Thursday, December 1, 2022

Dems History on railway strikes, Democrats Dithering on Railworkers’ Rights. The Left Just Forced Their Hand - Or Did They?

(nationalize the rails!) - DSA. I'd add nationalize health insurance while we're at it.

Republicans who voted to deny sick leave to rail workers have unlimited sick days themselves. See Newsweek, Republicans With Unlimited Sick Days Vote Against Time Off for Rail Workers.

Railworkers have understandably savaged Biden, while big business groups have sung his praises... Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a similarly tone-deaf statement, patting Biden and his labor secretary on the back as “proudly pro-union” while hailing the contract they were forcing on railworkers as having “secured important advances for workers.” Pelosi lamely added some condemnation of railroad companies’ “obscene profits” for good measure, even as she made clear she was intervening firmly on the side of helping the carriers maintain those profits....Jacobin

I really believe the people in control of the Dem party may have just cost them any real chance of winning in 2024, leaving a pseudo pro labor policy open to Republicans on the right.

The request for Congress to impose contract terms that several unions had rejected rankled rank-and-file members who had rallied behind the president.... While some rail workers have weighed in on social media with calls for illegal wildcat strikes should Congress impose the agreement, local union officials said that such strikes are unlikely, and they were not aware of any meaningful effort to organize them. Much more likely, they said, is an accelerated flow of workers out of an industry that, according to federal regulators, has lost nearly 30 percent of its employees over the past six years.

Mr. Kindlon, the electrician in New York, said he had already accepted a job in another industry after more than 17 years of railroad work. “I’m telling you now, as soon as Congress decides to jam this contract down the BMWED and BLET and SMART guys’ throats, you will see a mass exodus like no mass exodus from any industry ever,” he said, alluding to some of the unions involved. “It’s going to be like having a strike without having a strike.”

Truman orders army to seize control of railroads - Aug 25, 1950

On August 25, 1950, in anticipation of a crippling strike by railroad workers, President Harry S. Truman issues an executive order putting America’s railroads under the control of the U.S. Army, as of August 27, at 4:00 pm. Truman had already intervened in another railway dispute when union employees of the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railway Company threatened to strike in 1948. 

Truman did veto the Taft-Hartley Act, a 1947 U.S. federal law that extended and modified the 1935 Wagner Act. It prohibits certain union practices and requires disclosure of certain financial and political activities by unions. The Wagner Act of 1935 gaveth and TH of 47 tooketh away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act - 

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

Taft–Hartley was introduced in the aftermath of a major strike wave in 1945 and 1946. Though it was enacted by the Republican-controlled 80th Congress, the law received significant support from congressional Democrats, many of whom joined with their Republican colleagues in voting to override Truman's veto. The act continued to generate opposition after Truman left office, but it remains in effect.

The Taft–Hartley Act amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), prohibiting unions from engaging in several unfair labor practices. Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.

The Dem Left speaks:
Ro Khanna: Am I missing something here? Why wouldn’t the rail companies just allow workers to have paid sick days? The new agreement only gives them 1. That’s absurd. We need to stand with workers. This is not complicated.
Bernie more on message:
The corporate greed never ends. Last year, the rail industry made a record-breaking $20 billion in profits after cutting their workforce by 30% over the last 6 years. Meanwhile, rail workers have ZERO guaranteed paid sick days. Congress must stand with rail workers.
Here at Ed Notes, we've explored the Dem Party connections to center/right policies despite a more active left flank over the past few years - a left flank that has not often used its potential power. I always note that our  own UFT leadership is and has been lined up with the right center of the party. Witness the regenerative pro-corporate Mulgrewcare MedAdv. Dems tail the public - Mulgrew undermines Medicare the public option - which the public supports - right in line with Dem Party.
 
Biden talked about how a strike would cripple the economy but said nothing about how the workers are often crippled by the industry where profits, stock buybacks, cuts to working staff etc are operative. Has the UFT made a statement in support of sick pay for the workers yet?

Now the Dems put forth a bill to stop the strike but instead of including the sick days they put forth a separate bill - so forcing them back to work will pass but the other one is in doubt despite some support from the tiny Republican so-called pro worker Rubio and Hawley. I think they are full of bullshit in trying to take advantage of the fact Dems have been hemorrhaging union rank and file support:

Marco Rubio slams Biden's shutting down a rail strike for workers who want more paid sick leave: 'I will not vote to impose a deal that doesn't have the support of the rail workers'...

