Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
Initial Analysis from a Retiree Advocate member on today Scheinman ruling
It
looks like he's trying to establish the status quo ante, from before
the lawsuit. It's a crass ploy to pressure the City Council to amend the
Code.
He's ordering the City & MLC to reach an agreement with Aetna, within 25 days, to administer the old Alliance plan.
He's threatening that if the City Council doesn't amend the Code within 45 days he will end Emblem Senior Care.
He will allow the City to offer other options to retirees, as long as there is no cost to the City.
In
the above case, retirees would pay the full cost of any other City plan
we chose (so we would presumably still receive our Medicare Part B
reimbursements if we chose a City plan). Would the City's offerings
include a Medigap plan? I don't know.
Which is exactly where we were before Judge Frank's ruling.
It
seems to me that Scheinman is threatening to do some things that he
might not have the power to do, which will result in lawsuits. By the
way, Scheinman is the one who is threatening our collective bargaining
rights, not Judge Frank....
Let's be clear -- Mulgrew et al is moving us out of a publicly managed option into this private corp monster where profits come before our health.
CVS Health is a healthcare company known for its CVS Pharmacy. In
addition to CVS Pharmacy, CVS Health owns CVS Caremark and Aetna, among
others.
Third quarter 2022 results were strong. During the quarter, revenues
increased 10%, free cash flow increased 73%, and earnings per share
increased 9%.
Analysts on the Seeking Alpha CVS ticker page expect the dividend to grow 5% for fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024.
Check quick: Does Scheinman own stock in CVS because this can be a $38 billion windfall?
when Unity was hard-selling this deal, in an unexplained
rush, they clearly said there were no health care give backs. And then
they did not provide Appendix B.
The arbitrator also said that unless the City Council amends the New
York City Administrative Code within 45 days, GHI SeniorCare and all
other current “pay-up” plans will no longer be offered once the
premium‑free Medicare Advantage plan launches.
So here we are ---- either chance the admin code so the wealthier retirees can pay to opt out, thus furthering inequity, or being forced into MedAdv run by Aetna -- note Scheinmann forces them to deal with Aetna. See my opening question.
Let's look at CVS/Aetna as a profit making company:
2017 - Aetna Doubles Dividend, Boosts Stock Buyback Plans- Insurer’s moves come days after walking away from $34 billion merger deal with Humana
Aetna was bought by CVS in 2018. Amazon shark jaws are open:
Here's a fun fact:
CVS Health is the parent company of the health insurer Aetna,
which Amazon has reportedly reached out to, among other insurers. The
move suggests that Amazon is moving along with Amazon Care — its
on-demand health service that has at-home care aspirations — quicker
than what may have been expected.
Will my Walgreen's prescriptions still be allowed?
CVS turned Amazon down - for now -- but when can we look forward to having our healthcare managed by Jeff Bezos?
The American Medical Association (AMA) was disappointed in DOJ’s
decision, standing by its stance that the merger will harm patients. “We
now urge the DOJ and state antitrust enforcers to monitor the
postmerger effects of the Aetna acquisition by CVS Health on highly
concentrated markets in pharmaceutical benefit management services,
health insurance, retail pharmacy and specialty pharmacy,” AMA President
Barbara L. McAneny, M.D., said in a statement.
Karen S. Lynch President and Chief Executive Officer
Total Cash $7,045,167
Total Compensation $20,388,412
Shawn M. Guertin Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Nice pay - go ask the clerks at your local CVS what they make.
Here's the good news:
Mulgrew buddy, so-called "impartial" arbitrator Scheinman, should immediately disqualified. The UFT chose him in 2014 and 2018.
The UFT statement below dovetails with the Scheinman decision.
UFT: For Immediate Release – Thursday, December 15, 2022
UFT Statement on Arbitrator’s Decision on new Medicare Advantage program
An
independent arbitrator has ordered the city to negotiate a new Medicare
Advantage program with the Aetna insurance company in the next 25 days.
He also determined thatifan agreementis reached,the city’s unions would have a choice of either approving the deal or facing the necessity of paying premiums for health care.
