This email from the NYC Organization of Public Sector Retirees came late last night. It looks like the battle to stop Mulgrewcare will take place quickly at the City Council in January.
| ||||||
|
The Official Blog of the Independent Community of Educators, a caucus of the United Federation of Teachers
In December's NY Teacher, Tom Murphy explains Mulgrew's reasoning when he says the City is "threatening our collective bargaining rights":
ReplyDelete"Justice Lyle Frank's decision effectively eliminated the authority of the MLC to bargain collectively with the city on health care. He said the city had no obligation to offer a choice of health care plans."
According to Marian Pizzitola, the City can't unilaterally eliminate GHI Senior Care without the MLC agreeing to it, thus the Judge's opinion isn't valid and the UFT could sue if the City took the nuclear option (i.e. eliminating SeniorCare). The fact is, amending Administrative Code 12-126 does nothing to preserve collective bargaining over healthcare -- it just avoids the conflict over collective bargaining altogether by conceding to the City what they want.
Also, in the "President's Perspective" column in December's NY Teacher, Mulgrew addresses specific areas for healthcare savings that far exceed the $600 million required, including, "a bill that would establish an Office of Healthcare Accountability. The office would require all city hospitals to disclose the cost of medical procedures, and it would audit city spending on employee-related health care costs. [...] The city could be overpaying private hospitals by as much as $2.4 billion a year..."
ReplyDeleteIf the union acknowledges that there are other better, viable, cost-saving options that don't require concessions on the part of UFT members, why is this not the chief issue that the union mobilizes around?