Well, it would seem that the Massachusetts House’s vote to move municipal workers into the Group Insurance Commission has captured the attention of some national commentators.
OK, so let’s have a primer for our out-of-state friends (or in-staters not used to following local things).
The problem: Massachusetts has the highest health care costs in the country. Like everywhere else, health care inflation is eating into local budgets, forcing layoffs, service cuts and/or tax increases. Many Massachusetts towns’ workers have unions that bargain for their health care benefits, and they are expensive.
State workers in Massachusetts are in something called the Group Insurance Commission. Led by the irrepressible Dolores Mitchell, the GIC has good benefits by most standards, and has generally had much lower cost increases than the muni plans. And they do it by encouraging quality rather than quantity of care, as well as by tougher methods such as more restricted provider networks.
Now, this idea is absolutely nothing new. It is not a blindside attack. Moving muni unions in the GIC has been discussed for years. Former Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi — the (now allegedly-disgraced) progressive hero of our health care law — suggested that muni unions should be moved into the GIC back in 2007, the early days of the Patrick administration. Back then, Gov. Patrick “responded coolly”, and the deal that was eventually hammered out stated that any muni union would have to have 70% member approval to move into the GIC.
Some muni unions made the switch, like in Melrose, a suburb north of Boston. Here’s mayor Robert Dolan:
Dolan estimated that Melrose has saved over $3 million since joining the GIC in fiscal 2009, bolstered by a wage freeze that municipal unions also agreed to as a way to save jobs. Despite a 10 percent increase in premiums within the GIC last year, Dolan said it pales in comparison to the increases he saw when he first became mayor that ranged between 17 percent and 27 percent.
“The GIC is the single greatest health plan in the country for municipal employees, no question about it,” said Dolan, who admitted that he benefitted from strong cooperation with union leaders that allowed him to make his case to employees in a sometimes one-on-one presentation.
“I was lucky because my unions were willing to listen,” he said.
And they were willing to bargain. Collectively. But many were not. And given the current situation, even Gov. Patrick — who for years resisted the call to coerce muni unions into the GIC — has changed his mind and supports the new proposal.
And let’s be clear: This is an idea that is being pushed largely by cities and towns themselves — like Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone:
Curtatone said since the late 1970s, Somerville has actually bargained down city employees’ health insurance, giving them other perks and pay instead. He said the GIC would save city employees $2 million too, and allow the city to avoid layoffs.
“You’re saving union jobs, here,” Curtatone said. “[Union members are] paying, too. They’re paying out of their pocket, and they’re paying by losing jobs.”
Is it a takeaway of certain collective bargaining rights? Yes it is. Is it a wholesale, out-and-out war on collective bargaining rights a la Wisconsin? Nope.
The people most supportive of the House’s action are not right-wing ideologues, looking to kneecap the labor movement. They’re mayors and aldermen and town councils trying to figure out a way to deliver services in an era of cratering revenues and skyrocketing health care premiums. It’s a real crisis, not a pretext.
Yes, it’s a bitter pill to swallow, particularly on process grounds. It will be a major adjustment for those who are used to their current insurance. Yes. But in the end, muni workers will have health insurance, and more job security due to more stable municipal finances. Their work is important. We want to keep them on. This is Massachusetts.
Ryan says
For the benefit of all those out-of-staters who would need a primer, I think a link to the source is appropriate.
Now, for my comment. I think a lot of what you have to say, Charley, is specious. For starters, I’m glad you can find a mid-sized city Mayor who likes the proposal, but there are others who disagree — some of them even Republicans. Lynn’s Mayor Kennedy is vehemently opposed to the GIC for her city, for example, and she’s no shill to the unions. So the notion that this is “largely being pushed” by pretty much anyone but the Speaker’s leadership team, right now, doesn’t really jibe with me.
Furthermore, you focused almost your entire piece on the GIC itself. This really isn’t about the GIC, this is about collective bargaining.
No one is opposed to saving money through means like the GIC, the unions are all in favor of that (whether it’s through the GIC or other GIC-like collaboratives, some of which outperform the GIC itself). That’s pretty much going to happen *no matter what,* even if no bill were to be passed this year — as more and more cities and towns, with their union employees, get forced into being more creative.
Legislation to give that a kick in the butt to get going is certainly welcome — but this isn’t that legislation, this is a rushed/behind-closed-doors/no-time-for-questions push to get unions in the GIC at all costs, giving them *no time* for legitimate alternatives.