His tweet is informative - The railways & workers should go back & negotiate a deal that the workers,not just the union bosses,will accept But if Congress is forced to do it,I will not vote to impose a deal that doesn’t have the support of the rail workers.

"As a proud pro-labor President, I am reluctant to override the ratification procedures and the views of those who voted against the agreement," Biden said. "But in this case – where the economic impact of a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families – I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal." Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg echoed Biden's sentiment. The pro-business US Chamber of Commerce has estimated that a strike could cost the economy $2 billion a day and bring a slew of services to a standstill.

Pete just fucked himself for a presidential run. And Biden cannot be pro-labor. All virtue signalling. Midterms are over so screw them.
 
Biden and Dems in essence back industry and Rubio and Bernie back workers? WTF.

Michael Paul Lindsey, a locomotive engineer in Idaho and steering committee member for Railroad Workers United, told Insider it was a "blatant betrayal" but he wasn't surprised.

"I thought it was kind of laughable that anyone would think that either the Democrats or the Republicans actually cared. Bottom line, they care about money," he said.

Even so, he added, "there was always that hope in the back of my mind that maybe someone would do something that was actually right for the American worker for once — instead of just what's right for corporate America."

 I just saw on twitter:
 
Dems tail public
Americans say the rights of rail workers should be prioritized above economic growth in the handling of the rail strike, 39% to 33%, even when told a strike would harm the U.S. economy, per YouGov.
 
Image
 

Robert Reich: The one thing you need to know about the railroads -It's not that a rail strike would be bad for the economy --
- legislation effectively prohibiting a strike would impose unfair working conditions on employees in one of the most profitable industries in America — further tilting the nation’s economic imbalance toward large corporations and Wall Street, and against working people. Here, a concentrated industry has gained record profits by understaffing — squeezing its workers to the breaking point. Prodded by Wall Street, the big rail companies have intentionally gutted their own spare capacity. Union Pacific, the largest publicly traded US railroad, paid its investors more than $41 billion in dividends and share buybacks over five years through 2021. In the first six months of 2022, it heaped an additional $5 billion on them. Why are railroads so profitable? Largely because they’re spending so little on labor.

The Jacobin article below has some hope. I'd bet they are forced back with no more sick days -- you can't part corps from their money without a crowbar.

Branko Marcetic

Jacobin
 
Democrats were ready to throw railworkers to the wolves, letting even Republicans outflank them on labor rights. But thanks to a last-minute legislative push by Bernie Sanders and his allies today, railworkers may be getting the sick leave they’re demanding.
 

With the baby steps the Democratic Party’s taken toward a more economically progressive, pro-working-class politics over the last two years, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this is still a corrupt, out-of-touch party divorced from any such tradition. And with his loss in the 2020 Democratic primary, it’s easy to forget the value of Bernie Sanders’s continuing presence in American political life, especially the US Senate.

Yet the events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as reminders of both.

For the past week or so, Congress has been consumed by the prospect of a looming and potentially monumentally disruptive strike by railworkers, who have spent three years negotiating with rail carriers for a better contract, centered on their lack of rights to take paid time off work if they fall ill. After four unions representing more than half of the unionized rail workforce rejected a deal put together by President Joe Biden’s White House and a panel of experts that didn’t do enough to fix these grievances, labor secretary Marty Walsh and, eventually, congressional leaders themselves pushed for congressional intervention to end the stalemate, effectively by forcing railworkers to accept the deal anyway ― in the process, stripping the workers of leverage in negotiations. The whole episode came to a head yesterday.

In a statement on Monday calling for Congress to end the impasse, Biden ― the self-proclaimed “most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history” ― misleadingly hailed the White House–brokered deal that cut the legs out from under railworkers as a grand victory agreed to “by both sides.”

Casting himself as a “proud pro-labor president,” he stressed the potential economic downsides of a rail strike to explain why he was reluctantly overriding “the views of those who voted against the agreement” ― meaning, striking railworkers ― and rejected letting Congress modify the deal for workers’ sake, claiming “any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown,” even though unions set the strike deadline for December 9, nearly two weeks after he put out the statement. Ironically, the president has ended up to the right of where he was in the 1990s, when the then senator Biden was arguably at the terrible peak of his neoliberal transformation yet nonetheless voted against letting Congress end a major rail strike. Railworkers have understandably savaged Biden, while big business groups have sung his praises.

Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a similarly tone-deaf statement, patting Biden and his labor secretary on the back as “proudly pro-union” while hailing the contract they were forcing on railworkers as having “secured important advances for workers.” Pelosi lamely added some condemnation of railroad companies’ “obscene profits” for good measure, even as she made clear she was intervening firmly on the side of helping the carriers maintain those profits.

This was more or less the position of other prominent Democrats: expressions of regret and even condemnations of corporate greed meant to mask the fact that they were intervening on the side of the corporate profiteers. The House’s number two Democrat, Steny Hoyer, insisted he was “sympathetic to the issue of sick leave” and thought “the labor unions make a very valid case” as he lined up behind the White House. Even otherwise pro-worker Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Kirsten Gillibrand ― who had rebranded herself as a progressive in order to run for president in 2020 ― borrowed from this playbook as they made clear they would go along with Biden’s plan. Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, didn’t even bother with this formality, simply saying it was “vitally important” for the thing to pass due to the “devastating impacts on our economy.”

A more common response was to do as the number three House Democrat, Representative Jim Clyburn, did and simply ignore the matter entirely. By yesterday late afternoon, prominent Democrats like Cory Booker, Ed Markey, and ex–presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar ― who had seen fit to tweet that afternoon about the United States winning its soccer World Cup match and an elderly retiree hiking the Appalachian trail ― hadn’t said a single thing either way. The ranks of Democrats staying silent on the situation unfortunately included a number of high-profile progressives, including “Squad” members Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, and Illinois progressive Chuy García.

The political malpractice on display here became clear when several Republicans used it as an opening to posture as pro-worker. Ted Cruz called railworker demands for sick leave “quite reasonable,” while, more significant, Marco Rubio put out a subtly union-bashing statement calling for both sides to “go back and negotiate a deal that the workers, not just the union bosses, will accept” and affirming he would “not vote to impose a deal that doesn’t have the support of the rail workers.”

Likewise, Josh Hawley, who has moved to brand himself as a pro-worker populist in advance of a planned 2024 run, stated that workers “said no and then Congress is gonna force it down their throats at the behest of this administration.” Even Colorado Democrat John Hickenlooper, hardly a progressive firebrand, saw which way the wind was blowing and affirmed that “any bill should include the SEVEN days of sick leave rail workers have asked for.”

In other words, several Republicans and a guy who drank fracking fluid were to the left of the “most pro-union president” in history.

Left-Wing Pushback

This abysmal state of affairs was injected with a modicum of hope thanks to the small but significant presence of left-wing lawmakers in Congress, whose pushback against the Democratic leadership’s move was led by Sanders in the Senate.

Sanders had made clear for months he would back whatever decision railworkers made and had criticized billionaire Warren Buffet ― who owns the parent company of BNSF Railway ― earlier this week, pointing out that “in one day, Mr. Buffett made twice as much money as it would cost to guarantee fifteen paid sick days a year to every rail worker in America.” More important, while Democrats got in line behind the president and party leadership, Sanders ― who had withheld his support for the president’s agreement for months and blocked Republicans’ earlier attempts to ram the inadequate deal through ― criticized the plans and made clear he’d block any such legislation until seven paid sick days for railworkers were included.

He was joined by a number of other left-wing lawmakers, like “Squad” member Jamaal Bowman, who called it “an inhumane deal being pushed onto workers even after a majority voted it down.” Fellow “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“If Congress intervenes, it should be to have workers’ backs and secure their demands in legislation”), Rashida Tlaib (“I stand with rail workers”), and Cori Bush (“I will not support a deal that does not provide our rail workers with the paid sick leave they need and deserve”) also took the side of workers.

Before long, Sanders made plans to introduce an amendment in the Senate to the legislation mandating seven days’ worth of sick leave for the railworkers, joined by Bowman doing the same in the House, daring Republicans to vote against it. “Look, you have a number of Republicans who claim — claim — to be supporters of the working class,” Sanders told Chris Hayes last night. “Well, if you are a supporter of the working class, how are you going to vote against the proposal which provides guaranteed paid sick leave to workers who have none right now?”

These efforts rapidly rearranged the political terrain, with Pelosi suddenly and subtly shifting her position late in the day and announcing plans to allow lawmakers to vote today to add the seven days of paid sick leave to the agreement. Previously silent lawmakers like García expressed support for the move. It all culminated in the House passing the seven-day sick leave amendment just now by a vote of 221-207, with all Democrats and only three Republicans voting in favor.

