|
Mandate crushing to construction?Industry is calling for a fair health insurance employer mandate exemptionPeter Marcus, DDN Staff WriterThursday, January 14, 2010 | |
Small business owners in the Colorado construction industry are concerned that a provision in the Senate version of health reform that would require them to provide insurance to their employees if they have at least five employees would put them out of business.
Debra K. Parker has more than 50 employees employed at her Aurora-based landscape architecture and construction firm. As secretary-treasurer of JBK Landscape, Inc. she would already have to provide health insurance for her employees. A sweeping provision in both the House and Senate versions of health reform legislation would require employers to provide insurance for employees if they have 50 or more employees.
But Parker is concerned that the construction industry is being treated like the red-headed stepchild of the nation’s economy. A last-minute amendment by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, altered the employer mandate exemption for the construction industry to require construction companies to provide coverage or pay penalties if they have more than five employees and a payroll that exceeds $250,000. All other industries would enjoy an exemption if they have less than 50 employees.
Negotiations are ongoing between the House and Senate in crafting a compromise to send to President Barack Obama.
Parker says her business would already be hurt by the employer mandate for businesses with at least 50 employees. She says it would be even worse for her small business colleagues in the construction industry who would be forced to provide insurance simply for having only five employees Ń especially considering the construction industry is facing an unemployment rate of 22 percent, with 53,000 jobs lost last month.
“A lot of the construction companies we do work for, it could very well put them out of business, which would definitely have a direct impact on us,” said Parker.
Trade groups yesterday announced their plans to fight Reid’s provision and have sent Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats from Colorado, a letter expressing their dissatisfaction with the proposal. They say Reid caved to union bosses in including the provision, and have encouraged the two senators to work to strip the construction mandate provision.
“This narrowly focused provision is an unprecedented assault on the construction industry, and all the men and women who, every day, make the bold decision to strike out on their own by starting a business,” said Tony Gagliardi, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business. “If health care reform is that vital to the nation then it should be crafted openly instead of letting itself be used more than a barstool at the Buckhorn Exchange.”
Both Udall and Bennet said they are examining the proposal to see if it would hurt Colorado business owners and whether it is fair.
“Sen. Udall has concerns about this provision,” said Tara Trujillo, spokeswoman for Udall. “He will continue to listen to constituents on this issue, and will work to ensure that the health care bill addresses the concerns of Coloradans and business owners of the state.”
A spokesman for Bennet echoed similar thoughts.
“We need to make sure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care while also supporting efforts to create jobs and spur economic growth. Michael will continue to listen to the concerns voiced by Coloradans and encourage all sides to come together to find common ground that will help us achieve these very important goals,” said Bennet’s spokesman, Michael Amodeo.
Union leader Mike Cerbo, executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, said he generally supports employer health insurance mandates. He points out that the construction industry typically has fewer employees employed at a specific firm than other industries, which makes the separate construction industry mandate worthwhile.
“They’re structured different than other industries,” he said of construction.
Cerbo added that the construction industry lends itself to more injuries than other industries because of the nature of the work.
“People get hurt more in construction Ń there’s a need for more insurance than other industries,” he said.
But critics don’t buy the argument. They point out that workers’ compensation laws already cover construction workers injured on the job.
“The thought that these folks are going to be injured on the job site and not have health care unless this amendment is passed is ludicrous,” he said. “All the workers are covered by law É so that argument is just fallacious and untrue.”
| Comments: |
| stan Kolbe @ 2010-01-24 21:44:23 | I am not a contractor but do know about Workers Comp, what a failure it is in protecting workers and employee benefit law. Workers Comp is not health insurance and the statute includes penalties for those trying to shift narrow workplace specific injuries to health insurance or health claims to Workers Comp. We also know Workers Comp does not help the large undocumented workforce in CO construction or independent contractors or the thousands of "off the books" workers studies show exist in CO and nearby states. In effect, these workers have no health protection and leave their bills behind at the hospitals for the rest of CO taxpayers.