When you finally get to the fact that collective bargaining rights will be “curtailed,” you say so dismissively, by dictating what it is or isn’t to union employees. Clearly, the unions do take this at “out and out” warfare on their collective bargaining rights — and when deductibles and co-pays are stripped away from bargain, they’re damn right to think it’s out-and-out warfare on them. You do realize how how deductibles and co-pays can get on some plans, don’t you?
I don’t see how this bill, as it’s constituted, can be seen as anything but a power grab and attack on public unions. Unions aren’t allowed to share in any of the savings from this bill long term — and it’s going to be out of their pockets that these savings will come from, though much higher copays and deductibles, etc. And they’re all going to be thrown into a program which can be changed at the whim of the legislature. Where do you think the cuts are going to come from, should this bill be passed and suddenly there’s tens of thousands of new people in the GIC, next time this comes up? It ain’t going to be taxes on the rich or getting rid of those wasteful tax credits, that’s for sure.
mannygoldstein says
These are clear signs of mischief, not of “difficult decisions” around “shared sacrifice”.
There is a crippling problem that needs to be solved, and that problem is that the US in general, and Mass in particular, has mind-bending health care costs. The problem is not collective bargaining.
A brave vote would have been to slash costs and increase coverage by following Vermont in implementing single-payer universal health insurance. “Forcing” unions to accept that would be palatable, and my understanding is that unions are, by and large, in favor of this. Unfortunately we have little bravery here, but much shenanigans.
pablophil says
are not a good way to argue…I can name localities where the employees came to management to discuss GIC and were turned down. What does that prove? Some employees resisted. Some communities resisted. You give up control when you go to the GIC, and that bothers as many municipal leaders as it does employees. Especially since, after agreeing to move to the GIC, the GIC instituted mid-year raids on employees’ wallets through increased co-payments and new deductibles. Bait and switch comes to mind, and employees certainly listened to their colleagues who did go to GIC (my own City, for example).
Many municipal employees are already paying 50% of premiums. If the legislature had not been anti-employee, they would have insisted in the bill that all municpal employees would pay premium splits at least as good as state employees. But they really weren’t interested in fairness. They wanted employees to bail out management; and they don’t want the nuisance of bargaining to slow them down. The Globe’s ludcrous claim of “concession” for a one-month talking period is an example. Find us ONE community after a year that settles within that one month, and I’ll agree it was a concession. Why would anyone settle when, in a month, they can have their way?
joel says
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council just completed both a short summary and a detailed analysis of the House proposal on municipal health insurance. It is worth viewing at least the summary to understand what the bill actually does.
http://mapc.org/resources/muni-health-insurance
pablophil says
My community negotiated out way into the GIC. So I should not care about this issue, since I am already there. But the fact is that it is not about the GIC, it’s about collective bargaining, and employees having a SAY in what their health insurance is. BTW, health insurance is part of the compensation package…hence it is part of WAGES, hours and working conditions. Taking away bargaining over wages is as anti-union as you can get. The strike in Quincy was not over health insurance as the Globe (which gets so very little right) reported; it was over BARGAINING. To suggest that restrictions on collective bargaining are no big deal…especially on BMG, shows how far the “progressive” ideology has separated from worker-friendliness. Workers have LESS power in the workplace today than they had…and BMG people are defending that. Wow. Right, times are tough…let’s sell out our “principles.”
Those of us municipal employees in the GIC bargained away the right to bargain about health insurance. Can no one see the distinction between that and being forced into it?
Charley on the MTA says
The unions have underestimated the cities-and-towns’ Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, which is to go to the legislature for relief. If enough of the the muni plans were cheaper than the GIC, why would there be such a push? By and large, they aren’t.
The Mass. Municipal Association is pushing the GIC plan, not just a handful of mid-size mayors.
Uh, yeah, I do know about deductibles, co-pays, and uncovered out-of-pocket expenses. Thanks.
dnta says
The original post portrays the legislation as primarily a push to get muni unions on the GIC, and that’s simply not what it does. I don’t know why you’re choosing to portray it this way — it sounds sadly like political spin to cover for the House leadership.
The bottom line is that this bill was pushed through the house with almost no debate, at 11:30 PM. Reps were given less than 15 minutes to review the bill before being forced to vote, with no chance for debate or amendments. Does this sound like a good democratic process to you?
