Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
April 27, 2011|By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers rights.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
Its pretty stunning, said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that theyre with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions . Its a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.
We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end, he added. Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety, he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
And which House is that you might wonder? It's the Massachusetts House, which is controled by Democrats. Funny how Wisconsin comes under the media scrutiny for doing this because the Repubs are in control over there, yet the Dems in Mass. seem to get a pass for doing the same thing.
House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
April 27, 2011|By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers rights.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
Its pretty stunning, said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that theyre with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions . Its a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.
We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end, he added. Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety, he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
And which House is that you might wonder? It's the Massachusetts House, which is controled by Democrats. Funny how Wisconsin comes under the media scrutiny for doing this because the Repubs are in control over there, yet the Dems in Mass. seem to get a pass for doing the same thing.
House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
April 27, 2011|By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers rights.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
Its pretty stunning, said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that theyre with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions . Its a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.
We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end, he added. Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety, he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
And which House is that you might wonder? It's the Massachusetts House, which is controled by Democrats. Funny how Wisconsin comes under the media scrutiny for doing this because the Repubs are in control over there, yet the Dems in Mass. seem to get a pass for doing the same thing.
House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
April 27, 2011|By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers rights.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
Its pretty stunning, said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that theyre with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions . Its a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.
We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end, he added. Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety, he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
Massachussetts?
You mean that state where Governor Romney signed and supported forcing people to buy health insurance.
And which House is that you might wonder? It's the Massachusetts House, which is controled by Democrats. Funny how Wisconsin comes under the media scrutiny for doing this because the Repubs are in control over there, yet the Dems in Mass. seem to get a pass for doing the same thing.
House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com
Massachussetts?
You mean that state where Governor Romney signed and supported forcing people to buy health insurance.
Quit living in the past man.. First all we hear from you left wingers is Bush this, Bush that.. Nothing about Obama might be the PROBLEM. Now you are blaming Romney for THIS and he has not been the GOV there in how many years. Just like the left blamed Romeny for that mans wife death even though she had insurance for years after her husband got let go from Bain, even though he had the choice to get bought out, Even though she did not die until 8 years after Romney left Bain.. But somehow . It was ALL Romneys fault.
When is it the Democrats fault... The only time you guys take credit for anything is when it is positive.. Reagan also got dealt a bad economy but he DID not play the blame game his first 4 years on Carter . He did what he had to do to turn the economy around.. So tired of the woesy me , Poor me, HELP me, GIVE me, Im entitled to Party !!
Suppression of labor unions is a particularly fascist strategy. I don't care who does it, it is the hallmark of fascism.
The last thing fascists want is an empowered, democratic labor force. That is evidenced by history.
Ma. is a seriously Liberal state. Ted fucked it up in a big way like everything else he touched.
I'm glad he's fucking dead. Dead Ted.. has a nice ring to it.
Ma. is a seriously Liberal state. Ted fucked it up in a big way like everything else he touched.
I'm glad he's fucking dead. Dead Ted.. has a nice ring to it.
Why are you bumping a thread from well over a year ago to post stupid shit?
This might seem somewhat of an opinion from days gone bye, but its my humble opinion that while everyone should have a right to bargin with their employer for their salary and working conditions etc. A public employee accepts the fact they are working for the taxpayer and not a private company when making an application for the postion and as such those positions should not be subject to strike or any kind of negotiation as it tends to hold the entire public hostage including those doing the negotiation. As for private companies it's also my humble opnion that Unions should be allowed to form at the will of the employee's as the above does not hold true, and those who do not wish to join those Unions should not be forced to do so. It has always seemed to me that as a Free nation when you have to force someone to pay into a group they do not wish to belong to as a condition for working , sort of goes against the word Free. Those Union members though who have formed should not be held in contempt as well nor should they be kept by law from seeking better compensation as a group or better working conditions. Just a thought here.
Wow... Democrats sure are biting the hands that feed them.
Ma. is a seriously Liberal state. Ted fucked it up in a big way like everything else he touched.
I'm glad he's fucking dead. Dead Ted.. has a nice ring to it.
Why are you bumping a thread from well over a year ago to post stupid shit?