UFT
President Michael Mulgrew said: “In the last decade the cost of health
care has been rising dramatically and over the long term only action by
the federal government can solve this nationalcrisis.”
“In
the meantime, the municipal unions have been negotiating with the city
on how to preserve our health care benefits. Most importantly, we want
to maintain plans that do not require our members to pay the thousands
of out-of-pocket dollars that most workers now typically have to pay for
health insurance.”
“A new Medicare Advantage plan will be negotiatedto
keep that premium-free status, and we will make sure that it meets our
retirees’ needs, even while saving hundreds of millions of dollars that
will be dedicated toother health care services.”
Arbitrator
Martin F. Scheinman issued his findings December 15, 2022. Scheinman,
who played a key role in city/union health agreements in 2014 and 2018,
has been appointed by the parties to arbitrate any potential
disagreements over interpretation of the pact and to enforce its
provisions. Scheinman also chairs the Tripartite Health Insurance Policy
Committee, consisting of the city and the MLC, which was formed in 2018
to consider how city health care could be restructured to preserve
quality while stemming the rising cost of its delivery.
In fact, when Unity was hard-selling this deal, in an unexplained
rush, they clearly said there were no health care give backs. And then
they did not provide Appendix B. James found it.
But because the leadership hid it, and most members rely on the
leadership for their information, there is no way of knowing how many of
those who voted yes on the contract knew there were givebacks. Probably
very few, in light of Unity’s brazen lies. Arthur provides a good summary of the Unity rush to get the 2018 contract passed without revealing the health care give backs.
So, we already know, agreeing to cutting health care is a bad deal. But worst deal ever? Let’s look at 1.a, and focus on 1.a.iv
First, a reminder: “savings” are savings for the City of New York and
the Stabilization Fund. “Savings” for you and me mean less health care,
harder to access health care, or more costly health care.
So Appendix B is about health care cuts.
Let’s focus on line iv. $600 million per yer – on a recurring basis.
That means, even though that contract is over, the health care cuts need
to continue forward. And worse. Any fool knows, health care costs are
going up. So whatever cuts were good enough to amount to $600 mil a year
ago, they are not enough today. Unity has put us on the hook for never
ending cuts in health care. That’s what makes this perhaps the worst
negotiated deal, ever.
Our contract is expired. But the health care cuts continue.
The health care cuts are permanent.
And Appendix B promises more cuts every year that health care costs rise.
More from Mulgrew:
You have my promise that the UFT will not move forward with the
new plan until we have agreed on a high-quality plan our retirees
deserve.
Where we go from here
During the next 25 days, we will push Aetna hard on these fronts:
increase the size of its provider network in parts of
the United States where large numbers of UFT retirees live with the goal
of getting 98% of the doctors that UFT retirees use in Aeta’s network.
ensure that out-of-network doctors who provide
services to our retirees are reimbursed by Aetna at the traditional
Medicare rate without our retirees being billed.
create a real accountability system that ensures that
Aetna delivers all rights and benefits to retirees as agreed upon in the
agreement; and set up a clear, fast process to rectify any issues.
ensure there is an expedited appeals process for denial
of care where specialists in the particular field/procedure make the
final determination.
ensure every retiree, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is accepted in the new plan.
This is the scam Mulgrewcare is looking to as a way to "solve" the high costs of healthcare. By raking money out of the only real public option we have. Let's help it go bankrupt so they can justify eliminating it because you know -- private - like charter schools - have to do it better according to the neo-liberal Milton Friedman economic school.
Even if their plan had no personal impact on me, I would be against it for political reasons - the movement of money from the public to the private profit making health insurance industry. I keep getting asked what are they getting for doing this? I throw my hands up.
December 12, 20225:00 AM ET Fred Schulte Holly K. Hacker
How Medicare Advantage plans dodged auditors and overcharged taxpayers by millions
In April 2016, government auditors asked a Blue Cross Medicare
Advantage health plan in Minnesota to turn over medical records of
patients treated by a podiatry practice whose owner had been indicted
for fraud.
