But this is not a contradiction by those members (I think that's what you imply?).
It's reasonable to be against something in principle, but if that thing becomes established despite that, well, you play the cards you are dealt (just like I take the mortgage deduction when I can, even though I think it should be abolished).
The issue at hand here is the "future promise" aspect. It's just a mess to have a 'promise' that isn't legally binding. And this one becomes so significant to an individual.
So yes, I fully support the separation of health care from employment, just like my car and home insurance is. My car and home insurance is far less complex, and this employee tie is a big part of it. But if a company has already made a promise-non-promise, it's treading on thin ice to change that, and it should do so carefully and only if it is clear it is needed.
As youbet mentioned earlier, all employee benefits should be in real time, fully vested as you earn them. Anything else is a problem waiting to happen.
edit/add: A different scenario is if the company said "All new hires will not receive XYZ benefit". That is transparent, and doesn't affect past promises, which is OK in my book. The potential employee can weigh that in their decision.
-ERD50