Weintraub: End Employer-Based Health Care

Does Daniel Weintraub read CLEL? His editorial today says …

The biggest problem with our current system is that it injects a third party – the employer or its representative – between patients and doctors and between consumers and their insurance company.

He claims that employer-based health care started as a way around wage-controls during World War II. [Is that really all there was to it?-CLEL]

Weintraub is writing this in the context of urging readers to vote no on Proposition 72, which would enmesh the practice of employer-based health care.

What’s his suggested fix?

We can do this by taking a page from a policy that has proven successful in Switzerland: require every individual to have health insurance that covers at least catastrophic, or unpredictable, costs * * *People who are too poor to afford coverage would continue to get their care through government-subsidized or charity-based health clinics and hospitals. The working poor could get vouchers or refundable tax credits to help them transition to taking charge of their own health insurance purchases.

You’ve got a lot more selling to do, Dan. How would costs be controlled by consumers when they have to have the insurance? Isn’t that a seller’s market? How would you foster competition–FTC action? CLEL agrees that employer-based healthcare should go away; it’s especially onerous on small employers; but for the economy needs healthy workers. Wouldn’t these vouchers end up having a secondary market? How do you have enough competition in the health care market with each provider having a big enough pool? Isn’t it a natural monopoly or oligarchy? We need more answers.

"Employment Laws Explore New Territory"

In this month’s California Bar Journal, there is a pretty decent sized piece on employment law frontiers in California. (It does not appear to be online, at least for free).

I’m a little confused by this piece, because it talks about SB 796 and not the recent bill that just took a lot of the punch out of it. What’s up with that? Also, is she implying that a bill can be retroactive without any indication, even implicit, that it is?

While there is no indication that this law is deemed retroactive by the legislature, it will likely be a familiar sight in all new employee claims against violating [sic] employers.

Why even mention retroactivity then? I’m not sure what the point of that is. She feigns an attempt at balance at the end with the very trendy “on the other hand” job. With those caveats, it’s a good road-map to some of the new employment laws out there.

[CLEL notices that it is usually strikingly easy to tell when a piece is written by an employer side lawyer or an employee side lawyer, including the use of agit-prop. Is this the case in all branches of law? CLEL was a former bankruptcy jock-in-training, and doesn't remember the creditor/debtor divide being so obvious in prose like this.]

Slow News Week Picks Up!

Finally! Some interesting news… (in my narrow band here, anyway–the world is full of interesting news right now)

The Fresno Bee reports that the new workers’ comp law is putting the squeeze on chiropractors:

Statewide, chiropractors say new limits on visits and much-stricter guidelines for treatment have resulted in as much as a 70% cut in chiropractic treatment.

A class action suit against Dennys restaurants can proceed, the Supreme Court ruled, according to California law, where vacation is earned wage. The Chronicle reports.

Denny’s allows employees to start earning vacation time from their first day of work, but doesn’t pay them for accrued time if they leave in less than a year for an hourly employee, or less than six months for a salaried employee. Gard said the policy violates California law, which considers an employer’s vacation benefits to be the equivalent of wages that can’t be forfeited.

Yikes! CLEL would never have counseled them to do that. Dennys argued that their vacation plan was covered by ERISA.

Jesse Jackson spoke to striking hotel workers in San Francisco yesterday, the Chronicle reports. Mayor Newsom asked for a cooling off period, where workers would return to work during negotiations. A federal mediator will be in later this week. The strike is about a rise in health care premiums to be paid by the workers.

Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

The Court of Appeal (6th Dist.) handed down a decision today affirming a trial court’s finding that an arbitration clause between employer and employee was unconscionable when the agreement required only the employee to arbitrate all claims against the employer, required the employee to have discussions with his supervisors before filing for arbitration and a 180-day time limit.

Order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration AFFIRMED.

Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Cal. App. 6th Dist. No. H026704

News Summary

  • George’s Employment Blawg has this great entry on NLRA issues for companies without unions.
  • The bounty-hunter law is still in the budget mix, according to the SF Chronicle.

Otherwise, another slow news day.

On the legislative front:

  • a number of workers’ compensation bills are in the conference comittee. SB 1071, AB 1215, AB 1578, AB 1579, SB 191, SB 223, SB 229, SB 354, SB 451, and SB 757.
  • SB 1687, an act pertaining to advance-fee talent services, which would amend LC 1701 to expand the definition of a”advance-fee talent services,” received its third reading in the assembly on Saturday.
  • SB 534, requiring long-handewd tools for agricultural workers was sent to the inactive file on Saturday.

Also,

News Update

The SF Chronicle reports that the “bounty hunter” law is still in the mix on the budget deal; and public employee unions take the offensive against Republicans on the budget.

Legislative update: While I’m still a novice at reading the legislative information, there doesn’t appear to much of interest going on right now. I’m keeping my eyes on a few bills that were vetoed that are up for override, but they don’t have the votes. We’ll see.

News Roundup

The WSJ (sub. req’d) has this report: CPI up, wages flat; and this piece on legal weblogs. No mention of CL&EL (; Also, Boeing settles a sex-bias suit.

Will Wal-Mart get caught up in this settlement trend? [Not unless it really starts looking bad is my guess.]

The Sacramento Bee has this report on the status of State Fund going forward after the Schwarzenegger work/comp reform

Port business is boom, swelling the ILWU’s ranks. The LA Times reports.

News Roundup

* Here’s a novel legal theory: “Protester Tells Court: Wages Aren’t Taxable.” The LA Times has this report.

* Morgan Stanley settles a sexual discrimination suit minutes before trial. They agreed, in the consent decree, to outside monitors on gender bias, and increased training against discrimination. The WSJ has this report (sub req’d);

News Roundup

* The Contra Costa times reports Bay Area wages are growing more slowly.

* The LA Daily news reports has an interesting, two-sided report on UCL reform. (See this piece, via The UCL Practiioner, from the San Jose Mercury News rounding out the donations.)

[Ed: Industry seems to support turning UCL into class-action like lawsuits. There doesn't seem to be much focus on the issue of whether or not private attorneys-general are democratically accountable.]

* Not much legislative action lately because of the budget impasse.

* The aforementioned potential port strike was averted. The LA Times has this report.

Ninth Circuit Myth Exploded

The Sacbee (via Howard Bashman) has this article:

Despite a few attention-grabbing reversals – as when the Supreme Court threw out the circuit’s ruling against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, for example – about one in four 9th Circuit decisions reviewed by the high court met with its approval. Only four of the nation’s 13 circuit courts did better. Six had 100 percent reversal rates.

The Ninth Circuit has been more ideologically balanced for years.

Europeans Extending Workweek

A report in today’s NY Times, here, reports that Europe–France and Germany at least–are extending their work-weeks, because experiments in lesser hours per week haven’t reduced unemployment. The article does not explain the theory behind that macro-economic connection, and seems to suggest that competition from lower-wage countries has more to do with it.