UFT Leadership Chooses Sacred Cows Over Member Health

It's been a very rough year for Michael Mulgrew and all the folks sitting around 52 Broadway. This is largely due to the shitstorm they stirred up when they tried to dump all our retirees into an inferior health plan (except those sufficiently privileged to buy their way out). 

They thought it would be a cakewalk. They failed to anticipate the backlash, the losing lawsuits, or the City Council stepping up to protect those who served this city. 

They are not used to losing, and smelling loss, Mulgrew threatened rank and file with a $1500 premium if we didn't screw the retirees. That's still a possibility if they don't find another solution.

They need to satisfy the debt they incurred in 2018, when they made an idiotic deal with MLC behind our backs to cut health care. And there are ways to do that without tossing retirees into the briny deep. One way would be to consolidate city welfare funds. Why do we need a separate organization for each union, especially when each is in the same business, providing the same benefits?

An argument I get is that the UFT Welfare Fund does a great job. They administrate, overseeing reimbursement for eyeglasses and dental work. As far as I can tell, though, much of this work is outsourced. There is an actual insurance company negotiating our dental insurance, and some online entity now doing eyeglasses. I'm still awaiting reimbursement for glasses I got in January. I'm also waiting for the 50 bucks I overpaid when taking an MRI at a supposedly cheaper provider. These are minor issues.

But how good is the Welfare Fund if you have a major issue? My daughter went to an orthodontist who prescribed night braces, for months, that she did not need. I went for a second opinion, and the other orthodontist said it was a waste of time and energy. (And money.) I went to the second one. The first then put in a claim that the night braces were the actual braces. I complained to the Welfare Fund. They said they were sorry, did nothing, gave the first orthodontist full payment, and I had to pay the full cost of real braces, thousands of dollars out of pocket, for my daughter. 

I had an oral cancer, and my mouth was treated with radiation. Consequently, I have dire dental issues. Recently a UFT periodontist prescribed a cleaning procedure that was supposed to cost me $70 per quadrant. I went to get the first half my mouth done, and they charged me $300, 160 more than UFT agreed upon. The extra charge, they said, was for an oral rinse. I said if I'd wanted an oral rinse, I'd have gone to CVS and bought a bottle of Scope for 10 dollars. 

I called the Welfare Fund, who said they'd give this dentist a strong talking-to. The dental office was unmoved. I was able to protest this fee via my credit card, and was successful. (Thanks for nothing, UFT Welfare Fund.) The periodontist charged for three quadrants rather than two, and I didn't bother calling my good friends at the Welfare Fund again. How many strong talkings-to could this periodontist take? And whose welfare, exactly, is our Welfare Fund representing?

I don't believe a consolidated Welfare Fund would be any less efficient than the one we already have. It would surely be a hell of an improvement over screwing our retirees. However, patronage is what keeps UFT leadership ticking. It is, in fact, what keeps their Unity Caucus in perpetual control. They aren't going to give up a bunch of high-paying union jobs, and whatever power they deem associated with them. The highly-paid, dual-pensioned elites who run the welfare fund contend otherwise, and suggest consolidation would result in mismanagement.

The fact is we have already consolidated health care, via the MLC, which negotiates it for us. Now on this point I agree they're doing a terrible job, but that's only because they make dumbass decisions without consulting rank and file. That can and must be fixed.  That doesn't seem to cross the minds of those in leadership. Of course, who wants to surrender highly-paid, dual-pensioned gigs just to protect the health care of thousands upon thousands of men and women who spent their lives working for New York City?

This may very well be why Michael Mulgrew, despite a UFT resolution proclaiming otherwise, virulently opposes the New York Health Act, which would grant all New Yorkers premium-free health care, maintain Medicare for all our retirees, and actually eliminate the need for the GHI senior care plan that has Mulgrew and Adams freaking out all over creation. 

If Michael Mulgrew wants to represent the interests of working teachers, he needs to embrace cost-cutting measures that don't debase the health care of retired or working teachers. At the very least, he needs to give up our proprietary Welfare Fund. At best, he'd not only do that, but also embrace the health and well-being of all our NY State brothers and sisters by a. negotiating with the sponsors of the NY Health Act, and b. publicly supporting and embracing it.

Thanks to Daniel Alicea.

If It Isn't Good Enough for Everyone, It Isn't Good Enough for Anyone

Today, in my restaurant, I'm serving some great dishes. You can have whatever you like. However, all those other people get potato fudge. What is potato fudge? No one really knows, but it doesn't matter. 

Now some people say they don't want potato fudge. They say it has no nutritional value. They say it's full of chemicals that will make them sterile. They say it will negatively affect their health. It will leave them sluggish and overweight. Well, too bad for them. If they don't want to eat that potato fudge, it will cost them and their partners $5,000 a year. 

That is, until we raise the price, which we can do any time. Once we get rid of the minimum necessary funding, we can make them pay 6, 10, 50, or 100K a year to get them off that potato stuff. The sky's the limit, once we repeal that nasty minimum health payment.

Now of course we aren't really talking about potato fudge. We're talking about Medicare Advantage. Mulgrew says so at the DA, and appears to be barreling forward despite multiple humiliating defeats.

They need to make a deal because their first one fell through. The Municipal Labor Committee, including Mulgrew, had a deal to dump all the retirees into an Advantage plan, to be run by a coalition including Emblem Health. I felt good about that at first. Then, of course, the retirees rose up and the deal was scuttled. Who'd have thunk it? Certainly not anyone at MLC. They failed to anticipate the lawsuit and they failed to familiarize themselves with the law. That smells like potato fudge, or incompetence, but whatever it is, it stinks to high heaven. 

Then they went to Aetna. Aetna, though, is currently under investigation for something or other, and has its roots in selling slave insurance. Not a great look. It came out in the hearings last week. Again, MLC failed to research or anticipate this. They also failed to anticipate that retirees would object to cuts in their health insurance. They aren't precisely thinking ahead, are they?

This has its roots in deals MLC made. In order to secure contracts, they agreed to health savings. It seemed to work in 2014, so they went with it again in 2018. Evidently, they thought it was a very smart move. As the City Council just declined to vote on changing the code guaranteeing us a minimum toward our health care, the move is not looking all that smart right now. 

In fact, let's look at the concept of exchanging health costs for a contract. Is that a great idea? Shouldn't we receive cost of living increases, at least, without giving anything back? MLC seems to believe otherwise. They therefore made that second deal, the one that had them advocating for draconian cuts to retiree health care. (And make no mistake, they're coming for us next.)

Not only that, but they arranged for these cuts to run even after our contract had expired. It seems to me if cuts continue in perpetuity, so should raises. Of course, I'm not among the few, the proud, the people on MLC making deals with no input whatsoever from rank and file. 

I've just given you multiple examples of their abysmal judgment. Do you trust them with your health care?