Medicare had paid the Blue Cross plan more than
$20,000 to cover the care of 11 patients seen by Aggeus Healthcare, a
chain of podiatry clinics, in 2011.
Blue Cross said it couldn't
locate any records to justify the payments because Aggeus shut down in
the wake of the indictment, which included charges of falsifying patient
medical files. So Blue Cross asked the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services for a "hardship" exemption to a strict requirement
that health plans retain these files in the event of an audit.
CMS
granted the request and auditors removed the 11 patients from a random
sample of 201 Blue Cross plan members whose records were reviewed.
A review of 90 government audits, released exclusively to KHN in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit,
reveals that Blue Cross and a number of other health insurers issuing
Medicare Advantage plans have tried to sidestep regulations requiring
them to document medical conditions the government paid them to treat.
The audits, the most recent ones the agency has completed, sought
to validate payments to Medicare Advantage health plans for 2011 through
2013.
We work for a large employer. We expect our union to resist these moves. Not the health corp loving UFT.
A new Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis
examines the extent to which large employers that offer retiree health
benefits are turning to Medicare Advantage (MA), the reasons why they
are making this shift, and the implications for retirees and federal
spending.
This shift has important implications for beneficiaries and the Medicare
program. Unlike Original Medicare (OM) enrollees, people with MA are
subject to narrow provider networks and utilization management tools
that may limit or delay access to Medicare-covered services. Funneling more Medicare-eligible retirees into MA will likely drive up costs, as Medicare pays more for MA enrollees (including in group plans), on average, than for a similar beneficiary in OM.
Currently, only 13% of large employers (200 or more workers)
offer retiree health benefits. In 2022, half (50%) contracted with MA
plans to provide that coverage—nearly double the share (26%) who did so
in 2017.
About 44% offered retirees no choice but to receive their health
benefits through MA. As a result, those retirees are unable to choose
Original Medicare (OM), unless they are willing to give up their retiree
health benefits.
A driving reason employers cited for offering retiree health
benefits through MA contracts was to lower their own financial
liability. For some, the adoption of MA “appears to be a strategy to
maintain benefits for their retirees, without terminating coverage or
adopting other changes that more directly shift costs onto retirees.”
This shift has important implications for beneficiaries and the
Medicare program. Unlike OM enrollees, people with MA are subject to
narrow provider networks and utilization management tools that may limit or delay access to Medicare-covered services. Funneling more Medicare-eligible retirees into MA will likely drive up costs, as Medicare pays more for MA enrollees (including in group plans), on average, than for a similar beneficiary in OM.
I hate making calls to politicians, but this time I will do it - even if my local city council rep is one of the few Republicans. But I heard she is getting calls 10-1 against changing the admin code. All those police and firemen in the neighborhood. Mulgrew and the UFT hierarchy wants these changes badly but they now have a plan B if they fail to get the changes --- nuke our health plan altogether. My brian is too simple to wade through all those permutations. You can read more about that on our favorite blogs.
In the meantime, if you are available this Wednesday at 10 AM to join us in Retiree Advocate, Register Here
Calling all “No-Change-To-Our Healthcare" advocates!! Join Retiree Advocate/UFT for some holiday cheer as we celebrate our accomplishments in pushing back against Medicare Advantage. We'll share our stories on-line with Zoom and toast each other with cups of coffee, tea, or perhaps a stronger beverage of your choice on Wednesday, December 14th at 10 AM.3
The meeting will end with a phone-a-thon where we will make calls together to our City Council members. We’ll ask them to oppose any changes to Administrative Code 12-126, the NYC law that protects our current healthcare coverage. Scripts will be provided plus your Councilmember’s phone numbers. In addition, more detailed information will be discussed regarding the preservation of 12-126 as it currently stands.
Holiday attire optional. But we'll be there with bells on!
Leo Gordon: How to support non-union staff at union-busting companies during the holiday season.
Mary Jo G: Chancellor came out with a reimagining special education. None of which addresses systemic staffing issues.
