Friday, June 12, 2009
Health Care Reform: Prognosis Undetermined
I can't decide how I feel about health care reform. It's now near the top of the legislative agenda and lots of proposals and ideas are being floated by the House and Senate committees working on a bill.
Almost every American has a stake in the outcome. The health care industry is a huge segment of our economy. We all use health care services and most of us are covered by some type of insurance. We almost all agree that there's something wrong with our current system. But we’re also afraid to change it.
Both sides of the reform debate seem to agree that there should be some form of mandatory coverage. Under our current system, those who have insurance end up paying more for coverage to subsidize services for those who don't. If everyone were required to have health care insurance, the overall cost should even out and insurers should be able to guarantee coverage even for people with pre-existing conditions.
The idea of allowing individuals to select coverage from a number of competitive plans also appeals to me. I understand how the concept of employer-provided health insurance got started, but is it really the best way? Why should the employer be responsible for health care, and why should an individual be restricted to the type of coverage provided by his or her employer?
Every individual has different health insurance needs - just like we do for auto or life insurance. If we had guaranteed access to coverage, we could pick the type of coverage that best suits our individual or family needs.
Now comes the harder decisions.
Should there be a public option among the competing insurance plans? In other words, should the federal government offer an alternative to private insurance? Would the government plan eventually force the private plans out of business so that we would be left with only government-controlled health insurance?
An even bigger question is how do we pay for all this? Some ideas include taxing the individual for coverage beyond a certain amount and/or limiting the deductibility of insurance premiums paid by the employer. I know the unions aren't too happy about this idea, since most unions plans offer top-tier coverage. From an employer's point of view, wouldn't that create some incentive to control the cost of health coverage in our labor agreements?
I like the fact that the United States has the best and most innovative health care system. I like the fact that we have free access to the doctors and hospitals of our choosing and that we don't have to wait months for elective care. I hate the bureaucratic morass of insurance claims statements, bloated costs, unnecessary tests, waste and fraud.
So what do I want from health care reform? Something better, but exactly what, I can't tell you.
Categories: Management, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), Productivity, Regulation
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Time to do what we're not doing
The annual IBEW Construction Conference was in town last week. I dropped by to hear IBEW President Ed Hill address the business managers from IBEW local unions across the country.
Ed threw some slides up on the screen showing the number of IBEW-signatory electrical contractors versus the total number of electrical contractors. He broke the numbers down by district and also showed how they looked for some typical local unions. In most cases, the number of non-union contractors exceeded the number of union contractors by six or seven times or more.
No surprise there. Ed then asked the group what they were going to do about it.
He also showed slides depicting various types of work, much of which has been abandoned by the union side of the industry - stuff like residential, small commercial, strip malls, churches, and fast food restaurants.
Ed challenged the audience to go after this work. He told them that the IBEW Constitution does not allow them to decide that this is no longer union work. He suggested that every local union consider developing a small works labor agreement and to use all the tools available to capture this work — such as the CW/CE classification.
Of course, capturing or recapturing work isn't the sole responsibility of the IBEW. In fact, they can't do it alone. For many reasons, both good and bad, we collectively have decided to walk away from huge segments of electrical construction work.
We need to sit down in each local area, assess the work that we're not doing, and come up with a plan to do it. It's as simple, and as hard, as that.
Based on Ed Hill's challenge to his local union leaders, I think NECA chapters may find a more sympathetic partner in attempting to seriously address these issues with their IBEW counterparts. And they will expect our contractors to be ready to accept the challenge as well.
This isn't the time to score political gains. It’s the time to do what we're not doing.
Categories: IBEW, Industry Trends, Management, Special Events
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Labor Negotiations Prime Time
This is labor negotiation prime time. A majority of NECA-IBEW labor agreements have a May 31 anniversary date, so many local areas are deep into the negotiation process. With the deadline for CIR submissions this Friday, the pressure to come to a settlement is even greater.
One of the most frequently asked questions I hear concerns whether any areas are agreeing to wage freezes or rollovers. The simple answer is yes. With the dramatic change in the construction economy this year, many local unions are taking a sober and realistic look at work prospects in their area. So far only a few have agreed to a wage freeze, but wage increases definitely appear to have moderated.
On the other hand, I’ve heard quite a few stories about union opening letters with demands that show no recognition of current economic realities. We’ll soon find out whether these were just opening ploys or serious demands.
The second question I hear most often is, "how were some local chapters able to negotiate wage freezes?" That answer isn’t as simple.
Certainly, low market share and a book full of laid-off journeyman can be a big factor. Not every area, however, requires an economic two-by-four in the face to get the negotiating committee’s attention.
If there is any silver bullet/magic solution in any of these situations, it’s that there’s a good working relationship between the local chapter and the local union. That may seem self-evident, but it’s not. Some think that it’s a lot like winning the lottery: You either are lucky enough to get a cooperative business manager or you’re not. But if we dig deeper, we find that chapters that have a good relationship with their local unions work at it.
Working at it means good communications. The chapter leaders are constantly meeting with and talking to their union counterparts about industry issues — not just during negotiations, but year-round. Local LMCCs meet regularly and honestly discuss problems. NECA contractors talk and listen to their regular employees, taking time to explain the realities of job costs, estimating, and customer demands.
This is the message that NECA President Rex Ferry has been preaching at meetings this year. He admits that this is all easier said than done, and he even more readily admits that he hasn’t always been successful in his own communication efforts. The important thing is that he keeps trying, and he believes that if we are ever to achieve a long-term solution in labor-management relations, this is the key.
Ten or fifteen years ago, a number of chapters were particularly proactive in developing solid working relationships with their local union counterparts. Today, it’s a more common occurrence — and also why we’re seeing some more encouraging results at the bargaining table.
Categories: Agreements (local), Labor Relations
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Celebrating the New American Heroes
It’s Tax Day 2009. Today as individuals all across our country rush to file their taxes, it’s time to publicly identify and honor the new American Hero.
Our country is in financial trouble. All the proposals I’ve seen for correcting this mess focus on raising taxes, specifically on those individuals earning over $250,000 a year. On the other hand, these proposals also call for reducing taxes on other income groups. The net result is that over fifty percent of Americans won’t pay any federal income taxes at all. That leaves it up to the $250,000+ earners to bail us out.
Some analysts claim that we would have to tax 100% of the income of these high-wage earners to pay for everything that’s being proposed. In my mind, that misses the point. Why aren’t monuments being planned for the National Mall (shovel-ready, job stimulating projects, mind you) and parades organized to honor our new American heroes – the remaining taxpayers? Shouldn’t we create a national day off from work to recognize them? Instead of holding tea parties in protest, we should all sit down and write thank-you notes to these people.
Note to officials at the Department of Homeland Security: I’m being facetious.
Categories: Market Recovery, Special Events