Despite the dearth of House GOP support for the measure, Republican senator John Cornyn had earlier predicted it could get the required GOP support needed to reach sixty votes in the Senate, because “there will be a lot of sympathy for providing sick leave for workers.” In many ways, this is something of a repeat of events at the close of 2020, when Sanders and other progressives in Congress, with the belated aid of Hawley, forced the foot-dragging then-president Donald Trump, president-elect Biden, and Democratic leadership to all reluctantly back another round of stimulus checks. But whether progressives will succeed here is an open question and one that’ll largely depend on how many Republicans see it in their political interest, as they did when they just voted to legalize marriage equality, to move to the center, away from their long-standing hostility to workers’ rights.

Whatever happens, this has been another sign of the modest but significant political shift that’s taken place in US political life thanks to both the larger prominence of Sanders and his progressive allies in Congress, and the resurgence of labor militancy and an organized socialist movement in recent years. Forty years ago, a Republican president dealt a terrible blow to the union movement by breaking an air traffic controllers’ strike. Decades later, Republicans may force a Democratic administration into a more pro-worker position by following the lead of an openly socialist senator.

Branko Marcetic is a Jacobin staff writer and the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. He lives in Chicago, Illinois.

Open letter from railroad workers united:

https://www.dsausa.org/statements/dsa-stands-in-solidarity-with-rail-workers/?fbclid=IwAR2wqgCR7GDJeymZEy6PBE2uOP4ddn6GOSrYtOX_flRI9GILKqbt1ij0LXA

DSA Stands in Solidarity with Rail Workers

The Democratic Socialists of America call on Biden and members of Congress to force the billionaire railroad bosses to accept workers’ demands. Short of that, railroad workers must not be denied the right to strike. The Tentative Agreement has been rejected by members of the Maintenance of Way Union (BMWE), Sheet Metal and Rail Union (SMART-TD), Signalmen (BRS), and Boilermakers union (IBB), and though some union ratification votes supported it, the approval margins were narrow. All rail unions have pledged to honor the picket line in the event of a strike.

The billionaire bosses of the five largest railroads have paid themselves $200 million over the last few years. This profit has been made off the backs of workers, who are not even guaranteed a single paid sick day in their contract, risk being fired for unscheduled absences, and are forced to work long hours with short notice. Workers should control the conditions of their workplace! They should be able to work with dignity and at a pace that does not mandate exhaustion or sacrifice their health. The power of this unionized workforce comes in their ability to strike if their demands are not met, and yet President Biden is asking Congress to preemptively deny them the right to legally strike. It is exceedingly rare for a president to intervene to prevent a strike against private companies, and it is not the workers but the bosses of these private rail carriers who are threatening our national economy. Rail carriers have formed an oligarchical cartel that controls the supply chain. 

Exhausting conditions overburden rail workers and staffing rates continue to decline. Longer, more dangerous trains risk derailments that threaten workers’ lives and the safety of our communities. Price-gouging shippers causes costs to be passed to working-class consumers already suffering from rising cost of living. These oligarchs are counting on Congress to force a deal that will only exacerbate existing supply chain issues and cause further economic distress for the entire working class, all so billionaires can continue to rake in profits. 

Any member of Congress who votes yes on the tentative agreement is siding with billionaires and forcing a contract on rail workers that does not address their most pressing demand of paid sick days. Democrats claim to want to save democracy. There’s nothing more democratic than workers having a say over their own lives. By refusing to side with workers and respect their vote to reject a bad deal, the Democrats will create an opportunity for the Right to fill that void with false promises and further drive working people from politics during particularly crucial moments. 

We know no matter what party is in office, true power comes from organizing workers. Our focus should not be on the disruptions to business as usual but rather on the injustice that these workers have faced for years. As socialists, we know the resolve of these workers will be the only way forward to saving this country’s infrastructure (nationalize the rails!) and most importantly, securing dignity at the workplace in an industry that keeps the rest of the country afloat. The Democratic Socialists of America stands in solidarity with the 125,000 railroad workers fighting for a better quality of life: a fair contract or a strike! 

 

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Union members Left, Right, Center Unite to fight City/UFT Leaders in Healthcare battle with Desparate Lies and Distortions as they Blame Retiree Resistance

UFT Ex Bd member Ibeth Mejia at Ex Bd meeting, Nov. 21, 2022
Most retirees do not want to be forced into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan where some health insurance company can get even richer on our backs. Strong unions like the UFT should be taking on these insurance giants... this is clearly a splitter issue. It is the MLC leaderships and their supporters against the rank and file retirees.....

