A reasonable approach to an increasingly difficult matter, or a midnight power grab by a cabal of political Judases, turning on their erstwhile constituents (see “Corporate Lawyer Chides Union Reps for Language” by esteemed BMGer sabutai). In a larger sense, this is yet another example of the failure of our current botched system of health care. We need to follow every other developed country in the world and get costs under control through single payer or some form of a public option. Every business and individual in the state faces this issue. Globe’s Michael Levenson:
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly [111-42] last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns. …
The modifications bring the House bill closer to a plan introduced by Governor Deval Patrick in January. The governor, like Murray, has said he wants workers to have some say in altering their health plans, but does not want unions to have the power to block changes.
But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights …
Kudos to Bob DeLeo
DeLeo, but the “progressives” that followed him. Ellen Story, my own state rep, and John Scibak, from the next town over, voted in favor of the amendment. These votes were not necessary to please their constituencies. There is still the state senate to go.
Many municipal employees already pay a good amount for their benefits, and in spite of what the MMA says, health insurance has been part of negotiations for a long time. Many of us will take a serious hit to our total compensation. With that said, union members are also taxpayers and understand the burden of health insurance on municipalities. Most of us are willing to work with our employers.
Giving cities and towns unilateral ability to design plans is an endrun around collective bargaining. That’s great if you’re jealous of municipal employees or you think America’s future lies in the race to the bottom led by the private sector.
DeLeo did this late at night because he knows he’s taken away a right, and citizens will rightfully be angry at him. Will Brownsberger, a committed supporter of DeLeo on this, wrote:
Municipal managers are very daunted by those uniquely difficult negotiations and the result is that they mostly don’t even try, with the result that health care costs have continued to balloon at the local level. Again, this is not the fault of unions per se. They have played by the rules. But the rules don’t work and the rules need to change.
So… there it is. One side (managers) did not even try, and DeLeo’s 113 decided to take away a right of the other side.
One wonders what the elected pilots of the good ship Beacon Hill were thinking when they first set sail on this voyage.
First there was the curious assertion by the legislature and governor that they could provide affordable and universal heath care coverage by subsidizing private insurers already imposing tsunami inducing price hikes, without ever addressing the exponentially rising costs the price hikes were supposed to cover. Ignoring the only demonstratively seaworthy vessel for affordable and comprehensive health care for all — single-payer —- the legislature charted a course for failure at the very outset of its voyage, saying it would revisit the issue of costs once they reached open water.
http://network.greenchange.org…
Once ship has started to take on water, our legislators started to bail.
Ending collective bargaining in an effort to temporarily reduce their costs is only the latest attempted port of call.
http://www.greenmassgroup.com/diary/566/ma-democratic-party-rips-apart-its-unionmade-lifeboat-in-hopes-of-rescue-by-corporate-steamer
There is no disputing that DeLeo is leading an anti-union movement. His right hand, Mariano, voted against the unions despite the fact that his entire district, Quincy, Weymouth and Holbrook, used COLLECTIVE BARGAINING to move, voluntarily, to the GIC.
Of course the union rhetoric in response to this attack on collective bargaining, even if not a total, all-out, Wisconin-style attack, has been heated. That does not make it incorrect; and the “it could be worse” argument will not salve the unions. Deval can ask the unions to “scale back the rhetoric”, but it won’t, and shouldn’t work. Making concessions has not worked AT ALL for the unions, and it hasn’t made anyone like us yet. A “Place at the Table” has only resulted in union membership seeing their elected leaders as Neville Chamberlains; and the roll-call results of that vote will be used as a list of “who walks the walk” and “who merely talks” for unions.
Yeah, process-wise, it’s not great. Though when unions deal with the government, the government, of course, has the right to change the rules as it sees fit. You’re not bargaining collectively with an unaccountable corporation, you’re bargaining, essentially, with elected representatives, who may feel pressures to go the other way.
I understand the concern. It is indeed the removal of a right. That being said — on substance, i.e. saving megabucks through a different insurance method, it is very very good. Muni workers will have health care, and it’ll be pretty decent health care. It will save municipal jobs. It will put a hell of a lot less pressure on taxes. And no, it’s not Wisconsin.
The bosses always save money by chiseling the workers’ benefits.
I don’t think the GIC is bad insurance, so “chiseling” … not quite.
And in this situation of spiraling health care costs, either you “chisel” on the cost of benefits, or you “chisel” away at the work force itself, i.e. layoffs.
like an argument against marriage equality “I understand the concern. It is indeed the removal [or lack] of a right,” but there are always civil unions other insurance plans.
And what other rights should we eliminate because they are too costly?
contract for my town, along with our town administrator and labor attorney. The police, understanding our town well, have been cooperative. They aren’t looking for more than we can afford. Similarly, we aren’t looking to make their lives worse. We’re happy with their work and don’t want to lose them to other municipalities that might pay more.
My union local (MTA) has similarly cooperative
negotiations.
Such friendly relationships may not be the norm, but they aren’t hens’ teeth either. Unions, as Pablo points out, are willing to work with management. It’s ideology and anecdote that say otherwise.
Precisely!
I know little about the actual process of union negotiations… and my town was able to negotiate with the unions and get them to go GIC. Why can’t other communities do the same? What are the actual barriers? I’ve never seen this spelled out… and the negotiations aren’t subject to open meeting laws*, so I have no idea how this is working in practice.
* rightfully so
want to bother negotiating.
Management is the one on the line for budget cuts. Management is the one who gets voted out when people are frustrated that services are cut. Your comment smells like a reality-free cop out.
Feel free to visit us at Green Mountain Daily.
http://greenmountaindaily.com/diary/7688/union-busting-in-massachusetts
…for single-payer health care. That would take this issue off the table entirely. Until then we should be working to build the rest of us up rather than tear the unions down.
insurance.
So do many of the Massachusetts labor organizations.
allow for unions to define which insurance company(s) would provide their insurance under a contract, or did it just allow for negotiation over what features an insurance benefit provides? If government can utilize the GIC for the benefit provider, then as long as negotiated benefits are provided, who cares where it comes from as long as it’s effectively provided.
with particular insurance plans and more to do with the cost to employees.
single-payer insurance.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/massachusetts-labor-leaders-write-to-obama-urging-passage-of-hr-676/