[danesparza]

This isn't just about wages. From the article: https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2019/0...

Health care costs are a key issue. Ford and GM said that they spend more than $1 billion per year on health care for active UAW workers. Government data for all union workers show that the average cost of health care benefits is more than $6 per hour, the Center for Automotive Research reported. But the report showed the UAW Detroit Three's health care cost is roughly 150% of the U.S. average. The average UAW worker pays about 3% of his or her health care costs compared with 28% paid by the average U.S. worker, CAR said. Note: Some of the money for CAR's research comes from automakers including GM, Ford and FCA.

UAW members are protective of their health care benefits because their jobs are physically demanding and they need health care to function and stay healthy to do the jobs. Automakers also worry about an economic downturn foreseen by some economists as the car companies face high costs to develop electric vehicles required in China and Europe and to prepare to compete in a future with more shared services and autonomous travel.

[mikeash]

One wonders why they aren’t heavily lobbying the government to enact something like Medicare for All.

[refurb]

You mean GM?

The unions don't want Medicare for all, their health insurance is even better than Medicare. They actually fought against ACA until the "Cadillac Plan Tax" was put into place. The govt then pushed out the tax for years.

[mikeash]

Yes, I mean GM. Would be a great way to bypass all the fuss and expense of these fancy health plans.

[fuzz4lyfe]

The fuss is part of the product. People overestimate health insurance and health costs generally and assign that high value to the health insurance provided by the employer. If that was suddenly converted to a simple wage without benefits firms would likely end up paying more after it all shakes out.

Think of all the times you have heard "That job only pays $x an hour" and the reply "Yeah but the benefits".

[AnthonyMouse]

Probably because they're looking for ways to lower costs rather than just move them from insurance to taxes at the same cost, which then becomes much more difficult to renegotiate or improve because a uniform system requires you to have to deal with millions of previously independent stakeholders instead of each party doing what works best for their situation.

They may also need a solution sooner than it would take Congress to do something like that, given the amount of opposition to it from people who prefer the status quo -- or any of a dozen competing alternative solutions to high healthcare costs.

[mikeash]

It would lower costs, and it would also put them on an equal playing field with the other domestic manufacturers, rather than having to compete with other companies who have lower costs due to not having such expensive union health care plans.

As for needing a solution sooner... it’s not like this is going to be the end of it. Health care costs were a major point of contention in 2008 as well. I’m pretty sure they were a major problem for GM well before that.

[AnthonyMouse]

> It would lower costs

That is consistently the claim, but unless it would also lower outcomes, what thing is it doing to cause that which couldn't be done independently of single payer? It's easy to lower "costs" using price controls, but then you have all the usual problems of price controls. Shortages, rationing, quality reductions necessary to meet the price target, etc. Keep in mind that for people with insurance, the US system has better overall outcomes than most socialized systems.

> and it would also put them on an equal playing field with the other domestic manufacturers, rather than having to compete with other companies who have lower costs due to not having such expensive union health care plans.

That doesn't really matter unless they're competing with those companies, but most of the other auto companies have the same issues with the UAW and US workers, and those companies have the same option to build plants outside of the US as their competitors.

> As for needing a solution sooner... it’s not like this is going to be the end of it. Health care costs were a major point of contention in 2008 as well. I’m pretty sure they were a major problem for GM well before that.

That's the point. 2008 wasn't even the beginning of it, this has been an issue since at least the Clinton administration. GM would likely be bankrupt (again) before Congress does anything meaningful here.

[rpiguy]

Because the benefits they receive today are far superior to medicare. In fact all of the Democrat candidates in favor of medicare for all have made explicit promises to unions that they can keep their expensive health plans if medicare for all is enacted.

It is a promise that will likely be impossible to keep, but you know politics and all.

[charwalker]

Basically they are promising the German model with a baseline public option and allowance for private insurance for those who wish to pay extra for it. It would establish something like Medicare as the baseline and push private options to compete with a low/zero cost accessible plan. I think the end result would be like states where auto insurance is not required where I can insure my new BMW as much as I want but at least the uninsured civic that rear ends me has a lifeline to stay solvent.

[mikeash]

Sorry, "they" as in GM.