Arthur Goldstein at NYC Educator:  MLC Takes Us for Carnival Rubes

Given Mulgrew's walkback of the contention that all doctors who took Medicare would take the Advantage plan, we know the advice he gets and relays to us is less than reliable. As far as I know, those same people are still sitting around, getting paid by our dues money, and giving him the same awful advice. There is no way I want to be at the mercy of some company whose profits are more important than my health....Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw this NY Times article comparing traditional Medicare to Advantage plans. I'd figured Medigap programs must be prohibitively expensive. Otherwise, why would all those members be queuing to pay 191 bucks a month? How much was it? 500 bucks? A thousand? Here's what the NY Times says on that:
Medigap policies are not inexpensive; a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that they average $150 to $200 a month.
So not only were we not being offered a particularly good deal, but the price we were being charged was on the high end.

[Let me chime in on Arthur's point - the $250 a month I pay for two of us for the UFT drug plan (it was $300 for years). We were reimbursed $840, a little less than half, so the actually cost was $80 dollars a month. We were reimbursed . ... I could get a similar or better plan at Costco.... so I don't get the taketh away and giveth back policy -- why not just charge $80 a month? Unless there's something going on I can't see ----- Like let's find a gimmick to make the union look like it's giving us ice water in the winter -------Norm]

Nick Bacon, UFC Ex B at New Action blog:
Unity Caucus Votes Down UFC Resolutions to Fund Our Healthcare... 

Question period: Ed Calamia: What is our exit strategy if the amendment to 12-126 does not pass?

Geoff Sorkin (head of UFT Welfare Fund): Cannot give you answer right now. MLC is working on it. Right now our focus is on changing the administrative code.

Lydia: Which companies answered the RFP for in-service healthcare? Who are we actually considering working with?

Geoff Sorkin: I signed a nondisclosure agreement, so not available for public consumption at this time.

Oh, boy, our union leaders can't tell us which blood-sucking health industry giant we want to hand our money too  because they signed a NDA. Nick posted the entire United for Change reso which called for looking for alternate sources and the debate that followed here. A short closing resolved:

Be it further resolved that the UFT will take the lead urging the MLC to wage a full-scale campaign, by organizing rallies, protests, and buses to Albany to push the City and State to institute or restore these revenue sources, which could be used to secure the continued stability of our members’ and retiree’s health care. Signed by: Ronnie Almonte, Nick Bacon, Ed Calamia, Lydia Howrilka, Alex Jallot, Ibeth Mejia, Ilona Nanay

I love this crew and I schlepped to the meeting from Rockaway to support them Monday night. Look to the sources of rising healthcare prices like a stock transfer tax.

I especially appreciate Ibeth, who hit all the hot points in her brief speech (read it all at Nick's post). She made a great political point by quoting a political mix of City Council members who oppose changing the Admin Code: a Republican, a left wing Democrat and a more moderate Democrat

Council Member Joann Ariola (R-Queens) told Work-Bites she had fielded thousands of queries from constituents on the Medicare Advantage controversy and that it was running 10 to 1 against making the change in the Administrative Code sought by Mayor Adams and the MLC leadership.

Brooklyn Council Member Charles Barron, (D-Brooklyn) said he was “100 percent with the retirees…because I think they have to keep the commitment they have because it’s beneficial for those who paid their dues and I think the Medicare Advantage approach is privatizing."

"Healthcare costs are out of control,” said Council Member Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan). "I have been lobbied by both sides but at this point, I am supportive of the retirees.”
It's not just the city council but rank and file union members across the city unions uniting right leaning uniformed with left leading teacher dissidents. Who ever thought you'd find MORE and police on the same side? The UFT, as it often is, is on the wrong side of history. 
 
I copied this from Breaking Points segment on Nov. 22 where they pointed a recent piece by Josh Hawley of all people urging Republicans to go after the working class by criticizing corp profits -- just propaganda I believe but interesting and a sign of a reversal as Dems (and their partners leading the AFT/UFT) suck up to corp donors. Dems did some light work in this regard in the election which I think actually helped in the end when Biden pointed to the energy industry profits. Our union leaders should be leading the way on health industry profits.