Perhaps most galling of all is that UFT leadership arranged for highly-compensated former officers to state that they needed a "choice" of standard health care for exorbitant fees. I heard someone with cancer spoke to say standard Medicare was necessary. The fact is anyone can get cancer. I've had it. The fact is that not just anyone can afford the extra fees MLC wants us to pay for the care we've expected all our careers. 

Medicare Advantage, evidently, is not good enough for elite, privileged former UFT officers. It's not good enough for people with cancer. We all know it's not good enough for anyone living outside the coverage area. We also know that most of our country is outside that area, and that people on a fixed income, like retirees, might just need to move someplace cheaper than the NYC area.

We are union. If Medicare Advantage isn't good enough for everyone (including ex-UFT officers collecting double pensions funded by our dues), it isn't good enough for anyone. 

It's disgraceful, outrageous, and unconscionable that our union leaders muster the audacity to claim otherwise.

UFT Leadership Wants to Preserve Choice (for Those Who Can Afford It)

Freeport, where I live, had an awful flood on December 23rd. We lost our water heater, our boiler, and two cars. I spent my break trying to fix these problems, while showering at my sister in law's house and trying to buy two cars in the worst buyer's market I've ever seen. 

But I made it a point to protect my family and our little dogs. I never threatened my family, saying we have to sacrifice this dog to save the other. Because family doesn't do that. 

On the other hand, UFT President Michael Mulgrew says if we don't toss retirees overboard into the briny deep, in service members will pay. I don't know who Michael Mulgrew listens to, but someone needs to tell him union doesn't do that. Like family, we protect and support one another.

I see on Norm's Blog that the new leadership chant is that they wish to "preserve choice." This is probably the best argument they can muster at the moment. They are determined to unconditonally surrender to Mayor Eric Adams as he threatens to eliminate Senior Care and force every city retiree into an inferior Advantage plan. The mayor has threatened this, even though he cannot achieve it unilaterally. 

These pleas were coming from UFT/UNity Caucus retirees, all of whom have been on the UFT payroll and may still be.

This is a crucial flaw of the Unity Caucus. While I was aligned with them, I tried to address it. But it was a waste of breath. That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, and that's the way they're determined to keep it. Everyone in Unity is either an officer, an employee, or someone trying to climb the ladder. Every single member has an ulterior motive to tow the party line.

Let's look at that. Several extremely well-compensated former UFT officers got up on their hind legs and demanded their "choice," clearly suggesting that the proposed Advantage plan, the one that's supposed to be so wonderful it walks on water, would not be adequate to meet their health needs. And yet, it's supposed to be good enough for the rest of us. That is elitism. That is the privileged talking down to us lowly serfs.

And make no mistake, that is blatantly anti-union. We are one, in theory, at least. This notwithstanding, former officers were paid several times the salary of mere teachers. Not only that, but they also receive UFT pensions. That's in addition to the DOE pensions they also receive.

Now let's talk about their "choice." The choice they want is the choice to pay almost $2500 each, or $5000 per couple annually, to retain the health care we've been promised since we began. If I retire soon, I may also have that choice. I may have the choice to make a substantial cut to the pension I've been promised for my, so far, 38 years of service. There is no doubt my pension will be far lower than the privileged few who testified for UFT leadership.

I might be able to swing a 5K cut in pension, but it's disgraceful that my union leaders are out there advocating for any such thing. Do they seriously believe that represents my interests or those of my colleagues? 

I doubt it. They may be many things, but they are not that stupid.

Now let's talk about others, who will not get this "choice," even if it is somehow offered. Imagine you're a teacher with far less service than I have. Better yet, imagine you're a paraprofessional, making 20 or 30K a year. Imagine you're a DC37 school aide making close to minimum wage. You will not have a "choice" that does not entail altering your diet to feature cat food. 

We need union leadership to stand up for us. We do not need union leadership that gets on its knees before Mayor Swagger and then demands we do likewise. They screwed up in 2018, without consulting us. They don't deserve a "choice." They didn't give us one. 

Now it's time for them to get off their knees and find a solution that works for all of us, not just the highly-compensated and privileged union officers. Groveling, while it may appear attractive to our leadership, will never work for the United Federation of Teachers. Any change in health care must be negotiated with MLC. MLC, including UFT leaders, needs to show some backbone or step aside for someone who will.

That, my friends, is what real leadership is and does.

Tell the City Council to Vote NO and RETAIN the City's Minimum Contribution to Our Health Care

We are on a slippery slope here. If we allow the city to make sub-minimum contributions to our health care, it's not likely to end there. The MLC, with the full support of our union leadership, made a short-sighted cost-cutting deal with the de Blasio administration. Though Mulgrew assured us in 2018 copays would not go up, some have doubled since then. 

Where can they go from here? The sky's the limit.

As I wrote in my Daily News op-ed yesterday, once we sell out the retirees, we working teachers (and all city workers) are fair game as cost-cutting targets. Lets stop this right here. If you're a retiree, you can sign to speak at tomorrow's hearing. If you're working, like I am, you can submit written testimony at the same link. An advantage of written testimony is that you may write as much as you need. Oral testimony will likely be limited to two minutes, so plan accordingly. 

Norm has suggestions about contacting City Council members directly, as well as a sample email you can send them. He also includes their addresses.

With his permission, I'm including my friend Bennett's testimony for tomorrow. I hope he can squeeze this into two minutes. It will be a tough day over at City Council. Please take a few minutes to let them know to do the right thing.

Hello, I'm Bennett Fischer and I'm a retired teacher with 29 years of service in our public schools, and I am a career long UFT activist, who is very distraught and very angry at the harmful position my union leadership is taking.

Most of us here are public service employees, and whichever city health plan we are enrolled in, the cost of that plan is protected by a defined price threshold set in a city law. If your insurance costs less than the threshold, you're covered. If it's more than the threshold, you pay up.

That's fair. The law applies equally to all city employees. It ensures a decent, and equal subsidy for the city health plan we choose. And it lets the most vulnerable among us stay on traditional, public Medicare - and doesn't force anyone into the private, regional, for-profit Medicare Advantage ecosystem. Why would you ever even consider taking our healthcare protections out of the law, and putting them into the hands of a very few, very fallible, very self-interested group of politicians? New York City mayors and union presidents come and go. The law offers much more stability.

Keeping 12-126 intact doesn't mean we can't negotiate for quality healthcare, and savings. Amending 12-126 means we will be at the mercy of a few men(!) in a room. I hoped we were beyond those days.

We dedicate our careers to public service, not for great pay, but to do good for our communities and our families. What we sacrifice in pay, we expect to make up in decent, stable benefits both in-service, and in retirement. Don't give away our legal protections. What we give up in law, we will never get back.

Who Spreads Misinformation to UFT?

UFT's Unity Caucus says dissidents are spreading misinformation. I guess I'm a dissident, now that I've decided retiree benefits should not be cut. Leadership's decision to encourage cuts by pitting in-service members against retirees goes against everything a union should stand for.