Sure, it might be a good idea for local unions to be put into the GIC, or even for public employees to have to accept higher co-pays and deductibles, given the fiscal climate and health care costs. But to accomplish those ends by passing historically anti-union legislation, that specifically eliminates a key collective bargaining right of public employees, is NOT the right way to achieve that goal. I’m stunned that BMG would take a position in support of such a move.
David says
If that’s the case, then what is the right way to achieve that goal? I’m not being argumentative – I really want to know. I agree that passing this thing with no debate was shady (but was also par for the course, as anyone who follows the MA lege’s doings is aware).
joeltpatterson says
To put pressure on the muni managers to bargain–to offer them more state money if they can get employees on to the GIC (or less if they don’t). After all, Will Brownsberger, who voted for this removal of a union right, wrote that much of this crisis was caused by muni managers not bothering to negotiate.
I’m glad you pointed out that the MA House has almost no debate as a matter of course–I really get the impression that DeLeo just got this idea in his head, and his handpicked circle of Yes-Men jumped on the GroupThink train and Voila! instant strife in the Democratic Party when we need cooperation & collaboration.
Ryan says
to David’s question.
However, i wanted to comment on some of what you said in your reply.
If enough of the the muni plans were cheaper than the GIC, why would there be such a push?
Why would there be such a push? I believe I answered that in my diary when talking about the motivations for the bill. The House bill has two key advantages for the government that other proposals won’t: it won’t let the public employees share in the savings longterm, and by putting everyone in the GIC, it will be that much easier to get health care ‘savings’ in the future… by taking a bat to the now much-larger GIC. A third potential reason, I suppose, is pure ignorance on the subject of collaboratives — there’s not a lot of information available, but as Peter Porcupine has been drumming for years now, there’s several collaboratives (read: more than one town) across the state that typically outperform the GIC. But if people don’t know that, it’s hard to slow things down enough for the public to become aware of it so they’ll want to be given enough time to investigate the possibilities.
Personally, I’d prefer the healthy expansion of collaboratives around the state, as opposed to throwing all the eggs in one easy-to-change-on-Beacon-Hill basket. We give Beacon Hill far too much power in this state, as it is, between home-rule petitions and no open meeting laws for state public officials.
Ryan says
hashtags-quote didn’t work.
The following sentence in my post was a quote Charley’s, for anyone who missed it:
“If enough of the the muni plans were cheaper than the GIC, why would there be such a push?”
mjonesmel says
“Walsh’s plan [supported by the unions], backed primarily by rank-and-file House members, including 10 freshmen, would restore some collective bargaining power for municipal unions, granting them a 45-day window to negotiate with administrators over health benefits, and sending the matter to arbitration if they fail to agree.”
But, apparently, that wasn’t good enough because it didn’t eliminate bargaining. To the extent that “Wisconsin” was about a power grab to undermine workers’ rights, this is Wisconsin.
See: http://www.wickedlocal.com/maynard/highlight/x1410202058/Unions-find-House-backers-call-health-plan-referendum-on-bargaining
Mark L. Bail says
democratically elected organization doing the bidding of 351 municipalities. It’s about as democratic as the national Chamber of Commerce. In fact, municipalities served by the Hampshire Council of Governments cooperative insurance program didn’t want the GIC insurance; they’ve done as well or better than GIC. That’s dozens of communities for which the legislation was threatening and unwelcome.
The MMA has its own agenda and shouldn’t be confused as representing all the communities in the state.
Ryan says
The plan the unions called for was for the state to set benchmarks for cost savings that muni’s and unions would have to follow through on. If negotiations failed in that endeavor, the cities and towns — and their union employees — would go to arbitration to find a solution to the benchmarks. It was estimated to save at least as much, if not more, money than a blanket switch to GIC ($120 million compared to $100 million for the House bill), and wouldn’t beat back on collective bargaining rights.
The end result of the union proposal would have been much the same — cities and towns, with their union employees — by and large probably would have decided to either join the GIC or another collaborative, but they would have been able to bargain about it… and the key thing is things like deductibles, co-pays and shares of the savings would have been on the table.
dnta says
The whole message of the House legislation is that public unions are somehow too strong, and the poor local governments can’t handle their awesome bargaining power, so the state has to level the playing field. It feeds the meme that claims public unions are the main problem when it comes to budget deficits.
