Life has taken over, so I'll continue more on the Shanley conversation/poll sometime in the next few days.
But in the spirit of providing something semi-fresh, I'd like to second Mary Eaton's thoughts in her blog today. In fact, I had intended to write something similar last week after the Daily News blasted the city's unions for not signing up to the state's health care program.
To be sure, I wish it could have happened. The city certainly needs the money. But I do think folks sometimes are inclined to take the, "You work for us," sentiment a little to far when it comes to municipal employees.
They're people, and their first responsibilities lie with their families. I'll be honest. If I wasn't convinced the health plan being offered by the state offered my wife and kids the same level of protection as the existing health plan I'd be reluctant to sign on myself, not without more info.
Now, if the conversation develops--as it just may--into a "accept this health plan or watch (fill in the number here) of your coworkers get laid off," my reluctance might wane. But the conversation hadn't reached that point yet as far as I could tell.
Furthermore, a switch in health plans is a major concession for unionized employees. They'd be taking a pretty big bargaining chip off the table by agreeing to the health plan switch without discussing pay or other benefits. These discussions should come during collective bargaining talks, in my uneducated opinion.
I recognize un-unionized private sector employees don't always have the same choices. We're more likely to get a letter that says, "Here's your new health plan," suck it up.
But union folks don't pay their monthly dues for nothing.
So I'm willing to withhold my resentment for the time being. Now, if this dance is repeated before the next deadline then there will be plenty of blame to go around, starting with the mayor and trickling right on down to every last union member.
As far as I'm concerned, the clock is ticking. The mayor and union heads need to get on it .... now.
3 comments:
You make good points, but like the Daily News editorial, you are missing a vital point.
The enabling legislation (G.L. Chapter 32B, Section 19 (as amended)) that allowed the city to adopt the statute and enter into coalition bargaining for purposes of transferring city health plan subscribers into the state GIC plan was part of the Municipal Partnership Act which the Governor signed into law on July 25, 2007.
Keeping in mind that teachers do not return from vacation until around Labor Day, and that the law carried an October 1 deadline for municipal opt in, there was clearly very little time to distribute the proper message.
Suffice to say, the city's seven unions and its retiree delegation made a good faith effort and are prepared to re-enter into coalition bargaining with the mayor in early 2008 for potential fiscal 2010 entry.
We are well aware that the clock is ticking, but it's important not to fault anybody for inaction. Should the Patrick Administration decide to enact similar statutes in the future to help out communities defray costs by utilizing state programs, it is highly suggested that implementation deadlines be given more time.
(On a sidenote, Tom, we should set a time to meet one of these days. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on a few issues.)
Tom-
Thanks for this post. I've raised some very pointed questions on my own blog about the GIC process that have not been answered; having to do with the specific sequence of events once the the application process was approved by the legislature (last June?)
When did the City first convene a meeting to organize the PEC to discuss the GIC? It needed to give a 30 day notice or get a waiver from each union; my understanding directly from the Mayor's representative was that the first meeting with the Teacher's Union (which was very interested in joining the GIC) was scheduled for September 29th, 1 day before the original deadline of Sept 30th; at that time (around Sept 14) I was told that "casual conversations had begun with other unions."
Once the deadline was extended, waivers were given, and the group of 7 unions met- teachers, afsme, the retirees, the two police
unions, the fire department and the teamsters.
The Mayor needed 70% of the weighted votes of the unions to go into GIC. My understanding, yet to be confirmed, is that the teachers and retirees wanted in- if so, that was pretty close to 60%, if not more of the vote needed.
I have asked for answers, and will ask again in a more public forum. Clearly, the timing was terrible; and it appears to me, based on my keenly interested observation and unique position, that this was not handled as efficiently as
possible.
If the teachers voted for it, then they don't deserve the public spanking they rec'd in the News editorial. And if the deal couldn't get done because the Mayor couldn't muster another 5-8% of the union votes needed, then the editorial should be re-written, with a more generous application of responsibility for the failure of this to go down.
I've also spoken with people who believe that the $500,000 estimate of savings this year is very conservative, very conservative; and that the savings could have exceeded that number exponentially.
Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.
Bruce Menin
Fair point, Ari. I realize the post didn't explicitly point out the time constraints. But I was aware of them. And I agree, I don't like the practice of pitting folks against each other.
That said, Bruce does raise some good questions as well.
Thanks for the comments.
Post a Comment