Leadership now cries anyone who doesn't follow the party line is a liar. This, of course, is their standard MO. And make no mistake, it's argumentum ad hominem, the practice of insulting your opponent rather than engaging in honest discourse. It's logical fallacy. That's what you go to when you do not, in fact, have an actual argument. 

Retirees have been thrust into the battle of their lives, trying to retain the health care they've earned and enjoyed for decades. Michael Mulgrew and the MLC want to replace it with a Medicare Advantage plan to save the city money. 

It's an odd position, because the city is supposed to be our adversary when we negotiate. Mulgrew sides with the city. He and his small army of UFT employees and would-be employees, the Unity Caucus, are now making us, the membership, his adversaries. They call us names. They ridicule us. They demand we stop fighting to preserve our rights. 

This is not what union is for. (If you're curious about what union is for, and what one can do, read this book.)

They claim they are fighting for choice. However, the choice they propose retirees face, as they get by on defined pensions, is the choice of paying 5K per couple, per year if they wish to retain the care the city has offered for decades. Otherwise, they will be saddled with inferior care that will cost them, at the very least, time receiving procedures that CVS/ Aetna doesn't feel like paying for. They will not have access to nearly the number of doctors that take standard Medicare, and if they live anywhere but NY or Florida, they will not be served well at all.

But let's talk about who really spreads misinformation. This comes from my notes on the UFT Delegate Assembly October 12, 2018:

Mulgrew—Health care negotiated with all unions. Done six months ago. MLC thought something bad could happen with health care because of DC. We wanted to lock in a deal. No additional copays, but made a change for all unions. We tried to get plan in better place. Was proactive approach. Has been out for six months. Was smart thing to lock down our health care with no significant cost ships to union membership. Others pay 3200 out of pocket. We are only workers who can get plans with no premiums attached. If UFT members get cancer they can go to Memorial Sloan Kettering—this is with HIP, also Hospital of Special Surgery. Go read it before you tie it to this contract. 

Let's examine that. UFT President Michael Mulgrew told us there were no additional copays. Shortly thereafter, it cost us $150 to go to an ER, up from 50. It cost us $50 to go to an Urgent Care. I don't recall what is was before, but that's a hike. We just learned that Pro Health Urgent Care will run $100. And if you want to go for an MRI anywhere but RadNet, it will cost you $100. 

Aren't those additional copays?

And pardon me, but isn't 5K a year to retain the health care you need in your most vulnerable years a significant cost? Isn't it particularly significant to members who retired with lower salaries, like UFT paraprofessionals and DC37 workers? 

Who is really spreading misinformation? Here's what Unity Caucus tweeted:

 

We know now that actual misinformation originated from Mulgrew, the number one Big Kahoona of the Unity Caucus. Let's look at their other accusation--spreading fear. The fact is UFT President Michael Mulgrew sent us an email stating that if we did not concede to the mayor's demand to demean health care for retirees, he would impose a premium on health care for in-service employees. Let's set aside the fact that the mayor does not have the right to do this unilaterally, and is bound to negotiate. Mulgrew's threat is a classic appeal to fear, more logical fallacy.

It appears Mulgrew's Unity Caucus, aside from indulging in various and sundry logical fallacies, wishes to project its own shortcomings on those of us who fight to protect member rights.

As for the "order," Jonathan has clear evidence, in Scheinman's own words, on why it is not, in fact, any such thing. 

It's absolutely disgraceful that the President of our Union fights tooth and nail to diminish our health care. And the fact is, by attempting to slap a 5K penalty on any retiree couple who wishes to retain standard Medicare, he is in fact imposing a very substantial premium. He's reducing our compensation, one way or another, via health care fees, just like Scott Walker and every other tinhorn anti-union politician did. 

The UFT needs leadership that will fight for us, not the mayor, not the NYC treasury, and certainly not CVS/Aetna.

UFT Leadership Establishes New Negotiating Policy

I'm increasingly impressed with what UFT caucus Retiree Advocate did. They got together with other city union members and supported the lawsuit that put a halt to the "savings" program so revered by our union leadership. 

Retiree Advocate did precisely what union does. Union organizes. Union fights. Union demands better working conditions. Union sets examples to improve its lot, and thus pull up other working people as well.

Our leadership, on the other hand, berates Retiree Advocate, calls them troublemakers, says they screwed up everything, and follows up by demanding absolute fealty.  Rather than organize against the city, the union demands we get on board with the "savings" program.

We now know said savings are entirely for the city, entirely at our expense, to the tune of 600 million a year (so far, until our brilliant leadership makes yet another deal). The way the city chose to save this money was by dumping all retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan OR charging $191 a month to keep the program they had. 

Of course, the city got a lot of help from the Municipal Labor Committee, a group of various union leaders, including ours. These leaders decided to mortgage our futures in exchange for modest salary gains, at or near cost of living. Somehow, they muster the audacity to call that a good deal.

These people are the worst negotiators I've ever encountered.  How do you trade something of such great value for salary increases that are just okay, but no big deal? While I'm sure these negotiators are highly compensated and can afford better drugs than say, working teachers, they ought not to take them while on the job.

I might retire soon. I was at first open to trying this plan. It sounded okay. All doctors who accepted Medicare would take it. And Emblem Health, my provider for decades, would run it. However, all of the above turned out to be untrue. Not all doctors would take it. And Emblem, viewing the gross ineptitude we see more of each and every day, dropped out.

Like many, I was left with even less faith in the people negotiating this program. 

The other day I had an MRI. Emblem Health approved it pretty quickly. I made it a point to select a RadNet facility, because I'd gotten an email stating the copay there would be $50. It was $100 everywhere else, due to the "savings" program. However, the RadNet facility charged me $100.

I contacted friends in UFT, who put me in touch with someone from the Welfare Fund. I may get my 50 bucks back. Regardless, this further underlines the incompetence of the people asking for our trust. They should have made sure RadNet knew about and acted on this deal, if indeed there was one (just like they should have made sure all doctors accepted that Advantage plan).

The thing that irrevocably pushed me over the edge was the email from Mulgrew stating we needed to support changing the code setting minimum health care costs for city workers. If we didn't allow that, he said, in-service members would be charged $1500 a year for health care. Let's set aside the fact that health care needs to be negotiated, and Eric Adams cannot unilaterally impose charges. The fact is, that email pitted one faction of our union against another. That's absolutely unacceptable. That's not what union is or does. 

Union leaders ought not to be threatening their members. They ought to be threatening our employers. Instead of that, they're acting as shills for our employers and demanding we tow the line. They're lecturing us, saying we ought not to protest. They warn us of the consequences of disobedience, as though we're recalcitrant children.  In fact, we're organized labor. Protest should be in our DNA.

There are a number of things that can happen here. Absolutely none of them are good for membership. We're looking at diminished health care for the most vulnerable among us, those who can least afford having fewer options. We're looking at exploding copays and possibly premiums for Emblem/ GHI. Every possible solution will be loathed by some, if not all, of membership.