This solution is much more fair and realistic. If, indeed, there are unions out there that would bargain in bad faith, or push local govts to the wall over any concessions during tough fiscal times, then this type of arbitration requirement would effectively nullify such moves. And without establishing a terrible precedent that says, whenever times get tough, we take away some rights.
hoyapaul says
This forced move to the GIC is characterized as somehow equivalent to the situation in Wisconsin — “stripping” unions of their rights to bargain for health care. If this is so, then isn’t what Vermont recently has enacted — universal health care — doing the exact same thing? After all, by moving everyone (not just unions) to a single health care system, this is “stripping” the unions of their right to bargain collectively for health care benefits.
I, for one, agree with what’s happened in Vermont. But I also think Massachusetts’s approach is quite reasonable here. Moving all public employees — state and municipal — to the same plan makes sense from an equity perspective (all public employees are treated the same regardless of locality), and from an efficiency perspective (all employees are offered a well-run and cost-effective health care plan).
I do not see how this is anything like what Republican governors are doing elsewhere. Those are transparent attempts to quash unions and destroy their political enemies. This is nothing of the sort.
Ryan says
A single-payer system is a completely different system of health care. Unions, by the way, *support* a single payer system. If that’s where we were going, I’d be saying full steam ahead. But the House bill isn’t remotely close to single-payer for public employees — the comparison, in fact, is laughable. There’s no such thing as deductibles totalling thousands of dollars in single payer systems, or large co-pays, etc.
I take further umbridge with you desbribing this as a GIC bill. It’s not a GIC bill, it’s an anti-collective bargaining bill. There’s nothing about joining the GIC that would prevent negotiations over deductibles, co-pays and the like. That’s a specific and additional attack on unions.
Furthermore, there’s no reason why communities couldn’t band together and create their own GIC-like programs, as some already have (and those that have do similarly well to the GIC, some even consistently outperforming it). The only reason not to give communities enough time to decide whether or not they want to go out on their own to reach those savings is to force people to the GIC, which the state will be able to control at it’s own whim. And when next we face a big budget deficit, we know exactly what new source of ‘revenue’ they’ll use to ‘save’ the state money when and if they get control of it.
hoyapaul says
But I’m not sure how placing all public employees in a single health care program, with the same rules for everyone, is the same as “stripping” collective bargaining rights from public sector unions.
The notion that moving union members to the GIC is equivalent to things like ending union bargaining over wages and barring automatic deduction of union dues, as what happened in Wisconsin, is ridiculous. The likes of the conservative editorial page at the Wall Street Journal have been peddling such nonsensical comparisons, and I’m sorry you fell for it.
Ryan says
This is not just about the GIC. In fact, the GIC is almost a distraction.
Let’s forget about the issue of the GIC for a moment, okay? There’s still deductibles and co-pays on the line here, being stripped away from collective bargaining. A high deductible and high co-pays is what has led literally millions of people in this country to medical bankruptcy — Michael Moore created an entire movie about people *with* medical insurance who were forced into medical bankruptcy because of high co-pays and deductibles. Unions have fought for years to have decent health insurance benefits — and given up key concessions for that. Now, we’re going to give cities and towns carte blanche to make those two numbers whatever those communities, and/or the state, wants them to be? That’s absurd.
At the least, the alternative proposal would set benchmarks, and allow communities to come together to decide how to get to those health care savings benchmarks. And if they couldn’t, then it would go to arbitration. One way or the other, we would get those savings, but the alternative to the House bill would at least keep it fair for our state’s hard workers.
farnkoff says
in the Globe, and elsewhere, didn’t make it sound like it was about the GIC at all, at least in the stories I read. It definitely sounded like it was taking away the rights of public employee unions to negotiate copays and deductibles as part of collective bargaining. I think this is heading in the same direction as Wisconsin, albeit only a baby slide down the slope. I was not impressed by the “courage” of DeLeo and the rest of them having this vote at 11:30 at night while the rest of us were watching the Bruins. Also, I thought it hilarious that a day later these same heroes were voting to repeal part of the ban on buttering-up of doctors by pharmaceutical marketers, one meager aspect of medical cost control that sought to impose a little austerity and honesty on those folks. As an example to the country of health reform, how does it look that we’ve done so poorly on cost control that we’re still “number one”, and not in a good way? The drain on municipal budgets is a symptom of a larger problem that we’re failing to address. Deleo’s union-busting is just treating the symptom.
pablophil says
Hoyapaul repeats the legilature’s meme that a difference of degree is a difference of type. Health Insurance is part of compensation. Hence it is part of wages, hours and working conditions.