Pillars
- scaling up effective programs. ASD programs: NEST and Horizon,
growing incrementally. PATH program - inclusion model for students at
risk for emotional disturbances - it is in 7 schools. Also expanding the
SEED - sensory exploration program that therapists are doing after
school and Saturdays. Initially 2 in each borough & expanding.
Hopefully paying on time. Establishing an advisory council. Advocates
and parents. Will find more info and share.
Ilona: Next week the UFT will hold a meeting for school librarians next week. Attendees will wear a shirt
Mike
Sill: Thanks to Alex and HS EB because they wrote a resolution but the
other ppl who wanted to participate in motivating were not here, but
Rodney:
Oppose policy re: not allowing gay men to donate blood except for
certain instances of abstinence for a year. Now they want to propose
abstinence for 3 months.
Requesting
completely revoking the policy and take a step in the right direction.
They’re starting it, but still it’s discriminatory, capricious, and
arbitrary. Partner w Natl Black leadership on Health; HRC; GLADD. Please
support resolution
Change of DA. It will be 12/21 instead of 12/14
Motion to adjourn at like 6:22p: unanimous
Mike Sill: Okay, if anyone wants to tell LeRoy, go ahead.
It's been a busy day and it's only half over. I'm heading into the city to go to tonight's UFT Ex Bd meeting. We meet at around 5 to talk about stuff then go up to get some dinner. Oh, then there's a meeting. We hope to have a report later.
Earlier Retiree Advocate had a 2 hour regular zoom meeting plotting our next moves. Read another great post from Arthur praising the work of RA.
I guess Mulgrew’s court of last resort is our membership. And Unity,
faced with losses in every other venue, had no choice. Armed with weak
arguments that few believe, they have been trying to convince our
membership. To convince them of what? For now, to support the change to
12-126. No matter how thick Unity is, they are not trying to sell
members on Medicare Advantage, not today. That blew up in Unity’s faces
when they tried to convince our sharp retirees that “Silver Sneakers”
would make up for prior authorizations (and denials). Yeah, right.
Unity has been facing opposition. Even some in their ranks are
worried about what they are doing to healthcare. And those opposed to
Unity and Mulgrew have been vocal. What do they do?
The giant UFT publicity machine is out there shamelessly trying to
fool us with a seven-bullet flier and a different lengthy
save-the-code-amend-the-code piece filled with disinformation. Marianne
Pizzitola has done another video challenging the UFT claim that the UFT
is trying to preserve choice of medical plans so we need to change
Administrative Code 12-126. In reality, Michael Mulgrew has been trying
to limit choice since 2020 as this new video from Marianne shows.
Below is part of the letter on the Request for Proposal for the
Medicare Advantage Plan for City Medicare-eligible retirees that
Marianne refers to in the video. It is from November 18, 2020.
The
MLC question is in the middle column. The City answer is on the right.
Notice the City answering that they intended to end most options for
Medicare-eligible retirees back on November 18, 2020 and the Municipal
Labor Committee went with this Request for Proposal. It would have been
implemented except it was stopped in court because it violated
Administrative Code 12-126 which protects our healthcare.
Maybe I will get back to you later with further updates. Or not. You all have plenty to read without me.
Railworkers have understandably savaged Biden, while big business groups have sung his praises... Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a similarly tone-deaf statement,
patting Biden and his labor secretary on the back as “proudly
pro-union” while hailing the contract they were forcing on railworkers
as having “secured important advances for workers.” Pelosi lamely added
some condemnation of railroad companies’ “obscene profits” for good
measure, even as she made clear she was intervening firmly on the side
of helping the carriers maintain those profits....Jacobin
I really believe the people in control of the Dem party may have just cost them any real chance of winning in 2024, leaving a pseudo pro labor policy open to Republicans on the right.
