This entry by AFSCME President Gerald McEntee is cross-posted from Huffington Post and Oxdown Gazette.

In recent days, two generally progressive commentators have written in favor of taxing all or part of the value of employer provided health benefits as a way of paying for some of the costs of health care reform. They’ve suggested that AFSCME might “kill” health care reform because of our opposition to taxing the value of benefits. Of course we reject that characterization of our efforts.

In fact, AFSCME plays a leading role in the effort to pass real health care reform. Our stand against taxing benefits is grounded in a conviction that regressive taxation cannot cure our health care ills. Just as importantly, we are concerned that linking an unpopular tax to health care reform could kill our efforts to provide health care for all.

The argument in favor of taxing benefits centers on two points. First, like all tax exclusions and deductions, the exclusion of health benefits from taxation is worth more to higher income individuals who are in higher tax brackets. Second, the federal government foregoes $145 billion annually by shielding employer-sponsored health care benefits from taxation. Fair enough.

But there are real risks that come with a tax on health benefits. They include the likelihood that employer-sponsored insurance will be destabilized at a time when it should be reinforced; the disparate impact a change in policy will have on people who are older, sicker or in higher cost areas; the disproportionate burden a change will have on children and families; and an erosion of benefits and shifting of risk to individuals.

Some argue in favor of a compromise that would tax only “Cadillac” or “gold-plated” health insurance plans. But that won’t work. Just last month, The Commonwealth Fund reported that “many so-called “gold-plated” health benefit premiums are high only because insur­ance costs vary according to the size of the firm, the geographic region in which it is located, and the com­position of the employer’s risk pool.” Establishing a universal cap in today’s insurance market, they noted, “will have a disproportionate impact on workers in small firms, high-cost areas, and expensive risk pools.”

In addition, we need to consider the wisdom of taxing health benefits in light of the alternatives. For example, according to the Senate Finance Committee, the favorable tax treatment afforded to Capital Gains and Dividend income costs the government $178 billion per year. However, unlike the tax treatment of health benefits which goes to a broad swath of the American public, a very narrow economically privileged slice of taxpayers benefit from this favorable treatment.

This begs the question: why levy a tax on working people when this inequitable favorable tax treatment, primarily available to the wealthy, remains in place? Many of the same progressives who advocate taxing health benefits have rightly railed against rising income inequality and the dangers it presents to robust economic growth. Why not fund health care, mostly for low income underinsured and uninsured people, while simultaneously addressing one of the biggest causes of wealth inequality?

The introduction of the health benefits tax could well be the death knell for health care reform. In the historic 2008 election campaign, then Senator Barack Obama campaigned hard against the taxation of benefits, a key component of John McCain’s health care policy. President Obama recognized the taxation of benefits is unacceptable to the American public and made it a centerpiece of his campaign. He spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisements slamming McCain on the issue.

If anything, public opposition to a tax on benefits is growing. Recent polling indicates that 80 percent of likely voters oppose taxing the value of benefits while only 17 percent support it. Strong majorities oppose a health care tax without regard to political affiliation.

AFSCME opposes the health benefits tax because it could “kill” health care reform. Is there any better way to give Republicans cover to protect the insurance industry and their right wing cronies, and vote against reform, than to let them frame the issue as opposing a very unpopular tax? Do we hear Republicans campaigning in favor of taxing health benefits? Sometimes, progressives must be saved from themselves. That’s what we are doing when we stand clearly in opposition to taxing benefits that America’s working families earn on the job.

Don Zavodny, director of AFSCME Council 72 Missouri/Kansas, is speaking out against attempts to privatize mental health services.

In a letter to the editor published in yesterday’s Kansas City Star, Zavodny writes:

Privatization has become a dirty word. And for good reason. Imagine where we would be today if George W. Bush had gotten his way and gambled away our Social Security on the stock market. …

More than 87,000 Missourians have lost their jobs in the last year. For the affected families those job losses are accompanied by a spike in mental stress and anguish and an increased demand for public services. …

Every Kansas City area resident should be able to count on mental health services in good times and bad. We cannot do that if delivery of these services is contingent on how they affect a corporation’s bottom line. That will not guarantee them in tough times.

Read more here.

Hector Alikhan, Local 3325, and Diana MacQuarrie, Local 2719, were two of the 2008 Union Leaders of the Future Scholarship winners.

The deadline to apply for the Union Leaders of the Future Scholarship is fast approaching. Applications for the program, which aims to help more women and people of color become union leaders, must be received by May 30.

The scholarship provides annual awards of up to $3,000 to help future union leaders with the cost of continuing their education in order to pursue their union career goals and leadership skills.

Scholarships can be used for tuition, books and travel for leadership training at accredited labor schools, colleges, universities and community colleges. Many students have used the program to attend the National Labor College.

In addition, scholarship winners will be matched with current union leaders to participate in a special mentoring program.

By affording opportunities for women and people of color to continue their education, the scholarship program is helping build a skilled, diverse leadership for the union movement to continue to reach out and provide benefits to more workers.

