Outrage Grows at Mulgrew Healthcare Blackmail pitting working members ($1500 a year) against retirees (forced MedAdv) - Beats Putin to Use of Nuclear Option -

We deserve better from our leadership. ...There is no victory in that email. It's the job of leadership to better our lot, not march us off a cliff. MLC and UFT leadership need to work toward a better solution, or stand down for someone who will..... Arthur Goldstein, NYC Educator

These are pretty bold words from Arthur (I post his entire brilliant blog post below), who supported the leadership and ran on the Unity slate in the election last May. Not a good sign for Mulgrew. I also got a call from an active Unity Caucus member who was not happy either. Also not a good sign for Mulgrew as Unity frays a bit at the edges. Some insiders also not happy with the increasing ineptitude.

 

Sunday, October 30, 2022 - Erev Halloween

 

The municipal union healthcare issue blew up Saturday evening as news of Mulgrew's outrageous threats (see below) of an either or: working UFT members will pay a $1500 yearly healthcare premium or retirees will be forced into Medicare advantage like it or not with no opt out choice. A few choice comments:

What a scam this is - the unions and the mayor have come up with this piece of blackmail to get everyone on board to pass the bill before the city council. The UFT has no limit to their perfidy. ... UFT Retiree - Brooklyn 

The nuclear option is invoked! It's retirees versus in-service employees! Tell the City Council to pass the amendment! Let us screw you over so we can all be protected from Mulgrew's criminally negligent incompetence: The shitty deal he agreed to in 2018! It's a dystopian nightmare.... UFT Retiree

The Mulgrew letter reads as an ultimatum from the city, as if the union reps on the MLC have no option to say NO. James points out that it's all bullshit because 1992 MLC CITY AGREEMENT SAYS MLC UNIONS MUST AGREE TO HEALTHCARE GIVEBACKS

Interpret "must" as there can be no changes UNLESS they agree --

It is understood and agreed that the parties will continue to bargain over and determine by mutual agreement the terms and conditions of employee health benefits.

"Determine by mutual agreement" is strong language that prohibits the City from unilaterally changing anything. It looks like Mulgrew's sole motive in changing the Administrative Code is to save the City money on our backs with givebacks on healthcare. Any change would also do away with our contractual right in Article 3G1 to a choice of premium free healthcare plans..... ICEUFT Blog, MULGREW'S LATEST EMAIL ASKS IF WE WANT HEALTHCARE GIVEBACKS FOR RETIREES OR ACTIVE MEMBERS

Unfortunately MLC and the city are partners so expect MLC to agree to something no matter what Mulgrew is saying about resisting. UFT members have no representation at the MLC while Mayor Adams has the key unions on his side. He is putting his eggs inside changing the admin code which would allow the city to offer retirees the opting of spending $5k a year extra per couple to keep what we have.

City Council resists calls for changing Admin Code as UFT lobby efforts fail

The Mulgrew letter pleads with members to get on board with getting the City council to change the admin code which will allow the city and MLC to modify 50 year requirements for the city to cover our health care and open the door to - ____ fill in the blank. We held another rally outside the council on Thursday and had speakers from the council on our side along with a biggie - Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. Having the #2 in the city on our side doesn't hurt us - but it hurts the MLC - thus the panic.

We have addressed the admin code issue and why we don't want to change it:

From the Retiree Advocate October 2022 newsletter - talking points on why to oppose below.

 And here are some more ed notes links to related articles:

• The Facts Michael Mulgrew, UFT, Doesn’t Want You to Know - Marianne - NYC Org of Public Service Retirees
• Mulgrew saves City a Billion on healthcare - out of our pockets, Restrictions on ER visits can cost lives 

 And one more comment from a UFT former CL retired in Florida to her vast network of UFT members:

The City is threatening to put us on one plan, but it's the City Council that has to approve it. Mulgrew is trying to scare us into amending the plan. Don't fall for it.  Call every single City Council member and tell them NOT to amend the plan and NOT allow the City to offer us only one choice.  Our lawyers and group are aware of this and have started asking us to now include this new threat in our calls.  So even if you already called or email, please send out a new email begging them not to amend the plan or consider offering us only one plan!!!....

 Arthur's article

UFT--If We Don't Surrender, We Will Lose

http://nyceducator.com/2022/10/uft-if-we-dont-surrender-we-will-lose.html 

I was pretty shocked to get an email from Michael Mulgrew suggesting I needed to tweet out support for the City Council to change the law. 

The law in question says the city can't charge us for health care. That's why a lawsuit demanding the end of a charge to remain in Medicare with GHI prevailed. No matter how much swagger Adams has, he can't change the law. (To unilaterally change a law in NYC, you have to be Mike Bloomberg and buy everyone off.)

The email contained a passage that surprised me.

The city’s Office of Labor Relations sent a letter to the head of the Municipal Labor Committee giving the unions notice of its intent to enroll all Medicare‑eligible city retirees in a NYC Medicare Advantage plan and eliminate all other retiree health plans, including GHI SeniorCare. If the unions don’t go along with it, the city has threatened annual health care premiums of roughly $1,500 for all in‑service municipal employees.

So let's see if I've got this straight.  If we don't agree that retirees must pay $5,000 a year per couple to retain the care they've had forever, in-service members will have to pay $1500 a year. It's kind of hard to see the union in that. In fact, it appears we're pitting one section of the union against another. 

I just read Beaten Down, Worked Up by Steven Greenhouse.  It's a wonderful book detailing the history of union in the United States. Nowhere in the book was there an inspiring tale of a union that gave up and lost rights. Nowhere was there a touching story of a union that pitted retired members against in-service members to prop up a privatized version of health care.

