Unions look forward to focusing on other basic issues; they are likely to zero in more on wages, job security.

Some local labor leaders are optimistic that reform of the nation's health care system may free them to negotiate with employers for things besides insurance -- things such as higher salaries and job security.

"(Health insurance) is so expensive, it really hurts us in negotiations. It's become central in negotiations," noted Dick Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians Local No. 53 in Burbank. "Now we may be able to get back some of what we've lost."

It may be too soon to tell what the nation's new health care system will eventually look like, but labor negotiators are hopeful that it will be a standard, cost-efficient system that will serve as a great equalizer of sorts.

Under the plan advocated by President Bill Clinton, only corporations with more than 5,000 employees could offer their own health plans, and even they would have to offer the same three choices as each state's "health alliance."

The health alliances and the mega-corporations would offer employees a choice between a health maintenance organization (HMO), a fee-for-service plan (often referred to as an indemnity plan) or a combination of the two.

Employers would have to pay 80 percent of the premiums, with the employees paying the balance. For small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, government subsidies would limit employer costs to 3.5 percent of payroll for workers making less than $24,000.

Self-employed workers would pay the full premium cost, but they could deduct the entire amount on their tax returns.

David Young, a representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, said making basic health coverage mandatory should make union shops more competitive with non-union shops that now undercut them in price by short-changing their workers.

"My opinion is it should remove health care from the competitive arena. Other things being equal, it will make a union contract less expensive overall," commented Young.

Often, he noted, health benefits are the most expensive difference between a union and non-union shop.

"That is the biggest bite in most union negotiations," said Young.

Often the cost of providing a good benefits package is the element that drives companies to vigorously fight employee organization, Young said.

Smith said just moving away from a smorgasbord of company plans to a standard, "given" system will have a "tremendous effect" on union bargaining.

"Our members are going to have to get used to choosing their doctor from a list, because that's the future. That's a fair trade if we can get costs down," said Smith, whose local represents about 1,200 employees. "Using HMOs (should) reduce the costs to employers. ... I think it's long over-due."

But Don Thornsburg, chief organizer of the Teamsters Local 986 in Los Angeles, predicted health care reform will increase costs for some employers.

Thornsburg, who is not as positive about health care reform as other union leaders, noted that most unions already negotiate better health programs for working Americans than the one being proposed by President Clinton. Thornsburg said he thinks unions will probably have to keep negotiating for superior benefits.

"The contracts we already have, I would think there would be no change," said "We might go to more cafeteria-style (benefit packages), but it won't really profit the unions. ... It's not a solution to the problem."

Ron Kennedy, executive secretary of the L.A. Building Trades Union, agreed that "organized labor is always going to have a better plan than the basic plan," including things like eye care and dental care and free HMOs, but he said forcing everyone to provide basic coverage will be a good thing for all workers.

"The cost factor will be a lot less because everybody will be paying something," said Kennedy. "It will help us immensely if we can share in the benefits from less cost for health and welfare. ... We've been footing the bill for the others that don't have anything."

Young agreed with Thornsburg that some employer costs may go up under the Clinton plan, but he said requiring everyone to provide the same coverage still makes for a more even playing field, benefiting all employees in the long run.

Both Kennedy and Young noted that unscrupulous employers, including those who employ large numbers of undocumented workers, will likely continue to pay substandard wages and cheat their employees out of benefits.

Another negative noted by Young: if health care is a burden on business, it could translate into a further drag on the economy, which would be bad for the employment picture.