 
UFT, Dems tail as Americans of both parties turn against banks and corporate greed -- Krystal and Segaar take a look at this segment --- https://youtu.be/RVpRIbZqbuc?t=699 or watch the entire 20 minute worthwhile piece at https://youtu.be/RVpRIbZqbuc
 
Let's Blame the retirees instead of the health insurance industry
And let me point out Nick ran with Unity in 2019 - just think of the people the leadership has alienated (Daniel Alicea voted for Unity in 2019) who have become leading lights of the oppo. I'm certainly glad Nick is on our side:
In 2018, UFT leadership went even further, when it lied to membership about our new contract, telling us all that there were no givebacks, only to sneak in a backroom deal to annually find hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare savings. Even with an expired contract, we are obligated to find these savings for the City. In the plethora of propaganda that has been shoved down our members throats, nowhere has it been explained why UFT would ever agree to reduce the City’s healthcare spending in the midst of record inflation. Something just doesn’t add up. 
It sure doesn't add up.

UFT leadership, seeing they were losing in their campaign to change the admin code in the city council so they can charge retirees almost $200 a month for the same plan they have been getting or force then into a MedAdv plan, has gone into full scale panic mode by sending out notices to chapter leaders to call the city council using threats to their own healthcare. I heard rumors of a phone meeting held in Queens where misleading propaganda was given out. One Queens chapter leader posted "I was at last night’s Zoom meeting with the Queens UFT. I’m going to share the latest court ruling with my chapter Wednesday morning and the script to NOT change the code. We had a very negative meeting with the head of the Queens UFT last year, which no one in my chapter has forgotten…"
 
Defending the indefensible as health care costs rise way beyond the currently high inflation.
Amazing how UFT leadership lines up with corporate greed instead of pointing to it as a chief cause of rising healthcare costs. Why? These corps are big donors to the Dem (and Rep) party. We did see some virtue signalling from Mulgrew in private meetings about corp greed but when push comes to shove they cave and try to force the costs on to us.

Nick brings home the bacon with this point:

We’ve suspected for a while that UFT Leadership’s ‘strategy’ is to let healthcare implode and scapegoat opposition when it does, an absurd act that would put millions of members and their families at risk all for political gain. But what options do they have? After all, our union is on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in annual healthcare savings, and grassroots retiree organizations have blocked the specific ways that the UFT/MLC tried to make those savings on the backs of our most vulnerable members. Any solution, like taxing the rich, is too radical for UFT leadership. To be clear, I responded to Sorkin. So did many others in the opposition. Sorkin had no real response, other than name calling. Let’s hope the people in charge of our union and the MLC wise up and fix this before it’s too late. The lifeline we gave on stock transfers and corporate taxes is still on the table. Please use that, Mr. Sorkin. Don’t let healthcare fail, then falsely scapegoat opposition for political gain. 

Sorkin and Mulgrew under cones of silence by signing non disclosure agreements they claim as their excuse for not informing people. At the Nov. 8 Retired Teacher meeting Mulgrew was asked by a retired secretary who cannot afford to pay over 2K a year to opt out of the forced MedAdv plan why the botched rollout originally and why should she trust him now and he punted it to blame the city and  Emblem and his signing  a Non Disclosure.  
 
The job of union is to defend members, not the employer and corp greed. Sorkin called the unique MedAdv plan "Revolutionary" -  for sure when union leaders team up with the employer to mess with member healthcare and then hide behind Non disclosure agreements. The Health insurance industry makes massive profits and raise costs and UFT leaders want to help them do even better with a fat contract while they should be exposing their profits and high exec salaries and stock buybacks on our backs. Demand they reduce high profit margins before we pay a dime more. Don’t whine about high health care costs. Fight them instead of us.
 
I copied this from Breaking Points segment on Nov. 22 where they pointed a recent piece by Josh Hawley urging Republicans to go after the working class. Dems did some light work in this regard in the election which I think actually helped in the end when Biden pointed to the energy industry profits. Our union leaders should be leading the way on health industry profits.

UFT, Dems tail as Americans of both parties turn against banks and corporate greed -- Krystal and Sagaar take a look at this segment --- https://youtu.be/RVpRIbZqbuc?t=699 or watch the entire 20 minute worthwhile piece at https://youtu.be/RVpRIbZqbuc.
 
Let me close with Jonathan's comments:

Today Mayor Adams, Harry Nespoli (Sanitation), and the UFT’s own lame duck, Michael Mulgrew, are off trying to change the law, as an end-run around the ruling. Section 12-126 of the administrative code protects workers and retirees against exactly the type of scheme these guys are trying to force on us. Call, email, tweet, write – let your city council member know how you feel “Do Not Amend 12-126. Do Not Amend the Code.”