The
request for Congress to impose contract terms that several unions had
rejected rankled rank-and-file members who had rallied behind the
president.... While some rail workers have weighed in
on social media with calls for illegal wildcat strikes should Congress
impose the agreement, local union officials said that such strikes are
unlikely, and they were not aware of any meaningful effort to organize
them. Much more likely, they said, is an accelerated flow of workers out of an industry that, according to federal regulators, has lost nearly 30 percent of its employees over the past six years.
Mr. Kindlon, the electrician in New York,
said he had already accepted a job in another industry after more than
17 years of railroad work. “I’m
telling you now, as soon as Congress decides to jam this contract down
the BMWED and BLET and SMART guys’ throats, you will see a mass exodus
like no mass exodus from any industry ever,” he said, alluding to some
of the unions involved. “It’s going to be like having a strike without having a strike.”
Some Rail Workers, Seeking Sick Days, Say Biden Betrayed Them - NYT, Dec. 1 '22
Well, not the first time Dems have screwed railway workers:
Truman orders army to seize control of railroads - Aug 25, 1950
On August 25, 1950, in anticipation of a crippling strike by railroad workers, President Harry S. Truman issues an executive order putting America’s railroads under the control of the U.S. Army, as of August 27, at 4:00 pm. Truman had already intervened in another railway dispute when union employees of the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railway Company threatened to strike in 1948.
Truman did veto the Taft-Hartley Act, a 1947 U.S. federal law that extended and modified the 1935 Wagner
Act. It prohibits certain union practices and requires disclosure of
certain financial and political activities by unions. The Wagner Act of 1935 gaveth and TH of 47 tooketh away.
Taft–Hartley was introduced in the aftermath of a major strike wave in 1945 and 1946. Though it was enacted by the Republican-controlled 80th Congress, the law received significant support from congressional Democrats,
many of whom joined with their Republican colleagues in voting to
override Truman's veto. The act continued to generate opposition after
Truman left office, but it remains in effect.
Ro Khanna: Am I missing something here? Why wouldn’t the rail companies just allow workers to have paid sick days? The new agreement only gives them 1. That’s absurd. We need to stand with workers. This is not complicated.
Bernie more on message:
The corporate greed never ends. Last year, the rail industry made a record-breaking $20 billion in profits after cutting their workforce by 30% over the last 6 years. Meanwhile, rail workers have ZERO guaranteed paid sick days. Congress must stand with rail workers.
Here at Ed Notes, we've explored the Dem Party connections to center/right policies despite a more active left flank over the past few years - a left flank that has not often used its potential power. I always note that our own UFT leadership is and has been lined up with the right center of the party. Witness the regenerative pro-corporate Mulgrewcare MedAdv. Dems tail the public - Mulgrew undermines Medicare the public option - which the public supports - right in line with Dem Party.
Biden talked about how a strike would cripple the economy but said nothing about how the workers are often crippled by the industry where profits, stock buybacks, cuts to working staff etc are operative. Has the UFT made a statement in support of sick pay for the workers yet?
Now the Dems put forth a bill to stop the strike but instead of including the sick days they put forth a separate bill - so forcing them back to work will pass but the other one is in doubt despite some support from the tiny Republican so-called pro worker Rubio and Hawley. I think they are full of bullshit in trying to take advantage of the fact Dems have been hemorrhaging union rank and file support:
His tweet is informative - The railways & workers should go back & negotiate a deal that the workers,not just the union bosses,will accept
But if Congress is forced to do it,I will not vote to impose a deal that doesn’t have the support of the rail workers.
"As a proud pro-labor President, I am reluctant to override the
ratification procedures and the views of those who voted against the
agreement," Biden said. "But in this case – where the economic impact of
a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families – I
believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal." Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg echoed Biden's sentiment. The pro-business US Chamber of Commerce has estimated that a strike could cost the economy $2 billion a day and bring a slew of services to a standstill.
Pete just fucked himself for a presidential run. And Biden cannot be pro-labor. All virtue signalling. Midterms are over so screw them.
Biden and Dems in essence back industry and Rubio and Bernie back workers? WTF.
