Janitor's Health Care Under Attack

A $20 co-pay is what most people with employer-paid insurance pay now, even other SEIU employees in different Unions (talk to someone who works for BART--their co-pay is $20 also) and Vision Insurance costs next to nothing, $5-10 a month at most. A $20 co-pay is not the least bit unreasonable.

When I gave up my "regular" job and went independent, I also gave up my employer-provided health care benefits. I was lucky enough, once my COBRA benefits ran out, to be able to convert to an individual plan at a discounted rate. Were I to apply for individual health insurance today, I would be deemed uninsurable, just for the asthma medications I take!

My individual health insurance with Kaiser costs $156 per month and requires a $20 co-payment per visit.

Equivalent coverage, if purchased by an employer for an employee group, would have a copayment of, say, $5, but the monthly cost per employee would be $250 to $300.

There is a tradeoff that the janitors must confront: is it better to have the employer pay higher premiums, which will compromise other aspects of the janitors' compensation package, or is it better for the janitors to shoulder higher copayments and bargain for a share of the employer's premium savings?

The $20 copayment is, in my mind, a blessing, because it makes patients think carefully before going to the doctor. Kaiser, for example, publishes a world-renowned home health care guide that helps patients decide when a doctor's visit is really necessary. Kaiser members can e-mail or telephone an advice nurse (and via the nurse, can relay messages to their family doctor) free of charge, 24 hours a day. And to protect persons with chronic illnesses, there is an annual copayment ceiling of $500 on my individual plan. After that, the patient is always seen for free. I think that's the best of both worlds.

One more thing, about the risk of the janitors' losing their vision insurance coverage...vision insurance is a racket! High premiums and low benefits hurt employers and employees alike.

During my years of institutional employment, I watched my employers fork over $15 to $20 a month, on my behalf, for VSP coverage. VSP is one of the largest vision insurance providers. The "benefits", so called, included $45 for a pair of eyeglass lenses every year and $40 for a frame, every other year. A basic "storefront" optical exam was also covered by VSP. Comprehensive eye exams were covered not by VSP, but by health insurance plans.

VSP's low benefit levels were only sufficient if one bought a very basic pair of glasses from a factory optical chain that had a contract with VSP. A walk-in customer at the same chain would, of course, get the same "storefront" exam for free (note: whether covered by VSP or offered for free, this is not a medically complete eye exam -- it doesn't replace the kind of eye care that health insurers like Kaiser cover) and get the same cheap "stock" frame for free. The walk-in customer would only pay for lenses. (Note: a pair of modern plastic eyeglass lenses with anti-scratch, anti-glare, and UV coatings costs hundreds of dollars. $45 from VSP didn't cover a single, basic, glass lens!)

So... my employers paid $360 to $480 in premiums over the two-year benefit period and I got $130 of benefits with a "street" value of next to nothing. And what about my colleagues, who didn't need glasses or contacts? The employers had to pay VSP premiums on behalf of the non-eyeglass-wearers too.

I suspect that the gap between the premiums and the benefits went to kick-backs for the "storefront" eye doctors and factory optical chains. (To pick another example from the optical field, consumer watchdogs discovered recently that laser vision correction is based on a vast network of kickbacks, from the surgeons to the "storefront" eye doctors.)

I say return the vision care premiums to the employees as wages!

I suspect that the gap between the premiums and the benefits went to kick-backs for Jessie Jackson
who let jackson weezle into this picture anyway?

$20 co-payments unreasonable? Please.

First of all, imagine that you have five kids and a husband, and you make $17/hr. If you run all the figures, and imagine that you're cramming your whole family into a $1,000/month 1Bedroom San Francisco apartment, you realize that even $10 co-payments become a significant portion of your leftover income. Especially if more than one person gets sick.

Second, this is really about respect. These janitors have had full, family health insurance coverage for 30 years. Now that the economy is having a downturn, building owners are crying about their shrinking profit margin. The fact is this-- the owners can afford to pay the co-pays and they should pay it. Just think for a second about how much money the development and real estate CEO's make every year. Unions don't ask for things that management really can't afford. All that's going on here is an attempt at take-aways because there is now a handy excuse. Why should janitors lay down and take it?

I applaud Local 1877's membership and staff. They have obviously done a good enough job of educating each other to the point that they recognize an opportunistic attempt to grab just a little more profit for what it is, and they have the courage to stand up to it on principle and out of necessity. Hopefully the standard for employer-provided health care benefits will continue to rise, at least until universal health care...: )

It's normal to have a co-pay.
The janitors striking are the 2nd highest paid in the country! They should pay like everybody else. If you can't afford to support a family....Don't have one!

The comments on this issue perfectly demonstrate the failure of the union leadership. In an effort to make an agreement as easy as possible with management, the union leadership continually strives to narrow down the issues and compromise, compromise, compromise.