If we go to the GIC VOLUNTARILY, as we did in Quincy, and Weymouth and Melrose, we take bargaining for health insurance OUT of collective bargaining…VOLUNTARILY. The same would be true if the entire state..or nation…(let’s be hopeful) went to a single payer. We collectively bargained our way out of collectively bargaining for health insurance.
The defenses of the indisputable attack on worker’s rights conveniently sidestep the principle of worker empowerment; which at one time was a basic principle of the Democratic party. No longer. We know now who our friends were when that principle was attacked.
Mark L. Bail says
It’s tne collective bargaining.
Health insurance costs are fungible. Increase costs for union member by $500 to $1000 and you cut our pay by that much.
Unions have negotiated for benefits in the context of compensation. We recognize the fiscal realities of today’s economy–though I don’t think many people recognize the role tax cuts are playing in our decreased revenue stream–and we have offered to compromise and work together to lower costs. We already offered to share savings. That’s still an option.
Al says
that a municipality decides to use to provide a health benefit to its employees, on a take it or leave it basis, or is it equivalent to a private plan in which the municipality can tailor the coverage it negotiated with its union employees?
Ryan says
but, yes, the state is able to allow cities and towns to negotiate some things within it — for example, this bill *does* allow bargaining over premiums.
pablophil says
are the ONLY thing you can still talk about.
jimcaralis says
What we are seeing is the dismantling of an archaic system that once served a great purpose. It has not evolved with the times because of inherent power and money.
mjonesmel says
when the importance of workers being able to bargain over their and conditions of employment isn’t obvious as a core value. It is to hundreds of thosands of union members in Massachusetts and their families. Scott Brown must be pleased with the House vote and the prospect of those same, disillusioned union members sitting on their hands in November. Let’s see how much closer we are to Single Payer — or just preventing repeal of the far from ideal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — if the control of the Senate flips.
sabutai says
But we’re as Wisconsin as Massachusetts is about to get — and this is a strong step toward making us more like Wisconsin. But it’s not as if education is a big part of Massachusetts claim to economic strength and distinction.
What’s funny is that Bob DeLeo is basically going all-out to preempt and deny the governor’s solution, and it’s been an awfully long time, if ever, that I’ve seen BMG editors support a solution from a House Speaker that goes against the one proposed by Deval Patrick. Whatever happened to gratuitous mentions of the unhappy pasts of recent Speakers, and repeating some lofty rhetoric from the governor?
middlebororeview says
Probation Dept. scandal and his inaction and incompetence since he has been Speaker.
He may be expert at creating ‘loyalty’ among the bobbleheads willing to accept castration for a bigger office, larger staff and that bonus pay, but when it comes to accomplishing the people’s business, what little gets accomplished shortchanges municipalities and citizens of the Commonwealth.
It might seem that a court challenge will un-do this legislation while Mr. ‘Racino’ DeLeo can publicly pat himself on the back and incite anti-union sentiment.
Maybe learning far too many lessons from the D.C. Republicans?
Trickle up says
The change–if it goes through, and I am skeptical–would change one part of the collective-bargaining framework. Not trash the framework itself.
That framework is built on laws and the legislature tinkers with it all the time–sometimes in ways that benefit labor, and sometimes in ways that benefit management.
I also happen to feel that this particular change is justified, but that’s another argument. I think you could disagree with that without saying that this is like the scorched-earth shock-and-awe strategy in Wisconsin.
Which it really isn’t at all.
Ryan says
according to you. For the family that goes bankrupt due to high medical deductibles that wouldn’t have otherwise, I think they’d disagree. Good benefits was one of the big reasons to go into public service, and getting rid of collective bargaining on the most important benefit is the beginning of the end to good benefits in the public service.
Trickle up says
which is exactly my point. In Wisconsin, there would be no bargaining.
Incidentally: In my town, management wanted to give labor a chunk of money to reimburse employees hit by unusual fees and copays. Labor refused.
If this goes through—seems like a long shot to me, but we’ll see—maybe labor will change their tune on that.