So far, the Union Leaders of the Future Scholarship Program has awarded $74,000 to 28 winners. Last year’s winners included AFSCME members Hector Alikhan from Local 3325 and Diana MacQuarrie from Local 2719.

All applications must be postmarked by May 30, 2009. Scholarship winners will be contacted by July 7, 2009.

Findings from renowned labor expert and Cornell University professor Dr. Kate Brofenbrenner reveal that employer tactics against workers’ efforts to form unions have increased and become more punitive than in the past.

A new report, “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” released this week by the Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work exposes the ugly truth about corporate abuse of workers trying to form unions and bargain for a better life.

An in-depth examination of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election campaigns, interviews with workers and investigations of unfair labor practice filings gives a clear picture of what the process of forming a union really looks like. Workers are regularly subjected to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance and retaliation for supporting a union.

Some of the findings:

• 63% of employers interrogate workers in one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union
• 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite
• 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits
• 34% of employers fire workers

For more, read the full report and fact sheet.

The last thing families struggling in this tough economy need is to pay more for their health benefits. But Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wants to tax the health care benefits many Americans get from their jobs – as if they were income. And his plan doesn’t include a public insurance option to ensure that everyone has access to quality, affordable health care.

Far from moving us in the direction of comprehensive health care reform, Senator Wyden’s proposal would only make the problem worse: costs would go up and fewer people would get the health care they need.

That’s why AFSCME launched a campaign this week against Senator Wyden’s plan to tax Americans’ health care. We will contact Oregon families by direct mail, phone outreach, door-to-door conversations, and through a new website at www.StopWydensHealthTax.com.

Also, AFSCME is co-sponsoring a radio ad campaign in Oregon with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and the National Education Association to urge Congress to make quality, affordable health care accessible to all, not tax Americans’ benefits.

This Sunday night, the CBS News program “60 Minutes” will feature a story on American International Group (AIG), the failed insurance giant bailed out by taxpayers with more than $180 billion.  AFSCME has been a long-time critic of AIG and its top management.  In the years before the company imploded, AFSCME repeatedly warned that AIG’s board and management were acting in ways that threatened the interests of shareholders, including the pension funds of AFSCME members and other working Americans.   In early 2005, for example, AFSCME International President Gerald W. McEntee stated “AIG’s business practices put shareholders at risk for significant losses.”

Richard Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and pension investment at AFSCME, was interviewed for the “60 Minutes” story and is expected to be included in their report.

Tune in to “60 Minutes” this Sunday (May 17) at 7 p.m. ET on CBS.

And join our campaign against AIG at: www.afscme.org/greed

Vice President Joe Biden, addressing the 2009 AFSCME Legislative Conference on Tuesday, said the way to rebuild the middle class is to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and level the playing field for unions.

As chair of the White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, Biden is focused on raising the living standard for middle-class families and improving the lives of working Americans. The best way to do that, says the vice president, is to make sure workers have the freedom to join a union.

“You know, I think it should be pretty simple. If a union is what you want, then a union is what you should get. It’s simple.”

A new billboard went up in St. Paul, Minnesota, today which asks Gov. Tim Pawlenty whether he’ll do his legal duty when it comes to certifying the results of the U.S. Senate election — or if he’ll try to further his own national political ambitions instead.

The billboard is part of an ongoing campaign by Alliance for a Better Minnesota, MN AFL-CIO, AFSCME Council 5, Working America, SEIU MN State Council, Americans United for Change and others urging Gov. Pawlenty to immediately certify the election as soon as the MN Supreme Court rules on the recount and give Minnesota full representation in the U.S. Senate.

Working America has just launched a new website at SeatOurSenator.com where concerned Minnesotans can sign this petition:

As a resident of Minnesota, I am concerned that we be fully represented in the U.S House and Senate, particularly as we take on such critical priorities as rebuilding our economy, making health care more affordable, bringing green jobs to the state and reforming the banking system to protect working families.

Minnesota’s current congressional delegation is hurt by the absence of a U.S. senator to represent the interests of our citizens.

A poll conducted by Alliance for a Better Minnesota found that 59% of Minnesotans believe Norm Coleman should concede to Al Franken, and 64% would have “serious doubts” about Tim Pawlenty if he refused to certify the election if the MN Supreme Court declares Al Franken the winner.

See more at Seat Our Senator.com.

During a Congressional hearing held Thursday by the House Education and Labor Committee, AFSCME member and registered nurse Miguel García testified about the need to enforce federal guidelines designed to protect health care workers from pandemic influenza and other airborne viruses.

Full details from the hearing, including complete transcripts, photos and more video, can be found on the Committee’s website. Read more about García’s testimony in an Online Xtra from AFSCME WORKS.

This animation from the American Worker Project, courtesy of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), shows how labor law gives workers a raw deal, taking you step-by-step through the current process for forming a union. It’s not pretty.

Watch it and weep. Better yet, watch it and tell your Senators and Congressmember to support the Employee Free Choice Act.