Launch a real, in-your-face campaign for free health care for all? Let's get real here - the system can't afford it. At least this is what the owners of the system (the owners of capital, or the capitalist class) says, and so the union leadership parrots that back to their membership. In the course of this, they los all credibility with wider sections of the working class as well as with their own members. After all, who needs a union when its leaders talk just like the boss?

Just imagine what would happen if the SEIU announced a REAL campaign for guaranteed, free health care for all. Imagine if they explained that they are going to seek to organize the tens of thousands of downtown office workers around this demand, among others. Imagine if they explained that the strike of the janitors is the first blow for this demand, and that they are going to seek to shut down all of downtown San Francisco until their demands are met.

Ridiculous? Let's not forget that a few thousand young people accomplished exactly this on the first day that the US started its invasion of Iraq.

Of course, this would mean breaking all the cozy deals and "friendly" relationships with the likes of Willie Brown as well as with the employers. Even worse, such a battle would inevitably lead to the questioning of the entire profit system as the basis for all production. What a scary thought!

The other point to be made is this: In simply "reporting" on what is happening without giving any explanation, International ANSWER is in effect covering up for the disastrous course of the union leadership.

Finally, readers should take a look at the comments of the article "MORE OF THE SAME -
San Francisco janitors face an uphill battle as Union leaders invite the fox in to the hen house."

[First of all, imagine that you have five kids and a husband, and you make $17/hr ...]

If you only make $17 an hour you have no business having five children. People should start accepting responsibility for their actions, rather than saying "oh, I've got five kids and I'm poor, someone else should pay for their health care". I make enough to support three people comfortably so we only have one child. If we were to have five, it's our own fault, and we shouldn't expect the state to support us.

And those five children, not one of which was responsible for his or her own birth, deserve to suffer poverty, why?

Don't just raise questions, nes. People who can't afford to feed 5 children yet have them are the one's who placed the childen into that situation. What should we do to prevent people from making such foolish decisions? And should they ignore reason and do so anyway, what should be their punishment? Society picking up the pieces after the parents screwed up and created the situation cannot continue forever.

It's not a matter of changing the subject. It's a matter of looking beyond the immediate need and finding a solution. Are the children responsible? No. Are the parents? Yes. So the question remains, what should we do to prevent people from making such foolish decisions? And should they ignore reason and do so anyway, what should be their punishment? Society picking up the pieces after the parents screwed up and created the situation cannot continue forever.

Nes, what say ye?

(1.) And this is better for the children, how?

(2.) How much more would this cost the tax payer?

(3.) Where did you get your inspiration for this, Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot?

>Caring for children is not a burden. It is a joy and a privilege.

Caring for my OWN children is a joy and a privilege. I have no interest in financially supporting someone elses kids. I don't want anyone financially supporting my kids. That's my responsibility. I've budgeted myself so that I don't unjustly burden others with what is rightfully my responsibility. I expect others to be as responsibile as I am.

That you don't like people with that opinion is beside the point. You can yipe all the nasty stuff you want to make yourself feel superior or wharever it is you're trying to prove, but that isn't going to solve the problem. There are parents who have more children than they can financially support, and the money needed to feed and clothe these children must come from others. That's wrong. It's one thing to volunteraly assist someone in need. It's a whole other matter to have money confiscated from you in order to support the irresponsibility of others. The only thing these people seemingly are learning is that they can continue to be irresponsible and someone will step in and make sure everythings OK. It can't continue. It will break the system, which I'm sure is fine with you. But even in a world of "anarchy is a way of life", there will be those who refuse to support irresponsibile people such as we are addressing. Will some other collective or community take them in? Probably. But eventually, it will wear thin.

Like with anything in life, if you aren't pulling the wagon to care for you and yours, that means someone else is having to do ALL their work AND part of yours.

The quesion remains:

Wht can be done to shake these types of people into realizing they should not have more children than they can financially support? that they are hurting children by bring them into the world without the means by which to feed, clothe and shelter them?

forty years ago, GM was the largest employer in the US.

today, Wal-mart is the biggest employer.

rightists of yesteryear used to say that women should stay at home with the children. rarely did they condemn women for *having* children.

what's changed?

many, if not most, of the jobs capital now creates don't pay enough for a family to live on. that's the inescapable fact that our new breed of rightist--puffed up with their timeless homilies--never want to address even though it goes to the heart of the matter.

One More Example of Corruption in the SEIU


NLRB issues complaint against SEIU for threatening San Francisco janitors

Published Sept. 11, 2002


The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for threatening San Francisco janitors that they would lose all their benefits if the janitors were no longer represented by SEIU. The threats, made in handbills and at meetings, were aimed to discourage janitors from signing petitions to decertify SEIU and form their own independent union. The NLRB complaint alleges that SEIU is "restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the (National Labor Relations) Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act."