In any case, labor will be able to bargain for such a concession in contract negotiations. Why? Because unlike Wisconsin, they’ll still have the right to bargain.
Mark L. Bail says
town, it’s for all towns. I don’t know the specifics for your town, but my town is all set,thank you.
We already have friendly relations with our unions and their insurance is in line with the GIC. Yet DeLeo and his sheep would offer us (I’m a selectman) the option of screwing our workers over, which could happen with a change of the board.
Trickle up says
For all towns, employees would still be unionized, and contracts would still have to be bargained. “Screwing over” is not an option without a fight.
For all towns, if you “screw over” your employees, you’ll lose your best ones to another town where there is no “screwing over.” For this reason alone, in my town if we can get savings from the GIC we will be spending it principally on two things: (1) raises for employees in the next contract and (2) filling more positions. Which we badly need.
You are a Selectman. My sympathies! and respect. I’ve known a lot of local officials. Very few are trying to “screw” people. Why would that be good? How could that succeed? Would”t there be Hell to pay if someone tried?
It’s great that your town doesn’t need the GIC. Fortunately for you, if you’ve negotiated a better deal, the pending proposal lets you go with that. Unfortunately for most communities, sending millions of dollars extra to health-care companies for identical care does not work out.
Charley on the MTA says
Show me where GIC families are going bankrupt from high co-pays and cost-sharing — in such a way that other muni benefits would not have left them.
Or if you can’t …
Ryan, do you sometimes think that you might dial the hyperbole back a bit and make your point more convincing?
Charley on the MTA says
Was it Wisconsin-style union-busting when the legislature got rid of the MBTA Carmen’s “23-and-out” retirement provision? I mean, that went outside of collective bargaining, didn’t it?
Now, there is no comparison of muni health care benefits to the obvious unfairness of the MBTA deal. But the point is that public employee unions do not just bargain with the people across the table; by extension they’re bargaining with the people who *make the rules*, i.e. the legislature. That’s part of the dynamic in normal situations, since labor obviously works to get people elected. But legislators also have other pressures on them as well, which labor needs to anticipate and work constructively with.
After all, collective bargaining is the process issue here. But the substantive issue here is health care cost inflation.. I know that labor has been involved on the cost-control front, but how much and how intensely passionately — behind the scenes, in lobbying and political muscle — I don’t know. I hear Haynes’ bluster on this issue, but I don’t know how involved he’s been in the wider issue of cost control. Maybe a lot. I hope.
Ryan says
“But the point is that public employee unions do not just bargain with the people across the table; by extension they’re bargaining with the people who *make the rules*, i.e. the legislature.”
It’s not bargaining when you remove the ability to bargain. You took a pretty indefensible example, then compared it to something very defensible. That’s what they call a “straw man.” I’m not going to debate the 23-and-out rule, because that’s not what’s here to debate now. What we are here to debate is whether or not employees should be able to bargain over deductibles and co-pays, and by any reasonable measure the answer should be yes. When literally millions of American families have gone bankrupt due to high deductibles and co-pays, shame on anyone who says otherwise.
“After all, collective bargaining is the process issue here. But the substantive issue here is health care cost inflation.”
That’s the substantive issue *to you.* The substantive issue *to me* is the basic, human right of being able to bargain collectively. That’s far more important than what amounts to a relatively modest difference in the overall budget of our state, particularly when there’s alternatives that are as about as good for the state and retain the ability for workers to bargain. I’ve still yet to see you comment on that alternative proposal, BTW. Perhaps you ought to, lest you risk being the dog wagged by the tail.
” I know that labor has been involved on the cost-control front, but how much and how intensely passionately — behind the scenes, in lobbying and political muscle — I don’t know.”
The unions have tried very hard on that front, but when you have powerful lobbyists and business think tanks increasingly taking control of Beacon Hill, it’s hard for regular people’s interests to be heard.
Charley on the MTA says
I would have to see some good analysis on that – perhaps by MBPC. I mean, AFL-CIO says it’s $120 million… let’s get some independent verification.
I find it a little strange that this proposal just surfaces at the 11th hour, when the GIC issue has been kicked around for years. Where has it been?