According to the just released Government Accounting Report (GAO 10-10) far too few workplace injuries are being claimed under Workers Comp due to employee fear that making the claim will cost them their jobs (66% of interviews) and widespread threats from employers to employees NOT to claim the injuries were on the job (witnessed by medical personnel). Further, small firms under 10 do not report injuries that are not serious and do not report illness in the workplace in general. Illegal workers obviously do not make Workers Comp claims. To confuse health insurance with Workers Comp demonstrates a failure to understand either with some legal liability inevitable. Contractors know this all too well and to claim Workers Comp is working for injured workers is simply a bad joke on those unfamiliar with construction firms and how business is done in CO and across the nation.
Next time a valued employee has a family emergency or a birth in the family or gets H1N1 flu or just breaks his arm after work and has to go to the hospital... check your Workers Comp for coverage... Workers Comp covers a fraction of the medical costs in any industry and construction is no different. Note that most births are covered with Medicaid funds and it appears construction sends more than their share of parents to Medicaid for joyous arrivals leaving the bill to the hospitals or taxpayers.
The bottom line is: construction is the least insured industry in California and many large states and is at or near the bottom nationally yet has a workforce demanding more health care without insurance than other industries. This uncompensated care cost is shifted to those buying insurance and the amount in some states is over $2,000 per family policy. Why should average families not in the construction industry or sympathetic to the industry spend more money to pay for their insurance to cover construction employees?
Construction is an industry, unlike most every other industry, in that generally does not choose to provide employee health care and therefore demands federal, state and local welfare healthcare provide it for most of the industry's workforce. This begs the question: if the industry has low wages, no healthcare and little retirement benefits... how much does it cost the charities, Medicaid and the state, local and national taxpayers to take care of the construction workforce? How much does the State of CO subsidize the firms refusing toe provide their employees healthcare? How much does it cost CO for all the firms that do not provide health insurance, pensions and training? Millions and growing... |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| stan Kolbe @ 2010-01-24 21:45:08 | I am not a contractor but do know about Workers Comp, what a failure it is in protecting workers and employee benefit law. Workers Comp is not health insurance and the statute includes penalties for those trying to shift narrow workplace specific injuries to health insurance or health claims to Workers Comp. We also know Workers Comp does not help the large undocumented workforce in CO construction or independent contractors or the thousands of "off the books" workers studies show exist in CO and nearby states. In effect, these workers have no health protection and leave their bills behind at the hospitals for the rest of CO taxpayers.
According to the just released Government Accounting Report (GAO 10-10) far too few workplace injuries are being claimed under Workers Comp due to employee fear that making the claim will cost them their jobs (66% of interviews) and widespread threats from employers to employees NOT to claim the injuries were on the job (witnessed by medical personnel). Further, small firms under 10 do not report injuries that are not serious and do not report illness in the workplace in general. Illegal workers obviously do not make Workers Comp claims. To confuse health insurance with Workers Comp demonstrates a failure to understand either with some legal liability inevitable. Contractors know this all too well and to claim Workers Comp is working for injured workers is simply a bad joke on those unfamiliar with construction firms and how business is done in CO and across the nation.
Next time a valued employee has a family emergency or a birth in the family or gets H1N1 flu or just breaks his arm after work and has to go to the hospital... check your Workers Comp for coverage... Workers Comp covers a fraction of the medical costs in any industry and construction is no different. Note that most births are covered with Medicaid funds and it appears construction sends more than their share of parents to Medicaid for joyous arrivals leaving the bill to the hospitals or taxpayers.
The bottom line is: construction is the least insured industry in California and many large states and is at or near the bottom nationally yet has a workforce demanding more health care without insurance than other industries. This uncompensated care cost is shifted to those buying insurance and the amount in some states is over $2,000 per family policy. Why should average families not in the construction industry or sympathetic to the industry spend more money to pay for their insurance to cover construction employees?
Construction is an industry, unlike most every other industry, in that generally does not choose to provide employee health care and therefore demands federal, state and local welfare healthcare provide it for most of the industry's workforce. This begs the question: if the industry has low wages, no healthcare and little retirement benefits... how much does it cost the charities, Medicaid and the state, local and national taxpayers to take care of the construction workforce? How much does the State of CO subsidize the firms refusing toe provide their employees healthcare? How much does it cost CO for all the firms that do not provide health insurance, pensions and training? Millions and growing... |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| HeimbToom @ 2010-02-26 09:36:20 | |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| HeimbToom @ 2010-02-26 12:16:47 | |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
|
 |
|
