Thanks to our friends over at the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, we have a copy of the 1992 Agreement between the Municipal Labor Committee and NYC that remains in effect.
Michael Mulgrew in his misleading FAQs stated the following:
There is absolutely no need to clarify a right we already have or change the HIP-HMO benchmark where NYC currently pays us up to $925 a month for each employee guaranteed and retiree's healthcare is also protected by law. If they change the law, the City could pay a much lower rate. Do you honestly think we will get better healthcare at a cut rate?
If the City-MLC create a better plan for less, under current law employees and retirees could voluntarily switch to the new plan and the City would save money as they would not have to pay the full $925. We would have the option to keep what we have or switch to the better, cheaper new plan, no need to change the law.
Mulgrew is just wrong saying the law has to change for us to keep the healthcare we have now.
Read this part of the 1992 MLC-City Agreement closely. It says,
It is understood and agreed that the parties will continue to bargain over and determine by mutual agreement the terms and conditions of employee health benefits.
"Determine by mutual agreement" is strong language that prohibits the City from unilaterally changing anything.
It looks like Mulgrew's sole motive in changing the Administrative Code is to save the City money on our backs with givebacks on healthcare.
Any change would also do away with our contractual right in Article 3G1 to a choice of premium free healthcare plans.
The 1992 City MLC Agreement: