|
tweakabelle -> RE: Longshoreman break with AFL-CIO (9/3/2013 6:18:56 AM)
|
quote:
Let's see... they reported "The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their "Cadillac" healthcare plan"
The piece then goes on to say "The Longshoreman leader said, "President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans and at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits." But, regardless of that promise, the President has pushed for just such a tax and Trumka and the AFL-CIO bowed to political pressure lining up behind Obama's tax on those plans."
It then goes on to point out the ILWU's dissatisfaction with immigration.
At the end is... brace yourself, I know it may be hard to accept, ILWU President Robert McEllrath actually spelling out why they are breaking with AFL-CIO on C_SPAN. You seem to want to ignore that part
I read the same piece but came away with a completely different understanding.
The main reason stated by the ILWU, clearly outlined in a complete paragraph of its own at the top of its list complaints, related to an inter-union dispute. A further series of lesser complaints - of which taxing health care reforms was one (note: not Obamacare itself) - followed lower down in the letter bundled together in a paragraph or two.
Isn't it odd that the main reason for the ILWU's departure wasn't even mentioned in your rendering of the ILWU's reasons for leaving? Could that be because, in your words, "You seem to want to ignore that part"? It doesn't do anything to help your personal campaign against Obamacare, does it?
|
|
|
|