It is disgraceful that our leadership, faced with the consequences of a poorly conceived health deal they ought never to have made, would determine to simply sell out any faction of membership, let alone those who can least afford it. The fact is, even if they succeed, we have no guarantee they won't sell out some other faction in the very near future. Again, I marvel that anyone could negotiate so poorly.

Of course, UFT leadership cannot conceive, ever, that they may have done something wrong. That's why they ridicule those who dare suggest they're wrong. That's why they know better than Retiree Advocate. What, ORGANIZE? Why would anyone do that when you could simply CAPITULATE?

And we, the membership, are forced into the position of having to negotiate against leadership, rather than management. What we desperately need is leadership that will fight for us, rather than Eric Adams. Leadership does not, will not, cannot see that. As a result, its long unchallenged Unity Caucus may finally have issued itself a mortal wound.

They just don't see it. They can't and won't see anything. That, evidently, would violate policy.

UFT Leadership Says Letting City Pay Less=Improved Health Care

You can turn on Tucker Carlson, if you have a strong enough stomach, and see people comment on the Club Q shooting. If only we'd end this evil agenda of gender-affirming care, they say, this would stop happening. 

So we need to stop protecting these people, and then they won't be attacked anymore. Sure. That makes sense.

Using similar logic, UFT leadership tells us we need to revise the city code to allow the city to pay less money for our health care. It's a good thing, they say, that the city doesn't have to pay so much for the health care we expect and work for. You see, if we only let them spend less, our health care will be better. 

Sorry, but if they pay less, doesn't it stand to reason that we will pay more? Didn't leadership just go to the mattresses for a program that would have cost retired couples thousands extra?

That is heresy, they say. If you dare question this logic, you're ruining things for everyone. When this thing blows up, it will be all your fault.  After all UFT leadership tried to warn you the only way to get better health care was to permit the city to pay less to support it.

On Facebook, a highly compensated UFT official tells thoroughly uncompensated HS Executive Board member Nick Bacon that, if we don't allow the city to pay less toward our health care, the city will impose a premium on all in-service members. Also, they will dump all retirees into a lone Advantage plan. Here's a sample of how he speaks to Nick, who wants to preserve the health care retirees have earned and enjoyed for decades:

Your malcontent nature will never allow you to see the positive and beneficial. You could be given a bar of gold and would be upset you weren't given two. It's fruitless to engage a person like that.

(Shouldn't it be like you?) Let's forget about this guy's failure to maintain a simple subject. Let's even forget the fact that this guy, despite saying it's not worth it, is engaging anyway. (Passive-aggressive much?) This same union employee, along with many others, was very recently jumping up and down declaring an Advantage plan would be the bestest thing ever. But that was then and this is now. Why can't we be good soldiers and forget already?

You'd think leadership assumed we all just fell off the tomato truck from Jersey. They change their tune and improvise a new one on the fly. Then they demand we all dance to it or there will be consequences. 

This is not the sort of treatment we deserve from union leadership. We pay their salaries and they work for us. In fact, this is the sort of treatment I expect from abusive supervisors. Still, I have extensive experience being verbally abused by union employees. In 2005, we passed the worst contract I'd ever seen, giving up rights to grieve letters to file, and agreeing to work longer hours for more money while pretending it was a raise. (A raise is when you work the same time for more money.) There were other lowlights I no longer recall, but I remember personal insults galore. 

Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of personal attack. That's what you do when you have no argument and/ or little imagination. You attack your opponent. You mischaracterize arguments, more logical fallacy. You tell people they're dangerous. You issue appeals to fear (as the UFT official did here) to frighten your opponents into line. 

Only it doesn't work. Retirees are horrified that their health care is in jeopardy. The fact is the Advantage plan, despite explicit assurances otherwise by the UFT President, was not accepted by all doctors that accepted Medicare. Also, it was largely not useful to members who'd moved outside of NY or Florida. There would have been an almost $5,000 annual fee to keep the health care they expected. This is a significant expense for people living on a fixed income. Imagine how that would've impacted paraprofessionals and lower-paid DC37 employees.

As a prospective retiree, I have a very specific suggestion about what this union official can do with this "bar of gold."

I'll refrain from posting that here. I'll just say the only thing that actually protects us from exorbitant fees, whether we are in service or retired, is Administrative Code 12-126. It's time for leadership to get off their high horse and admit the 2018 health care deal, the one they made with no input whatsoever from us, was a spectacular blunder. Then, they need to start working for us for a change. 

Make no mistake--that's their job.

MLC Takes Us for Carnival Rubes

After looking at the proposal that we pay $191 to keep Medicare and our version of Medigap (a program to cover the 20% of medical expenses that Medicare does not), I thought Medigap programs must be very expensive. After all, if our union was proposing to charge us almost 200 bucks a month for reasonable coverage, it must be a lot more for someone who didn't spend thirty years serving the city of New York.

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. I'm in my 38th year of working for the city, and I've been told to expect better than that, pretty much since the day I started. My father told me I wouldn't get rich being a teacher, but we had great retirement benefits and health care. 

He was right, to an extent. I'm very happy to be in a position where I can retire without taking a job unloading trucks at Best Buy or greeting Walmart shoppers. But I absolutely expected to be fully covered by Medicare, you know, the real one that doctors accept all across the nation. I will have that option, I suppose, even if I have to pay. 

But I did not expect that. Retirees already pay for prescription coverage, though I don't recall how much. It seems pretty unfair to tack on the unexpected costs to avoid being dumped into an Advantage plan. Thus far, it appears the only advantage there is saving money for a city rolling in unspent billions from the federal government.  

I've been pretty happy with the health care my family and I have received since I became a teacher. Sure, copays are inconvenient, but they beat the hell our of being uninsured. The thing is, though, that GHI is good in NY and Florida, but not so great elsewhere. When Mulgrew rolled back his promise that all doctors that accepted Medicare would take the Advantage plan, he modified it to say that all doctors taking our current plan would accept it. 

That's not bad, but not great either. In my meeting with UFT employees, one who now lived in New Jersey told me that it was very tough finding GHI coverage out there. Now me, I try not to go to Jersey unless someone pays me, so that won't be an issue. Still, there are a whole lot of states other than Jersey, Florida and NY. I know someone moving to PA who's concerned about health care, and who will have to pay if that's what it takes to keep standard Medicare. Why can't we keep standard Medicare with Medigap for city employees, and allow them to live where they wish without penalizing them?

I was originally open to the Advantage plan. Before all the various clarifications and screwups, I thought it might be what it was presented as. The biggest argument against that assumption was the approval issue. I had cancer once, and I recall being approved for various procedures. It was no fun, but GHI was good to me. These days, insurance companies are not altogether altruistic, and the Times piece has a sharp message about Advantage:

Advantage participants who are denied care can appeal, and those who do so see the denials reversed 75 percent of the time, according to a 2018 report by the Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Inspector General. But only about 1 percent of beneficiaries or providers file appeals, “which means there’s a lot of necessary care that enrollees are going without,” Mr. Lipschutz said.