Ryan says
Don’t you see a trend, here, Charley? Not just national, but local. As you yourself say, they did this over indefensible things recently. Now they’re doing it over things that are perfectly defensible — important basic rights, I’d say. What happens when there’s another budget deficit, and business interests and think tanks who don’t want taxes raised or services cut show Beacon Hill some fancy schmancy charts showing how public employees eat X% of the budget for XYZ ‘benefits’ and if we only cut it, Reps and Senators can avoid making a tough decision? Because that’s what’s happening here. This is the further erosion of the working person in this country, make no mistake. When are we going to be united in saying no, and if we don’t do it soon, will we even be strong enough to be effective?
The clock is ticking, and the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing faster than it ever has before.
Christopher says
My understanding is that this bill does give the opportunity and incentive to collectively bargain first, and gave the unions something unlike the WI and similar bills. I see this as you win some, you lose some, and in this case the unions mostly lost, as opposed to a truly union busting bill that doesn’t even acknowledge their place at the table. To me the biggest difference is that we don’t have a Governor who lays out a secret plan to a prank caller he thinks is David Koch and then goes around the state proclaiming how the evil public unions are responsible for all our fiscal woes.
Ryan says
They get 30 days, and there’s *nothing* that compels municipalities to give a damn about what the unions say within that 30 day time period, because they can ignore the union and can do whatever the hell they want after those 30 days are up. So, fake.
pablophil says
That was as cynical a “concession” as I’ve ever heard; and the Globe having the temerity to call it one borders on lying.
Christopher says
My primary point was still about the difference in attitude. I still see this as unions losing this round as opposed to being threatened with extinction like in WI, plus the whole difference in governors’ attitudes.
joel says
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council just completed a short and a detailed analysis of the House of Representatives proposal on municipal health insurance reform. If people are interested in the facts of the bill, I would encourage you to review at least the short-form summary.
http://mapc.org/resources/muni-health-insurance
Mark L. Bail says
1. Municipalities support killing collective bargaining because the MMA does. The MMA is not any more democratic than the national Chamber of Commerce. Aside from requests for my support on this issue, I’ve never been polled about the issue. Maybe it happened some time in the past, but the fact is my town and dozens of others served by regional cooperatives are against the GIC. We never wanted to join. I don’t know how many times I’ve written about this and no one acknowledges the fact. Here it is again:”The Hampshire Council Insurance Department provides group health and life insurance, and insurance consulting services for 27 public employers in Hampshire County, 32 public employers in Franklin County, and 2 public employers in Hampden County.
The Finance and Group Insurance Director is appointed by the Council Administrator and is the chief financial officer of the Council and the director of the insurance department. The Council of Governments’ elected Councilors serve as trustees of the Hampshire Council Group Insurance Trust, and the Council Insurance Director serves as the Administrator and Operations Manager of the Trust. The current Director is certified as a Casualty Claim Law Associate, a Chartered Life Underwriter, and a Chartered Financial Consultant.
This year, schools and towns in Hampshire County alone saved over $1,500,000 by buying insurance through the Trust.”
These are benefits comparable to those of the GIC and at the same cost! We’re already saving the money. We have no need for an end run around collective bargaining to get what we already have.
2. “You’re saving union jobs, here,” Curtatone said. “[Union members are] paying, too. They’re paying out of their pocket, and they’re paying by losing jobs.” This is a regular management argument for labor to make concessions. If you don’t, you’ll lose jobs. The idea of unions is to maintain good compensation for their employees AND preserve jobs. At times, these goals conflict. At those times, union membership–which ratifies all contracts–decides what’s best for union members. Curtatone is a perfect example of how management fools the general public.
3. Is it a takeaway of certain collective bargaining rights? Yes it is.If collective bargaining is a right–except when it’s costly or unpopular–then it’s not much of a right. You’re talking about eliminating certain collective bargaining rights because they cost too much. If the state has to cut education aid at some point, will we be looking at new legislation to curb teacher salaries? I’m not saying we’re on a slippery slope, just asking for a clear demarcation of where collective bargaining rights should end.
With the Carmen’s union, I would question whether there’s a right to retire at 43, even with collective bargaining. It’s also important to remember that these more extreme benefits were as much a part of Boston hackery and patronage as they were collective bargaining.
4. If municipal employees are forced to pay more for health insurance, it affects total compensation. The costs of health insurance are fungible; if we have to pay more, it’s no different than a pay cut. Maybe we should pay more. But there’s no reason not to negotiate the costs of the transition.