A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
Municipal labor unions comprising the Municipal Labor Committee recently voted to endorse the city's plan to replace city retirees’ Medicare and supplemental coverage with an inferior plan run by a for-profit insurer. The new plan will subject important services to prior authorization and require service co-payments which, in my case, will far exceed the reduced premiums touted by the city.
City retirees are not members of MLC labor unions. We do not pay union dues and do not vote to elect union leaders. Many retirees were former longstanding and dues-paying union members. But we have no say in union policies and positions. MLC members represent active members only, Why then does the MLC get a say in the health care coverage of 250,000 city retirees who they do not represent? Why have retirees who have loudly opposed the new plan and representative coalitions been excluded from the discussions? Why do retirees have to pursue legal action to be heard?
A recent letter from the city's Office of Labor Relations to retirees thanks us for our service. Why doesn't the city demonstrate its appreciation by engaging retirees in the process instead of offering gratuitous plaudits?
Arnold Kingston
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here