That's far from encouraging. 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.

Again, we've been promised standard Medicare plus our entire careers. But hey, if we're gonna have to pay to keep what we've been promised our entire careers, you could at least offer us a good deal. It's disgraceful that MLC (with the explicit encouragement of our elected leadership) seeks to treat NYC employees, who they ostensibly serve, like marks at some cut-rate traveling carnival.

I Meet With UFT to Discuss Healthcare

Yesterday I was called into a Microsoft Teams meeting with at least five people who work for UFT. We were only disconnected once, so for my money, MS Teams is improving. 

I got a little bit of flack for my Gotham Gazette piece. There were many arguments put forth. Some were more understandable than others. While they had a lot to say, I did not get a strong sense my responses were valued.

They told me the proposed Advantage plan, which does not actually exist anymore, were it to be replaced, would do everything the current standard Medicare plan does. It's absolutely necessary to change the code, they said, or the city will place everyone in some Advantage plan or another. Some disagree. Personally, I remain unpersuaded that changing the code is necessary, and I am not eager to enable the Eric Adams administration. 

I am also very much aware that multiple city unions, including uniformed unions who often score better contracts than we do, oppose this. I recall, years ago, going to an Urgent Care and being told there was a new $50 copay, unless we were NYPD, They managed to get themselves excluded from that particular copay raise. 

Why can't we do things like that? Why can't we all do things like that?

One argument they presented was that, despite asserting otherwise, I knew about health changes. They said I wrote about them somewhere here. I didn't suppose they would say that if it weren't true, and it turns out it was, so my apologies for not making those connections previously.

With the expert help of Jonathan Halabi, I found some links. There are various quotes of things Mulgrew said. Bottom line is I wrote of, and was thus aware of a side agreement on healthcare. I took notes at the DA on a pretty regular basis, including here, and I will quote two passages. These notes come from the question period on October 12, 2018, the day the DA voted to present the contract to membership.

Health care negotiated with all unions. Done six months ago. MLC thought something bad could happen with health care because of DC. We wanted to lock in a deal. No additional copays, but made a change for all unions. We tried to get plan in better place. Was proactive approach. Has been out for six months. Was smart thing to lock down our health care with no significant cost ships to union membership. Others pay 3200 out of pocket. We are only workers who can get plans with no premiums attached. If UFT members get cancer they can go to Memorial Sloan Kettering—this is with HIP, also Hospital of Special Surgery. Go read it before you tie it to this contract. 

I confess that I did not go read it, nor do I know where I would have done so. In fact, I don't know where I would do that now either. That said, I disagree that we "locked down" anything. In fact, despite the assertion otherwise, there are now additional copays. These copays appear to be a result of this agreement, and appeared only weeks ago. I would also disagree, with the health care coverage city retirees have earned and enjoyed for decades now imperiled, that there is "no significant cost to union membership."

Here's another assertion:

Health care has nothing to do with this agreement. We are only saying this should go to membership. They will have plenty of time to read. We rushed MOA out for that reason.

The fact is, the health care agreement was in the contract, in Appendix B, and we were not shown Appendix B. 

From the meeting, I conclude UFT leadership is very concerned about this issue, and that's a good thing. If I were in charge of UFT, I would do all I could to repair the damage this health care agreement has done. This is an issue that will not just go away. Were I running the Unity Caucus, or even part of it, I'd worry a lot about the significant loss of support in the last union election. I'd advocate to do whatever I could to turn that around. The fact that they reached out to me to discuss this may be a good sign.  

Not good enough to give up the fight though. Our retirees deserve what they have, as do we. I can accept that the health care deal was negotiated outside of the contract, but it was included in that appendix, and it is a mess. I remain highly unimpressed with whoever it is that negotiates for us. The ever-evolving explanations are frustrating. 

They said we were never lied to. I pointed out that we were told any doctor who accepted Medicare would accept the proposed Advantage plan. They told me that's what the people told Mulgrew. I don't believe he gets up and lies to us. I believe he gets bad advice and repeats it. But if that's the case, whoever fed him that information should be fired and replaced with someone competent. I've heard nothing about any changes in our negotiating teams. 

This is not easy for us as membership, and I'm sure it's not easy for leadership either. I'd say, for an acceptable solution, we all have to be involved. That, for my money, is what union is all about.

Beware The Zero-Sum Game

When Michael Mulgrew writes to say we have to make retirees pay more, or in-service members will pay more, he's engaging in a zero-sum game. 

Make no mistake--this is a desperate move. He's pitting us against other union members to try and dig himself out of the quicksand he secretly inserted in the 2018 contract. We were never notified of the health saving promised in that contract, and it's unconscionable that it was buried somewhere in there as we voted for what appeared a plain vanilla contract.

I wasn't actually sure what a zero-sum game was until I read The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. In a zero-sum game, every time one person gains something, another loses. The illustration at left shows only one person gets ice cream, when of course there could be more, or it could be shared. 

In the United States, zero-sum games cost us a lot more than an ice-cream cone. Whenever things like civil rights are promoted, opponents suggest if those people get rights, you will lose yours. And somehow, people buy it. 

This is why you get absurd movements like "defense of marriage." In fact, no one's marriage is threatened if we allow people to marry who they choose. If a man marries another man, that won't end Marjorie Taylor Greene's marriage. It turned out her adultery had a lot more to do with that than two guys somewhere who chose to share their lives together. 

On a more basic level, we're the only industrialized country on earth that doesn't offer health care for all. You'll read all sorts of nonsense, calling it "socialized medicine," but I've seen people die as a result of our miserable health care system. My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and toward the end of his life he was scrambling to unload everything he ever worked for. He could not afford appropriate elder care, and needed to qualify for Medicaid so his wife wouldn't lose their home once he passed. 

Job-related health care was a great benefit to people who could get decent jobs. Who do you suppose got better jobs after WWII? Here's a clue--my dad was able to buy a home due to the GI Bill. But people of color were largely denied this benefit.  In fact, people of color were denied standard mortgages and were largely cut out of the middle class boom that followed the war. Read The Sum of Us for chapter and verse. 

Remember when Obamacare started, and they vilified him for saying he lied when he said you'd get to keep your health care? It turned out the program set minimum standards for health care, and those companies that didn't meet them didn't make it. People would have to sign into Obamacare and get better policies. No one really lost, but you wouldn't know that from watching Fox News. The GOP tried very hard to kill it.

Of course Obama didn't get to offer a public option. That would've been dangerous. There would be no corporate profits to worry about and such an option would prove more than competitive. Perish forbid some rich guy sitting around in his mansion were deprived of a paycheck. Better people you and I pay more, so the rich guy can construct another chateau in the south of France.