Michael Paul Lindsey, a locomotive engineer in Idaho and steering
committee member for Railroad Workers United, told Insider it was a
"blatant betrayal" but he wasn't surprised.
"I thought it was kind
of laughable that anyone would think that either the Democrats or the
Republicans actually cared. Bottom line, they care about money," he
said.
Even so, he added, "there was always that hope in the back
of my mind that maybe someone would do something that was actually right
for the American worker for once — instead of just what's right for
corporate America."
I just saw on twitter:
Dems tail public
Americans say the rights of rail workers should be prioritized above economic growth in the handling of the rail strike, 39% to 33%, even when told a strike would harm the U.S. economy, per YouGov.
- legislation effectively prohibiting a strike would impose unfair
working conditions on employees in one of the most profitable industries
in America — further tilting the nation’s economic imbalance toward
large corporations and Wall Street, and against working people. Here,
a concentrated industry has gained record profits by understaffing —
squeezing its workers to the breaking point. Prodded by Wall Street, the
big rail companies have intentionally gutted their own spare capacity. Union Pacific, the largest publicly traded US railroad, paid its
investors more than $41 billion in dividends and share buybacks over
five years through 2021. In the first six months of 2022, it heaped an
additional $5 billion on them. Why are railroads so profitable? Largely because they’re spending so little on labor.
The Jacobin article below has some hope. I'd bet they are forced back with no more sick days -- you can't part corps from their money without a crowbar.
Democrats were ready to throw railworkers to the wolves,
letting even Republicans outflank them on labor rights. But thanks to a
last-minute legislative push by Bernie Sanders and his allies today,
railworkers may be getting the sick leave they’re demanding.
With the baby steps the Democratic Party’s taken toward a more
economically progressive, pro-working-class politics over the last two
years, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this is still a corrupt,
out-of-touch party divorced from any such tradition. And with his loss
in the 2020 Democratic primary, it’s easy to forget the value of Bernie
Sanders’s continuing presence in American political life, especially the
US Senate.
Yet the events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as reminders of both.
For the past week or so, Congress has been consumed by the prospect
of a looming and potentially monumentally disruptive strike by
railworkers, who have spent three years negotiating with
rail carriers for a better contract, centered on their lack of rights
to take paid time off work if they fall ill. After four unions
representing more than half of the unionized rail workforce rejected a
deal put together by President Joe Biden’s White House and a panel of
experts that didn’t do enough to fix these grievances, labor secretary
Marty Walsh and, eventually, congressional leaders themselves pushed for
congressional intervention to end the stalemate, effectively by forcing
railworkers to accept the deal anyway ― in the process, stripping the
workers of leverage in negotiations. The whole episode came to a head
yesterday.
In a statement on Monday calling for Congress to end the impasse, Biden ― the self-proclaimed “most
pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in
American history” ― misleadingly hailed the White House–brokered deal
that cut the legs out from under railworkers as a grand victory agreed
to “by both sides.”
Casting himself as a “proud pro-labor president,” he stressed the
potential economic downsides of a rail strike to explain why he was
reluctantly overriding “the views of those who voted against the
agreement” ― meaning, striking railworkers ― and rejected letting
Congress modify the deal for workers’ sake, claiming “any changes would
risk delay and a debilitating shutdown,” even though unions set the
strike deadline for December 9, nearly two weeks after he put out the
statement. Ironically, the president has ended up to the right of where
he was in the 1990s, when the then senator Biden was arguably at the terrible peak of his neoliberal transformation yet nonetheless voted against letting Congress end a major rail strike. Railworkers have understandably savaged Biden, while big business groups have sung his praises.
Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a similarly tone-deaf statement,
patting Biden and his labor secretary on the back as “proudly
pro-union” while hailing the contract they were forcing on railworkers
as having “secured important advances for workers.” Pelosi lamely added
some condemnation of railroad companies’ “obscene profits” for good
measure, even as she made clear she was intervening firmly on the side
of helping the carriers maintain those profits.