SEIUs threats began when San Francisco janitors, who were members of the recently trusteed SEIU Local 87, petitioned the NLRB to establish a new independent union, the United Service Workers for Democracy (USWD87) and to disaffiliate from the SEIU.

In further action, the NLRB issued another complaint against San Francisco�s largest janitorial contractor, Able Building Maintenance, for "rendering assistance and support" to SEIU "by directing its employees to meet, during work time, with representatives of SEIU International" in its campaign against USWD. The board alleges that Able Building Maintenance "has been rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act." Complaints against other employers for similar violations are expected to follow soon.

Earlier this year, the SEIU International took control over Local 87 to force its San Francisco members to merge into the Los Angeles-based SEIU Local 1877. Despite clear opposition to the merger by San Francisco members, SEIU forged ahead with the merger plans creating the biggest challenge to continued SEIU leadership among building service workers in northern California in the last 50 years. Local 87 represents more than 3,500 mostly Latino, Asian and Arabic janitors who clean office buildings in downtown San Francisco.

In an attempt to whitewash the merger and pit members against each other, SEIU is pushing for a 14 member "Advisory Council " to provide input about the merger. According to the international, "The merger has already been approved by the International Executive Board of SEIU and there will be no vote on this issue at SEIU Local 87 � The discussion is not about whether or not there will be a merger but rather about how it will happen."

Amazingly, composition of the Advisory Council is segregated by racial quotas: 4 Latinos, 2 Chinese, 2 Arab and 4 "non-designated" workers.

"This Advisory Council is a sham, and worse, they shamefully tried to divide the members by race," complained one Local 87 member. "The trusteeship took away our local bylaws and our rights to vote, and now they want our advice on how to cut our own throats."

Since SEIU imposed a trusteeship on Local 87 its members have seen their drug benefits reduced, workload increased, hiring control taken away by the employers and the loss of work to non-union companies while SEIU International stands by doing nothing.

This is not the first time SEIU has muscled in on Bay Area janitors. Two years ago, the international seized control of San Francisco Local 14 and forced them to merge into the Los Angeles based Local 1877 even though the affected union members voted against it. After the merger, SEIU 1877 signed a sweetheart contract allowing the management to replace workers making $17 an hour and full benefits with workers making $9 an hour and no benefits.

"And now our work hours are being cut and workload increased," explained a Local 1877 Moscone Center worker, "That's why we want to join Local 87 members in forming a new independent union for janitors in San Francisco."

Moscone Center workers also have petitioned the NLRB for an election so they can decide to stop paying dues to SEIU Local 1877. "Why should we be forced to pay dues to a union that no longer represents us?" asked a Moscone worker. The NLRB is moving ahead with the de-authorization election for Moscone Center workers.

"The trusteeship and merger take away our precious democratic rights and threatens our jobs and wages. Even though members overwhelmingly reject their actions, SEIU is forging ahead with its plan," said Richard Leung, who was ousted as president of Local 87 in the SEIU takeover. "All they care is to raise and collect our union dues while they are busy making backroom deals with employers. As long as we remain in SEIU, we are forced to accept their sellout plan."

Founded in 1936, Local 87 has had a long history in the struggles to improve the plight of janitorial workers in San Francisco and is one of the oldest SEIU locals in the nation. As the premier janitorial union in Northern California, Local 87 members make $15.65 an hour with pension and fully paid family medical and dental benefits. By comparison, SEIU 1877 members in the East and South Bay make only $8 an hour with little or no pension and have to pay for a portion of their health benefits for which they have to wait up to a year to qualify.

Affected members are challenging SEIU�s top-down domination by starting a grass roots drive to bring about a serious challenge to the nation�s largest union.

"Unions are supposed to be by the members and for the members," Leung said. "They ought to have the right to decide for themselves to take back control of their union."

many, if not most, of the jobs capital now creates don't pay enough for a family to live on. that's the inescapable fact that our new breed of left-wing socialist extremeist exporting jobs in the name of
"world trade"

now you are stuck working at walmart ...well at least your red vest looks good, now you can look forward to eating cat food in your old age!

many, if not most, of the jobs capital now creates don't pay enough for a family to live on. that's the inescapable fact that our new breed of left-wing socialist extremeist exporting jobs in the name of
"world trade"

now you are stuck working at walmart ...well at least your red vest looks good, now you can look forward to eating cat food in your old age!

FIND OUT WHAT EX-SEIU MEMBERS-SEIU MEMBERS - SECURITY UNIONS - CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION - CSEA and others have to say about SEIU

The Socialist Party recognizes that a struggle against habitual union dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism
we must end big buisness, this would end coruption
and free workers to be creative and artistic as we where intended to be. buisness is the root of all problems in this country today, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. we also need to deregulate health care, and train as many doctors as possible to increase compition in the industry, and promote private practice like in the old days when you bartered for your doctor, you paid him a chicken and he fixed your broken leg! as the world should work!