Today Adams, Nespoli, and Mulgrew are trying to smear their opponents – the members, the retirees, us, the people who have so far blocked their plans to cut our healthcare.

Today Adams, Nespoli, and Mulgrew are off trying to find a new vendor for Medicare Advantage. They will eventually find a vendor – the deal is too good – take federal money – and the more procedures you deny, the more $$$ doesn’t get spent on healthcare – the bigger your profits will be.

Lame duck Mulgrew? I have a half-written  blog called Whither or Wither Mulgrew. Should be a fun Thanksgiving weekend.

 One more from

The Chief:

 
Appeals court backs retirees in Medicare skirmish with city
Council support for administration's plan uncertain

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Another defeat for #Mulgrewcare - NYC RETIREES WIN in NY Appellate Court - Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) requires respondents to pay the entire cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan a retiree selects.

Today, the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees won their case in the First Department NY Appellate Court.   The Court was very clear Code § 12-126 (b) (1) provides: “The city will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees, and their dependents, not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis.”
The court correctly determined that Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) requires respondents to pay the entire cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan a retiree selects.
The Retirees applaud the decision.
Marianne Pizzitola
President
NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees

This is why the UFT leadership is so desperate to change the code and has had Dist Reps send out a plea to chapter leaders to call their city council to change the code -- so the city would not be required to pay the entire cost? 

At last night's UFT Ex Bd meeting, United for Change reps made a plea to the UFT to reverse course and support current members and retirees. I will post their comments in a follow up.

I will also add the link here to the decision when I get it.

And here it is: https://www.nycretirees.org/_files/ugd/6a0ad2_247a57e48c164348b17a8aeb3817a5da.pdf

This is resounding rejection

Nothing in the statutory text or history supports respondents’ interpretation that the provision is satisfied so long as they pay for the costs of one of the health insurance plans offered to retirees, which they have determined to be the Medicare Advantage Plus Plan.
This was a major talking point for needing to change the code.

Unanimously told its BULLSHIT
Not only did they lose but the court squashed their initial propaganda campaign

It’s no wonder they’ve pivoted to this ends our collective bargaining rights
Which is even more ABSURD
 



Daniel interviewed Marianne Saturday on WBAI -a Must listen.

https://talk-out-of-school.simplecast.com/episodes/healthcaredebacle

click above link to listen - a most informative hour.

Ibeth Mejia at UFT Ex Bd Opposes changing Admin code, urges Blue Ribbon panel on healthcare changes

I support the UFT changing course to come out in opposition to amending Administrative Code 12-126.  Most retirees do not want to be forced into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan where some health insurance company can get even richer on our backs. Strong unions like the UFT should be taking on these insurance giants. 12-126 gives us a nice benchmark plan with the HIP-HMO rate. Leave it alone and find savings elsewhere. The Taylor Law protects healthcare collective bargaining rights. It is a mandatory subject of bargaining.The moratorium clause is part of a state law that protects school district retirees in NY. I am not a lawyer but I like our chances if the City or Arbitrator Sheinman try to impose something unpopular on our retirees or active people. Privatized Medicare is unpopular. This is from Workbites.

Council Member Joann Ariola (R-Queens) told Work-Bites she had fielded thousands of queries from constituents on the Medicare Advantage controversy and that it was running 10 to 1 against making the change in the Administrative Code sought by Mayor Adams and the MLC leadership.

Brooklyn Council Member Charles Barron, (D-Brooklyn) said he was “100 percent with the retirees…because I think they have to keep the commitment they have because it’s beneficial for those who paid their dues and I think the Medicare Advantage approach is privatizing."

"Healthcare costs are out of control,” said Council Member Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan). "I have been lobbied by both sides but at this point, I am supportive of the retirees.”

That is a Republican, a left wing Democrat and a more  moderate Democrat I just cited.

Now I would like to cite a past UFT President: the legendary AL Shanker. He said the Union should avoid splitter issues. By seeing what the Council Members are saying, this is clearly a splitter issue. It is the MLC leaderships and their supporters against the rank and file retirees.

Change course. Let's play this out. If the MLC leadership gets a bill in front of the Council, there have to be public hearings. I can pretty much guarantee the MLC leadership will be standing against 9-11 survivors and heroes who will be at the Council en masse to oppose this change to 12-126 that will force them into privatized Medicare. Please don't do it. There is no MLC consensus on revising 12-126 Most of the uniform unions who are quite popular oppose changing 12-126 and they blame the UFT for leading this battle. Don't split the labor movement and don't try to balance the City books on the backs of retirees by privatizing their healthcare. We need to buy time until we can work for a national single payer system like every developed nation on earth has except for the USA. 