This was more or less the
position of other prominent Democrats: expressions of regret and even
condemnations of corporate greed meant to mask the fact that they were
intervening on the side of the corporate profiteers. The House’s number
two Democrat, Steny Hoyer, insisted he was “sympathetic to the issue of
sick leave” and thought “the labor unions make a very valid case” as he
lined up behind the White House. Even otherwise pro-worker Democrats
like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Kirsten Gillibrand ― who had
rebranded herself as a progressive in order to run for president in 2020
― borrowed from this playbook as
they made clear they would go along with Biden’s plan. Transportation
secretary Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, didn’t even bother with this
formality, simply saying it was “vitally important” for the thing to pass due to the “devastating impacts on our economy.”
A more common response was to do as the number three House Democrat,
Representative Jim Clyburn, did and simply ignore the matter entirely.
By yesterday late afternoon, prominent Democrats like Cory Booker, Ed
Markey, and ex–presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar ― who had seen fit
to tweet that afternoon about the United States winning its soccer World Cup match and an elderly retiree hiking the
Appalachian trail ― hadn’t said a single thing either way. The ranks of
Democrats staying silent on the situation unfortunately included a
number of high-profile progressives, including “Squad” members Ilhan
Omar and Ayanna Pressley, and Illinois progressive Chuy García.
The political malpractice on display here became clear when several
Republicans used it as an opening to posture as pro-worker. Ted Cruz
called railworker demands for sick leave “quite reasonable,” while, more
significant, Marco Rubio put out a subtly union-bashing statementcalling
for both sides to “go back and negotiate a deal that the workers, not
just the union bosses, will accept” and affirming he would “not vote to
impose a deal that doesn’t have the support of the rail workers.”
Likewise, Josh Hawley, who has moved to brand himself as a pro-worker populist in advance of a planned 2024 run, stated that
workers “said no and then Congress is gonna force it down their throats
at the behest of this administration.” Even Colorado Democrat John
Hickenlooper, hardly a progressive firebrand, saw which way the wind was
blowing and affirmed that “any bill should include the SEVEN days of sick leave rail workers have asked for.”
In other words, several Republicans and a guy who drank fracking fluid were to the left of the “most pro-union president” in history.
Left-Wing Pushback
This abysmal state of affairs was injected with a modicum of hope
thanks to the small but significant presence of left-wing lawmakers in
Congress, whose pushback against the Democratic leadership’s move was
led by Sanders in the Senate.
Sanders had made clear for months he would back whatever decision railworkers made and had criticized billionaire
Warren Buffet ― who owns the parent company of BNSF Railway ― earlier
this week, pointing out that “in one day, Mr. Buffett made twice as much
money as it would cost to guarantee fifteen paid sick days a year to
every rail worker in America.” More important, while Democrats got in
line behind the president and party leadership, Sanders ― who had withheld his support for the president’s agreement for months and blocked Republicans’ earlier attempts to ram the inadequate deal through ― criticized the plans and made clear he’d block any such legislation until seven paid sick days for railworkers were included.
He was joined by a number of other left-wing lawmakers, like “Squad” member Jamaal Bowman, who called it “an inhumane deal being pushed onto workers even after a majority voted it down.” Fellow “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“If Congress intervenes, it should be to have workers’ backs and secure their demands in legislation”), Rashida Tlaib (“I stand with rail workers”), and Cori Bush (“I
will not support a deal that does not provide our rail workers with the
paid sick leave they need and deserve”) also took the side of workers.
Before long, Sanders made plans to introduce an amendment in the
Senate to the legislation mandating seven days’ worth of sick leave for
the railworkers, joined by Bowman doing the same in the House, daring Republicans to vote against it. “Look, you have a number of Republicans who claim — claim —
to be supporters of the working class,” Sanders told Chris Hayes last
night. “Well, if you are a supporter of the working class, how are you
going to vote against the proposal which provides guaranteed paid sick
leave to workers who have none right now?”
