A part of what a labor union does is negotiate the contract, which outlines the things that members care about. Wages and benefits, including your health insurance, are core provisions important to workers. Some unions – even good, strong union – in this country have organized, struggled, even went on strike to win comprehensive healthcare coverage plans in their contract. In fact, the benefit is so good that it's now an incentive for people to join that union.
If Medicare for All passes, that incentive technically would be gone. We need as many workers as possible to join the union to ensure that union is strong, so the rational on wanting to maintain their current health insurance can be understandable. However, that still doesn't justify undermining what's good for unions and the working class broadly. Especially considering these three facts:
1. Employer-based healthcare takes away a lot from our wages. When we don’t have to bargain for insurance anymore in our contract, money is freed up that can be put toward other bargaining issues important to workers.
——————
2. Medicare for All would provide better coverage than any employer-based plan that’s out there in the *magical* free market. Imagine a world without any co-pays, deductible, or surprise bills. Other countries with humane government have it. And we’re not just talking about in Canada and European countries but also countries made up of majority workers of color. Mexico, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia… just to name a few. You know, Global South countries our racist government says we should hate because they’re stealing our jobs or whatever.
——————
3. When we go on strike, our current corporate healthcare system gives the employer leverage to hold the health insurance against us. If we had Medicare for All, we wouldn’t have to worry about losing healthcare coverage when we organize and go on strike.