I suggest putting together a blue ribbon panel as has been proposed. Find otherb ways to save money with new audits and other savings but please leave the 12-126 as it is and support this resolution.


#Mulgrewcare Update - Move Retirees into scam plans - Audits Reveal Millions in Medicare Advantage Overcharges

Officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have said they intend to extrapolate the payment error rates from those samples across the total membership of each plan — and recoup an estimated $650 million as a result. But after nearly a decade, that has yet to happen. CMS was set to unveil a final extrapolation rule Nov. 1 but put that decision off until February.CMS appears to be “carrying water” for the insurance industry, which is “making money hand over fist” off Medicare Advantage.  


We see our UFT leaders whining about the increasing costs of healthcare while aiding and abetting the very companies that are a major reason for these escalating costs. And Medicare administrators have also been covering for insurance company fraud.


 

Monday, November 21, 2022

The story of how AIPAC and DMFI are reshaping the Democratic Party - Ryan Grim

While Levin, a former synagogue president, describes himself as a Zionist and opposes BDS, the Michigan political scion has frequently clashed with the pro-Israel establishment over his criticism of the Israeli government, including the recent introduction of legislation that would, among other things, condemn Israeli settlements while placing restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.

The attack on Levin helped define what DMFI meant by pro-Israel, and it included support for expanding settlements and ruled out criticism of the Israeli government. That Levin couldn’t be written off as antisemitic made him that much more of a threat. That he was willing to defend his colleagues like Omar and Tlaib was intolerable. Accusing Tlaib of antisemitism is made difficult if a former synagogue president has her back. AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr, asked by the Washington Post in a rare interview why Levin was targeted, said, “It was Congressman Levin’s willingness to defend and endorse some of the largest and most vocal detractors of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”.. Ryan Grim

Levin loss indicates you can be a zionist and still get attacked - cancellation by the right - for criticizing Israel -  

On the other hand, as a member of DSA I don't support their hard edge positions on BDS and Israel, though I find myself moving in that direction at times. Call me confused. I don't think I'm the only one.

Nov. 21, 2022

I expect to be labeled a self-hating Jew for publishing this story. I believe Israel is currently, or at the very least, moving closer toward an official apartheid state - if you put that label on you are viewed as anti-semitic. The first thing you hear is how well the Israeli Palestinians are treated. Sure - watch how the increasing right wing treat them. 

On the other hand, I also feel pretty insecure being a Jew after 2000 (at least) years of persecution. I do feel we need a safe haven. For some historical perspective -See -A New Focus on a Jewish Artist Who Broke Barriers in Medici-Era Florence -
The life of Jews in 17th-century Florence was quite constrained. They were confined to a ghetto, a cramped area about the size of a football field that housed about 200 families. They could work only in certain professions, like rag-picking, and were not allowed to join professional guilds or corporations, which would have opened the door to fields like architecture. Their interactions with Christians were strictly regulated.
So let's not trivialize the emotional reactions of Jews to real and perceived threats. But to do to others what was done to you is not kosher.  Jews especially should stand with progressive ideas and that includes figuring out a way to treat Palestinians decently and not descend into doing unto others.
 
It may seem a contradiction, but there are left wing zionists.
 
This story from Ryan Grim has been percolating for a month and ties into the way the Dem Party corporate wing vilifies the left - see the last post on Hakeem Jeffries (Pelosi Replacement Corporate Shill, AiPac darling, pro-charter Jeffries Is At WAR With Progressives - fights Left Dems more then Republicans).
 
An Update on the Summer Lee segment - AIPAC piled in for the general election again but this time she won in a landslide. But scratch a progressive, especially a declared socialist, watch AIPAC money flow --- hmmmm, maybe I will run for something to get money flowing to an opponent.
 
And Maxwell Frost won handily in Orlando running a progressive campaign but removing mentions of Palestinians, while Val Demings got slaughtered running to the right.

Depending on how you date it – whether it’s Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards in 2006, or the first Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, or the rise of the Squad and Justice Democrats in 2018 – there’s been an insurgency brewing on the left flank of the Democratic Party that transformed its politics and also threatened to fully take over the party. That didn’t happen in 2020, but the progressive wing continued to make major gains, and significantly shaped Biden’s legislative agenda in 2021 and 2022.