There were stories of inspired leadership facing bosses, sometimes with strikes, and sometimes with other creative actions that precluded them. Personally, I don't remember the last significant boots on the ground UFT action. Maybe someone can remind me. On Facebook, I see small protests with groups of UFT employees, but I don't see rank and file out doing anything anymore. 

I'm not sure most UFT members even know what a union is. When I was chapter leader and we were facing a strike, a member came up to me and said, "I'm going to be a scab." I reacted angrily, and the member was surprised. This member clearly expected me to laugh it off and say "Okay good buddy, go ahead and cross our picket line."

The MLC is moving us backward. If we are to fight, we must fight for improvements, not inferior health care. And again, it's unconscionable that one faction of our union is being pitted against another. This is not how we create solidarity. This is not how we inspire activism. This is not how we move forward. 

I've been writing for some time about this Medicare Advantage thing. At first I was willing to try it, but the consistent ineptitude of leadership has turned me off to it utterly. First they failed to recruit doctors for the plan. Then they failed to check applicable law and lost in court. Now they send us an email that feels like a gun to our heads--if you don't support a poorly conceived plan that has failed at every juncture for retirees, active members will have to pay.

That's not a particularly persuasive argument. We deserve better from our leadership. No, President Mulgrew, I will not be sending tweets demanding that city council degrade health care for retirees. We should be fighting to improve it. And once again, it's unconscionable that we oppose the NY Health Act. 

This is a quagmire. There is no victory in that email. It's the job of leadership to better our lot, not march us off a cliff.

MLC and UFT leadership need to work toward a better solution, or stand down for someone who will.

Marianne Pizzitola responds to Mulgrew with a video and statement

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9KUwzFFEJog

 

Once again, Michael Mulgrew of the UFT sent out disinformation with a  threatening email tonight, October 29th.  We are currently analyzing the situation and will respond shortly with a formal, factual response. This is yet another unprecedented message by the City, MLC and UFT, DC37 to mislead and threaten the City Council into taking an action that could significantly harm hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers without proper analysis and transparency.
 
Before we take any of these unnecessary actions that purposely hurt retired city workers who have been promised these benefits for over 60 years, all options to address health care costs should be on the table.  Harry Nespoli said in an article yesterday, “The committee has been trying to negotiate lower costs with the city’s hospitals but we’re going nowhere.”  If he and the City are unable to negotiate with hospitals and the insurance companies who are making billions of dollars on our care, then perhaps it is time for a change in leadership.

Marianne Pizzitola

President

NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees

 Mulgrew Email

The city has dropped a bombshell that puts both GHI SeniorCare and premium‑free health care in jeopardy. The city’s Office of Labor Relations has sent a letter to the head of the Municipal Labor Committee giving the unions notice of its intent to put all Medicare‑eligible city retirees in a NYC Medicare Advantage plan and eliminate all other retiree health plans. To be clear, there will only be one plan for all retirees and no other options.

If the unions don’t go along with it, the city has threatened annual health care premiums of roughly $1,500 for all in-service municipal employees.

Both alternatives are unacceptable. We will not allow the city to divide retirees and in-service members by forcing us into a choice between premium-free health care and preserving health plan options for retirees. We know there are better ways to rein in rising health care costs.

Our fight to amend the city’s administrative code has been to avoid this exact scenario. We need the City Council to amend the code to preserve health plan choices for retirees and preserve premium-free health care for all of our members. The code amendment will affirm the Municipal Labor Committee’s right to negotiate health care for all municipal union members and the city’s obligation to offer health plan choices for retirees. 

 

Talking points on Admin code

Healthcare Benefits threatened: Call your city council members to tell them to vote NOT TO CHANGE Administrative Code 12-126.

 

● Changing Administrative Code 12-126 would end the legal protection of retirees and current workers' premium-free health insurance.

● Private Medicare Advantage plans spend 25% less on patient care than traditional Medicare: more out of pocket expenses, fewer doctor choices, delays and denials of care, and even deaths. Patients on Medicare Advantage plans who get serious illnesses often flee back to traditional Medicare.

● The Adams Administration is pushing this change in order to do an “end run” around the fact that retirees won a lawsuit protecting our Medicare with supplemental insurance. The Court stated that the City could not force retirees to pay an extra $191 per month if they wanted to opt out of the Medicare Advantage Plan the city was forcing them into.

● Ultimately about 65,000 retirees chose to opt out of this plan, which shows how strongly retirees object to the Medicare Advantage Plan. The number would have been much higher but thousands of low paid municipal workers (mostly women and persons of color) cannot afford $191/month to keep quality traditional Medicare with the supplement they now have. NYC and our union should not encourage inequity in access to health care.

● Changing the Administrative Code would allow the City and the Municipal Labor Committee to create separate classes of workers (i.e. current employees, retirees) who would get separate classes (inferior quality) insurance. Given what the MLC is trying to do to retiree health coverage, “other groups” will be offered inferior plans to what they currently have.

● Code 12-126 requires the City to offer healthcare plans that cost less than the benchmark HIP-HMO premium. The amendment would allow the city to lower the HIP HMO bench mark currently at $900/month to a low $7.50/month and charge union members higher premiums for most healthcare plans.

● This savings will allow Michael Mulgrew to repay his 2014, $1 billion “loan” from the Health Stabilization fund that he depleted, to cover salary raises. He promised to repay by 2022.

● Medicare Advantage saves money for local and state entities that have existing health plans for retirees, but it does so by shifting the cost from the local government to the federal government. Either way, the taxpayer still pays. It’s a shell game and the health industry walks away with their pockets full.