Now, of course, we receive email from the President of the UFT saying if we don't change a law, so the city can pay less for our health care, in-service members would pay more. That makes our health care a zero-sum game. And it's not only Mulgrew doing this.

@HenryGarrido17 @UFT stop the lies the @$50m/month is not real. There is almost $1B in the stabilization fund And would be more if Henry and Michael didn’t agree to use the fund for raises. pic.twitter.com/utNaqWbjhy

— Marianne Pizzitola (@FDNYchic) October 31, 2022

She's right about that. Still, I don't much love the implication that our salaries are the problem here. She's also been quoted as saying,  “The unions shouldn’t be taking this out on current retirees. Their changes should be effectuated on active employees or future retirees."

Zero-sum games hold us back and need to stop. Neither retirees nor in-service members should be penalized for wanting to be as healthy as possible. We need to hold together and draw a line in the sand here. 

Full disclosure--I supported the 2018 contract, and it's the only one I voted for in my living memory. It looked fairly innocuous, with raises that were at or near cost of living. Like most, I had no idea that UFT leadership had agreed to massive health care savings and kept it from us. As far as I'm concerned, none of us voted for this. Along with the overwhelming majority of UFT members, I was duped.

Unless I see the fine print, I will never vote yes on another contract. I'm sorely disappointed to see my trust broken. I won't let it happen again, and you shouldn't either. 

Contact your city council member and urge a NO vote on any changes to Administrative Code 12-126.

UFT Leadership's Contract Plan

The odd message we got from the UFT President the other day has me thinking about contract negotiations. After urging the membership to cave in the face of a threat by the mayor, to throw the the retirees under the bus right now so rank and file won't get thrown under later, how do we take a principled stand on the contract?

I mean sure, there is a committee of 500 members working to craft demands, but I'm not persuaded that will make much of a difference. In the end, it will be UFT and DOE leadership making the deal, and given that committee members are sworn to secrecy, how will we gauge how much, or how little difference they actually made?

Everyone, myself included, would like to make more money, especially in a year of rampant inflation. Yet we're tied to pattern bargaining and you can bet Mayor Swagger is slithering about looking for the first lowball offer he can muster. Salary is, in fact, the prime consideration for most members, and pattern bargaining places it almost certainly beyond the purview of the committee,

Also, what does it matter if 500 members want something, or indeed if the entire rank and file want the same thing? Eric Adams now knows he can make threats and they'll likely as not be amplified by emails signed by the UFT President, along with mass tweets made at his urging. Imagine this:

Mayor Adams says if we don't agree to a 10% cut in salary, he will cut our salaries by 25%. Of course this is unacceptable to us. That's why I want you to write the city council and tell them to pass a bill to cut all municipal salaries by 5%. See the pre-written tweets below and share them.

Could that be an ask? Probably not, but there's now precedent for it. And how much will Adams offer, knowing that we actually went to battle for second-rate health care, trying to force our retirees to pay 5K a year per couple to keep benefits they've worked for and enjoyed for decades? If I were him, I'd feel like I was dealing with, essentially, nobody. I'd swagger here, I'd swagger there, and I wouldn't offer one thin dime in raises, let alone improving working conditions. Adams is sitting on unspent billions and pleading poverty. Our quest to cave to his demands has done nothing to help that.

Now sure, you say, but there are those 500 people on the committee. UFT is the largest local. How can we be ignored? Let me ask you this: Is there a single retiree in this city, not on a union payroll, who wants to give up Medicare for a half-baked Advantage plan that's never been tested anywhere? Probably not. In fact, given that this plan was bungled at every turn, I wouldn't be surprised if even people on union payroll were also wondering about it, albeit more quietly.

Can you even believe we're battling to change a law so NYC can charge premiums? If Mulgrew and Adams succeed in making retired couples pay 5K a year for the health care they were promised for free their entire careers, who's to say it will stop there? If Adams doesn't get to charge in-service members $1500 a year for GHI now, who can say he won't charge them 2500 next year? After all, in service members might be able to afford it better than retired members. Can't you imagine Adams making that argument? Can you imagine us supporting it?

This, of course, is all administered by the MLC. We're the largest union in the city, and the largest voice in the MLC. Meanwhile, the DOE sees us actively campaigning for worse conditions. 

It's very hard for me to imagine this administration feeling gratitude and offering us a fair contract. After all, we endorsed Adams in the general and he has yet to show gratitude for that. He's worried about vegan menus, because he's vegan, sometimes. He's worried about training in dyslexia, because he has dyslexia. He doesn't give a golly gosh darn about class sizes, because he's not attending a class. 

Mostly, the only person Eric Adams cares about is Eric Adams. Sure, he'll give the chancellor's girlfriend a gig if the chancellor will give his girlfriend one. But the fact that he'll create a scandal just to impress his girlfriend is just another testament to his monumental self-absorption. He now sees us as pushovers, and perceives that walking all over us may increase his swagger ratio.

Given that, the only way we can get Adams to offer UFT a fair contract is to make sure his pay depends on it. 

That's not happening any time soon. We're all in the same boat, we've painstakingly carved out a hole in it, and we're sinking fast. 

Leadership had better wake up some time before we hit bottom.

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

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

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

The email contained a passage that surprised me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFT Health Care--Time to Abandon the Hamster Wheel

A few days ago, I had a column in the NY Daily News expressing support for the NY Health Act. I suggested this as a way to deal with rising health costs not only for the UFT, but for the entire state. New York State is as large as England, and if England can provide health care for all, so can we. Since I wrote that, Emblem/ GHI has raised copays. 

The UFT's line in the sand has been premium-free health care. I assume that line is shared by our fellow unions, or at least a bunch of them in MLC. While MLC ostensibly represents all city unions, some seem less affected than others. I know NYPD did not love the idea of $50 co-pays at Urgent Care, and was exempted from them. I also know if you choose Pro-Health Urgent Care, it will cost you a hundred bucks these days.

Premium-free is important, because once you get into that, you can never get out. Some municipalities offer raises, but then offer premium raises that render pay raises into nothing. Sometimes the premium raises are more than the pay raises and people end up making less. That said, there are other ways to attack your pocketbook, and increased copays are certainly one of them. 

We are in a mess, and we need more than hopeful words from our leadership. MLC committed to health savings, and these health savings have proved much more elusive than it seems to have imagined. While I was not overly preoccupied with having Emblem/ GHI manage an Advantage program, they're out of the picture, and I don't trust anyone else. In fact, I now have no confidence in MLC's planning ability, and given they couldn't even be bothered recruiting doctors before announcing this program, I don't think they could do it adequately with any company.

In fact, the sponsors of NY Health Act said that they would meet the same health coverage we have. The issues, despite what UFT leadership says, seem to be petty at best and disingenuous at worst:

Labor leaders say that they're hesitant to give up collectively bargained health benefits, even if single payer's architects vow that their healthcare coverage would be just as good under the new law; and they also fear that healthcare for all could reduce the appeal of union membership, since comprehensive health coverage has long been one of the sweetest perks of a union job.