These efforts rapidly rearranged the political terrain, with Pelosi
suddenly and subtly shifting her position late in the day and announcing
plans to allow lawmakers to vote today to add the seven days of paid
sick leave to the agreement. Previously silent lawmakers like García
expressed support for the move. It all culminated in the House passing
the seven-day sick leave amendment just now by a vote of 221-207, with
all Democrats and only three Republicans voting in favor.
Despite the dearth of House GOP support for the measure, Republican
senator John Cornyn had earlier predicted it could get the required GOP
support needed to reach sixty votes in the Senate, because “there will
be a lot of sympathy for providing sick leave for workers.” In many
ways, this is something of a repeat of events at the close of 2020, when
Sanders and other progressives in Congress, with the belated aid of
Hawley, forced the foot-dragging then-president Donald Trump,
president-elect Biden, and Democratic leadership to all reluctantly back
another round of stimulus checks. But whether progressives will succeed
here is an open question and one that’ll largely depend on how many
Republicans see it in their political interest, as they did when they
just voted to legalize marriage equality, to move to the center, away
from their long-standing hostility to workers’ rights.
Whatever happens, this has been another sign of the modest but
significant political shift that’s taken place in US political life
thanks to both the larger prominence of Sanders and his progressive
allies in Congress, and the resurgence of labor militancy and an
organized socialist movement in recent years. Forty years ago, a
Republican president dealt a terrible blow to the union movement by
breaking an air traffic controllers’ strike. Decades later, Republicans
may force a Democratic administration into a more pro-worker position by
following the lead of an openly socialist senator.
The Democratic Socialists of America call on Biden and members of
Congress to force the billionaire railroad bosses to accept workers’
demands. Short of that, railroad
workers must not be denied the right to strike. The Tentative Agreement
has been rejected by members of the Maintenance of Way Union (BMWE),
Sheet Metal and Rail Union (SMART-TD), Signalmen (BRS), and Boilermakers
union (IBB), and though some union ratification votes supported it, the
approval margins were narrow. All rail unions have pledged to honor the
picket line in the event of a strike.
The billionaire bosses of the five
largest railroads have paid themselves $200 million over the last few
years. This profit has been made off the backs of workers, who are not
even guaranteed a single paid sick day in their contract, risk being
fired for unscheduled absences, and are forced to work long hours with
short notice. Workers should control the conditions of their workplace!
They should be able to work with dignity and at a pace that does not
mandate exhaustion or sacrifice their health. The power of this
unionized workforce comes in their ability to strike if their demands
are not met, and yet President Biden is asking Congress to preemptively
deny them the right to legally strike. It is exceedingly rare for a
president to intervene to prevent a strike against private companies,
and it is not the workers but the bosses of these private rail carriers
who are threatening our national economy. Rail carriers have formed an
oligarchical cartel that controls the supply chain.
Exhausting conditions overburden rail
workers and staffing rates continue to decline. Longer, more dangerous
trains risk derailments that threaten workers’ lives and the safety of
our communities. Price-gouging shippers causes costs to be passed to
working-class consumers already suffering from rising cost of living.
These oligarchs are counting on Congress to force a deal that will only
exacerbate existing supply chain issues and cause further economic
distress for the entire working class, all so billionaires can continue
to rake in profits.
Any member of Congress who votes yes
on the tentative agreement is siding with billionaires and forcing a
contract on rail workers that does not address their most pressing
demand of paid sick days. Democrats claim to want to save democracy.
There’s nothing more democratic than workers having a say over their own
lives. By refusing to side with workers and respect their vote to
reject a bad deal, the Democrats will create an opportunity for the
Right to fill that void with false promises and further drive working
people from politics during particularly crucial moments.
We know no matter what party is in
office, true power comes from organizing workers. Our focus should not
be on the disruptions to business as usual but rather on the injustice
that these workers have faced for years. As socialists, we know the
resolve of these workers will be the only way forward to saving this
country’s infrastructure (nationalize the rails!)
and most importantly, securing dignity at the workplace in an industry
that keeps the rest of the country afloat. The Democratic Socialists of
America stands in solidarity with the 125,000 railroad workers fighting
for a better quality of life: a fair contract or a strike!
