[Massachusetts] Unions soften tone on health

Source: Boston Globe

Massachusetts labor leaders have given up their full-throated battle to protect certain collective bargaining rights amid an increasing likelihood that the Legislature will empower local governments to raise the health insurance costs of teachers, firefighters, and other municipal employees.

Today, the Senate is to open debate on a state budget that includes a proposal, long sought by mayors and other local officials, to allow them to shift workers into less expensive health plans, even if unions oppose the changes.

A month ago, before the House overwhelmingly approved a similar measure, labor leaders ran dramatic radio ads, held protests at the State House, and threatened to oust lawmakers. The standoff, they said, was a historic effort to ensure Massachusetts did not slide toward the tougher measures imposed in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere.

But now, as the Senate prepares to debate its bill, unions have issued a conciliatory press release, and tried to put a positive spin on the developments.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/25/mass_unions_soften_approach_on_health_care/

union measures.

Some of our local TV news folk (who tend to be RW) have noted the difference between the silence with which the anti-union measures instituted by Massachusetts Democrats have been met and the uproar in states where Republicans have imposed anti-union measures.

If I were a state employee union member, I'd be pretty ticked off at both my silent union and my Democratic state government.

Union: NO!
Senate: Fine, vote us out of office, and end up with Republicans who will be even worse.
Union: Sigh.

The unions are basically stuck between going along with higher health care costs or facing massive layoffs.

Which was to some extent patterned on Romneycare..

But, yes, if Washington does as little on cost containment as Beacon Hill has, we're going to have this kind of problem nationally.