This is absolutely not what we've been hearing from leadership. Furthermore, it's a poor talking point. Those who drop out of union still get health benefits from the city. It behooves us to drop this nonsense and figure out how to get off this hamster wheel. The fees go up, the "premium-free" health care costs more and more, and we desperately seek more and more extreme ways of sidestepping the premium while paying some other way. 

A whole lot of us barely even know what union is anymore. At its core, union is something to better the lives of citizens. We join together so as not to be exploited. We take stands. We don't sit and wait and hope. Every UFT member should read Beaten Down, Worked Up by Steven Greenhouse. Those of us working in schools haven't begun to even contemplate what our union could be and do. Fixing health care for us (and for our brothers and sisters in NY State) would be a monumental accomplishment, and we're not even trying.

As to our immediate issue, there is a whole lot of talk about hospitals raising prices. If the state were to take over, prices would be much simpler. And personally, I wouldn't feel bad at all about losing those parasitic insurance companies. There would certainly be savings by cutting corporate profits to zero. There would be savings for medical offices that didn't need to maneuver between 500 different insurance companies. 

And hey, if you feel like going to some doctor that charges top dollar and doesn't accept NY Health Care, there's always New Jersey. 

You're welcome to it.

The MLC Medicare Advantage Plan

Bear with me for a few paragraphs, please. The other day I got a bill from Quest Diagnostics for $151.00. Evidently, it was a 20 dollar co-pay for one test, originally over 200, but after GHI sent them 8 bucks, I had only the co-pay. The other was the full, non-discounted amount. I was not happy.

I called Quest, got a message they were very busy, but if I pressed 1, they would call me back in twelve minutes. They did not. I called again, waited for twenty minutes, and got someone on the phone. This person insisted I call the insurance company, which hadn't paid. I called GHI and got a response immediately. The woman told me there were two conflicting codes, and that one had to be eliminated before they would pay.

I called Quest, waited another twenty minutes, and was explaining the situation to someone when we were disconnected. I called again, waited another twenty minutes, and the woman told me that only the prescribing doctor could change the codes. I didn't recognize the doctor's name, but she eventually identified the doctor's office, which I recognized. After losing an hour and a half over this nonsense, I called that office and left a message. 

Why am I telling this long, drawn-out story? I'm telling it because I am beginning to expect this very sort of nonsense from the Medicare Advantage plan MLC wants us to use. Its history is short, but utter chaos.

GHI has been pretty good to me, and their service is and has been better than other companies, like Quest for example. I was prepared to try the Medicare Advantage program endorsed by the city unions. However, Emblem/ GHI is no longer going to be the provider. It appears if Mayor Swagger and various unions change the law, the provider will be Aetna. I know nothing about Aetna, and I'm not prepared to trust my health to them.

This means when I (and eventually my wife) go to Medicare it will cost us $4584 a year out of pocket to get the medical plan city retirees have been getting gratis forever. And by gratis, I mean after having devoted twenty, thirty or more years to the city. I can swing it, I suppose. (Of course I'm not a DC37 worker trying to get by on minimum wage or thereabouts.) Still, I'm not getting what I was led to expect for the 38 years I've given this system.

Once we open the door to premiums, which we are doing here, we know well where it can lead. It leads to a friend of mine facing 12K a year, now, to keep health care if he retires. Of course that can increase, and it's done so disastrously and spectacularly, leading to red state rebellions. In fact, by changing the law, as Adams and various unions are trying to do, it means that standard Medicare prices can go up by pretty much any amount. Are we going to rely on Mayor Swagger to contain costs? (How is that a photo op for him?)

The Advantage plan sounded acceptable to me when GHI was going to run it. Of course, I live in the area, and I'm well-served by this plan. If I lived anywhere but here or Florida, that would be an issue. I have a friend in PA who's very concerned about this, and will surely have a $4584 annual expense if this goes through.

It's great that this plan pays doctors the same as standard Medicare. It's problematic, though, that MLC didn't bother to recruit doctors to participate. It's further problematic that this payment agreement can change at any time. In a further cost-saving method, the MLC could cut doctor payments, and effectively cut available doctors (assuming they actually bother to recruit any, which they thus far have not). Unlike many, I don't believe this is a Joe Namath Advantage scam. But it could easily degenerate into one. 

Unity is not thinking ahead. This plan is exactly why they won this year by the lowest percentage ever, and exactly why they could lose the next election. Having dealt extensively with the major opposition party, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. It's beyond disappointing that this is all we can muster in such a potentially vibrant and effective union. We, the UFT, are poorly informed and not remotely as active as we could be.

In any case, the entire Medicare Advantage plan was abysmally planned. It lacked vision, and MLC didn't bother at all to prepare for the totally predictable outcry that ensued. Some leaders have their heads planted firmly in the sand, and are still insisting that everything is perfectly fine. However, this is a disaster, no matter how much makeup they paint over it. 

We deserve better.

Medicare Mess Multiplies

I've been observing the bungled NYC Medicare deal for months now, and I'm no happier about it now than I was when I first heard about it. There was a plan, to be administered by Emblem Health, to save money for unions. Staying in standard Medicare would have cost 200 a month per member. 

I read a lot of negative stories about that. They may or may not have been correct, but we'll never know. This plan is effectively dead, and Emblem Health has pulled out of the equation altogether. But the spectre of privatization isn't gone, and the necessity to cut costs somehow seems to remain. NYC workers may soon pay health care premiums for the first time ever. 

The city is in court trying to roll back the lawsuit that prevented the privatized Medicare plan, and we'll see where that goes. Since Mayor Swagger shows no inclination whatsoever to support those of us who keep the city going, it's doubtful we'll be getting any aid from him. It's going to be very tricky to find a solution that works for us, and the people responsible for filing this lawsuit appear to be concerned only with themselves. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from the President of the group that brought the lawsuit:

“The unions shouldn’t be taking this out on current retirees. Their changes should be effectuated on active employees or future retirees,” Pizzitola added.

So, evidently, they should get theirs, and screw the rest of us. This is a little upsetting to me personally as I've chosen to stay in service longer than I really needed to. I could be a retiree, along with her, but now my active and future benefits should be reduced while hers ought to stay the same. No one wants reduced benefits. 

I was not too uncomfortable with Emblem Health administering a city plan. I had cancer around 15 years ago, and they were very good about granting me whatever tests my doctors requested. I'm a lot less sanguine about Aetna, which now that Emblem has walked away, is the next contender to administer the plan. I think they administer our dental plan, and they haven't been helpful at all when I've had issues. I wouldn't be happy to be dumped into a plan they administer. 

I wrote back in March that there may be a negative side to this lawsuit. And indeed, there are possibilities we could see our dental, vision and hearing benefits rolled back. We could see premiums spike, effectively rolling back our compensation in highly inflationary times. It's going to be hard to find a good solution to this issue, and it's going to verge on impossible to find one that satisfies all parties.

