Mandatory subjects include wages, benefits, working hours 
     and working conditions. Changes to these subjects may not be 
     made by the employer without first bargaining with the union.
       Bargaining over a mandatory subject, such as health care, 
     occurs when management and labor insist on different 
     benefits. If they are unable to reach an agreement, labor may 
     strike, or business may ``lock out'' employees over the 
     issue. If an agreement is reached, changes to mandatory 
     subjects covered in the agreement may not be made 
     unilaterally by the employer.
       Permissive subjects of bargaining, on the other hand, 
     include any other item that the union and the employer may 
     bring to the table, such as requiring secret-ballot strike 
     votes and other internal union affairs.
       With permissive subjects; either party may initiate 
     bargaining. The talks depend on the willingness of both sides 
     to participate. If one party objects, the issue is taken off 
     the table. Unions may not order a strike, nor employers a 
     lockout, over permissive subjects. The subject is simply left 
     unresolved.
       The Clinton health-care plan would give organized labor one 
     more area of mandatory bargaining. This is not the first time 
     the government has proposed to give unions such an advantage. 
     For example, the minimum wage law establishes a floor from 
     which wage rates can only be negotiated upwards. Similarly, 
     health and safety laws substantially diminish the need for 
     bargaining over health and safety issues, allowing unions to 
     spend their bargaining time and resources on other issues, 
     such as increased benefits.
       The Health Security Act goes well beyond a minimum wage, or 
     some other mandated minimum. Rather than requiring employers 
     to provide a basic benefits package for employees, the plan 
     would mandate ``comprehensive and secure health care 
     coverage.''
       Included in this comprehensive coverage is hospital care, 
     emergency services, preventive care, mental health and 
     substance abuse services, family planning, pregnancy-related 
     services, hospice care, home health and extended care 
     services, ambulance services, outpatient laboratory and 
     diagnostic services, prescription drugs, vision and hearing 
     care, periodic medical checkups and preventive dental 
     services for children.
       Given this ``Cadillac'' plan, it is ludicrous that 
     employers would be obligated by law to negotiate over 
     additional health-care benefits, on threat of suffering the 
     consequences of a strike. Yet under mandatory bargaining, 
     labor unions would demand even greater concessions from 
     already strapped employers.
       Under the Clinton bill, for example, companies with 5,000 
     or more employees could form a ``corporate alliance,'' rather 
     than joining a ``regional alliance'' with other firms. The 
     choice carries tremendous implications for companies and 
     workers alike; as a result, it could become a focus of labor 
     negotiations.
       Even smaller employers using outside, certified health 
     plans could be forced to negotiate over which provider to 
     choose. Other decisions traditionally left to management also 
     could be affected.
       Moreover, employee benefits established under previous 
     collective bargaining agreements would not be affected by the 
     Health Security Act. Union workers would enjoy the best of 
     both worlds: federally mandated benefits and benefits 
     guaranteed under their labor contracts.
       According to the Service Employees International Union, 
     health care is the No. 1 issues at the bargaining table and 
     the No. 1 cause of strikes in unionized companies. While 
     allowing management to negotiate health care benefits for 
     their employees may be a good idea, mandating that they do so 
     is not.
       Therefore, during markups of the president's bill, I will 
     propose eliminating health care as a mandatory subject of 
     bargaining, thereby reducing much of this tension between 
     labor and management.
       Without such an amendment, the Health Security Act will 
     harm employers by requiring them to pay for comprehensive 
     health benefits that far exceed a ``basic'' package. The act 
     would give unions the force of law to demand even more 
     concessions from companies.
       When promoting his health-care plan, the president speaks 
     of the need for equity of care for all Americans. Why, then 
     does the president's plan so obviously favor one group over 
     another?
       With millions of union dollars pouring into Democratic 
     campaign coffers, that question is easy to answer.

                          ____________________