I don't have one. It's unfortunate the rollout of this plan was so poorly planned and thought out. It's unfortunate that the MLC didn't even see fit to recruit doctors before rolling out this plan. It's also unfortunate that the people who brought the lawsuit now contend only they should be held harmless while the rest of us should pay. 

The only real solution to this is single payer, pulling our unions out of the health care business altogether, and taking care of all Americans the way most countries take care of their citizens. Given the abysmal state of American politics, that's not happening anytime soon. 

I don't envy the MLC right now, but I certainly hope they think things out better than they did when they engineered the disastrous rollout of the now-failed Medicare Advantage plan.

Medicare and Unintended Consequences

What this country really needs is Medicare for All. Given the state of our government and country, I don't see that on the immediate horizon. Meanwhile, we city workers have our own issues, and the latest one centers around Medicare coverage.

First, I have to applaud Retiree Advocate for taking action to halt fees for standard Medicare. I understand the apprehensions of retired teachers looking at changes to health coverage, and it's far from something to be taken lightly. 

The rollout was awful. The new city program was presented as a fait accompli, a thing of wonder and beauty, and no one in MLC had bothered to anticipate the completely predictable outcry. In fact, they hadn't even bothered to recruit doctors for the program. I knew people who said their doctors wouldn't take it.

We've all seen the Joe Namath commercials and their ilk. At first blush, I took the program as one and the same. It was a natural reaction. After hearing about it at many, many meetings, I started to warm up to it a bit. The fact was it would compensate doctors at the same rate as standard Medicare. It was hard to understand what objection doctors would have toward it, particularly with such a large group of us potentially using it.

I didn't envy proponents. It was very hard to argue this plan would be an improvement, particularly since it did not yet even exist. It was hard to credibly argue it would be terrible for the very same reason. I ultimately didn't believe this would've been a Joe Namath stunt, which is one reason I'd have been willing to try it.  

Unlike others, I was not much troubled by having to get pre-approval for procedures. I had cancer about 15 years ago, and with GHI had to do the same. The company that runs GHI was in charge of this new plan. I can tell you a lot of terrible things about that year, but pre-approval wasn't one of them. Being able to take a restoration of health sabbatical was a great gift that most Americans would not have access to.

I have a friend who works as a school supervisor on Long Island. Right now he's contemplating retirement. He's also contemplating taking a job driving a school bus to cover the 1100 bucks a month it will cost him for health care. I don't much understand my friend, as I'd much prefer teaching five classes to driving a bus, but hey, we're all different. I'm very glad not to be looking at this kind of expense when I retire. I'm very glad we've managed to avoid the premiums many of our brothers and sisters around the state pay.

That said, I'm looking at the judge's decision, and it's not reassuring me that all is good for UFT retirees, or even in-service members. One of the selling points of this plan, according to Mulgrew, was that it would've halted potential premiums for five years. As this program is no longer in effect, neither is that guarantee. 

The judge wrote the following:

First, the respondent and nominal respondent have taken many strides to improve the information available regarding the Plan, and thus, while the steps they have taken may not make things perfect, the Court finds that at this point the implementation of the Medicare Advantage Plan is no longer what thus Court would consider irrational.

The plan is no longer unacceptable to the court, and thus may be implemented. Again, we don't know how good, or how bad the plan would be. Only time would tell that. Now I don't speak for Michael Mulgrew, but if I were him I'd have made damn sure this plan worked well, because if it didn't, the fallout would've made hellfire look like a walk in the park. We may never know. Or we may, but I'll get to that.

 

Here are some more excerpts from the ruling:

The respondent was well within its right to work with the Municipal Labor Council to change how retirees get their health insurance... as the petitioners freely acknowledge, the New York State Constitution does not guarantee specific health insurance for retirees. 

However, based on this Court’s reading of New York City Administrative Code Section 12-126, so long as the respondent is giving retirees the option of staying in their current program, they may not do so by charging them the $191 the respondent intends to charge. This section states unequivocally that “[t]he 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.2” 

So the city may change how retirees get insurance, but may not charge $191 monthly under the current code. Of course, the code could be changed. Or perhaps the city could place all retirees in the Advantage program the unions devised, or indeed some Joe Namath program if it saw fit. I don't anticipate the latter, but I'm not certain about the former. Mayor Swagger went from objecting to this plan to endorsing it, likely because it saved the city money. (Since he's taken office, the only thing I've found consistent about him is how wonderful he believes himself to be.)

There is another issue, of course. That is that this plan was designed to save money somehow. If that money isn't saved here, will it be saved some other way? Will the city swallow the cost? If not, will NYC employees rise up en masse in protest? I know some of my former friends in MORE were borderline orgasmic over the prospect of strike. Most teachers I know, while willing to walk for safety last year, do not share that enthusiasm. Some wouldn't even have done that.

I recall that one I was friendly with said flat out to me, "I will be a scab." This person was shocked at my reaction, evidently expecting me to laugh it off or something. A big flaw in our union is that a lot of people do not understand very well what union even is. And while opposition will jump all over that, blaming Unity, I don't believe the fanaticism some of them hold is very appealing to most. (And no, I'm not knocking anyone for being socialist. I'm a huge fan of Bernie Sanders. There's something else there, and everyone in opposition who's worked with this faction knows it.) It certainly didn't appeal to me when they falsely wrote I was a "right-winger," for reasons that continue to elude me.

Furthermore, we have very real right-wingers in our union. The ones I know were happy to have me as chapter leader, but would not have supported me for, say, US Senator. That was fine with me. I was happy to enforce the contract for everyone regardless of political persuasion. I was not happy with the one willing to cross our picket line, though, and he represents a not inconsiderable portion of our union.

Of course we need to educate our brothers and sisters. Trump supporters benefit from union as much as anyone. Spreading the word will be a big job. This is the fault of not only ourselves, but also our school system. I don't like to brag, but I'm a high school graduate, and aside from hearing a Woody Guthrie song here and there, I didn't learn much about union until I joined one. I learned even more when I became an activist, and a whole lot more when I became a chapter leader. 

I frankly don't expect this to go away for good. Opposition can promise the sun and the stars. We will get back all the givebacks from 2005, we'll beat the pattern, and we'll get 10% raises every year, unless we want more. Okay, great. That said, I've had opposition members scheme behind my back, outraged that I'd introduce a class size resolution without their explicit approval. I read the opposition blogs sometimes, and have very recently seen myself blatantly misrepresented in more than one of them. Now I know myself fairly well, better, in fact, than any other blogger.. A few weeks ago, I spoke to one blogger about a correction, and was told no, that wasn't gonna happen. Okay, fine. Keep making promises.

But no matter how loud opposition screams, even if I get up and scream with them, this can come back to bite us. It doesn't matter whether or not we're retired. I absolutely hope I'm wrong. I absolutely hope we continue to receive premium-free health care. 

That's not gonna be a walk in the park, whatever anyone else may tell you.