MLC Continues Its War on NYC Retirees—But Retirees are Answering Back
NYC municipal retirees fighting back against Mayor Eric Adams’ ongoing Medicare Advantage push demonstrate outside the office of Council Member Erik Bottcher last month. Bottcher has since signed onto Intro. 1096— the bill protecting the Traditional Medicare benefits of retirees. Photo/Joe Maniscalco
By Joe Maniscalco
It was déjà vu all over again this week in NYC when the head of the Municipal Labor Committee [MLC] once more fired off another letter to City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams warning her that legislative efforts to protect the Traditional Medicare benefits of 250,000 municipal retirees “should not be permitted to proceed.”
The letter signed by MLC Chair Harry Nespoli alternatively characterized Intro. 1096 as both a “Trojan horse” and a “programmatic straitjacket,” as well as being “destabilizing.”
New York City Council Member Chris Marte [D-1st District] introduced the measure last fall in an effort to stop Mayor Eric Adams from stripping retirees of their earned healthcare benefits and pushing them into a profit-driven Medicare Advantage plan Hizzoner previously derided as a “bait and switch.”
“We've heard a lot of these arguments in the past and have pushed back on them,” Council Member Marte told Work-Bites this week. “What reaffirms not only our legislation—but the whole [Medicare Advantage] fight in general—are the decisions of the court. The court has ruled 11 times on the side of the retirees—and even in some of the memos of these court cases, they said that the City Council has the power, and the right, to legislate in this manner. That gives us the green light to say that our legislation works—it can be done within the City Council. It's all about having the political courage and will to do so.”
Nespoli had previously written to the Speaker in October claiming that Marte’s bill is “violative of law.” At that time, the letter had four co-signers: DC37 Executive Director Henry Garrido, UFT President Michael Mulgrew, Teamsters Local 237 President Greg Floyd, and CWA Local 1180 President Gloria Middleton. Curiously, none of those co-signers appear on the latest letter Nespoli sent to Speaker Adams on Feb. 11.
Work-Bites reached out to both the MLC and Speaker Adams for comment on this story, but has yet to hear back.
UFT Two-Step and Retirees Answer Back
The absence of Mulgrew’s signature, however, should not be construed as a signal the UFT president supports Intro. 1096—because he doesn’t. Despite officially bailing on Mayor Adams’ ongoing campaign to herd municipal retirees into a profit-driven health insurance plan that would subject them to well-documented delays and denials of care through the use of prior authorizations—a UFT spokesperson told Work-Bites this week that the union still opposes Intro. 1096.
“We believe the bill as written is illegal on its face because it brings the City Council into a collective bargaining issue, which is expressly forbidden,” a spokesperson for the UFT told Work-Bites in an email.
Apparently, Mulgrew—who is seeking re-election—doesn’t see any contradiction in opposing Intro. 1096 while simultaneously pushing new legislation granting underpaid New York City paraprofessionals a much-needed $10K salary boost solely by City Council fiat.
“The proposed paraprofessional legislation does not insert the City Council into collective bargaining. It is outside contract negotiations and would draw from general funds,” the UFT spokesperson added.
New York City municipal retiree and 9/11-related cancer survivor Roberta Gonzalez told Work Bites this week that she “already played the work game and won it” because she has lived long enough to retire.
The Brooklynite worked for the City of New York for nearly 40 years, and was among those administrative employees who were ordered back to their Downtown offices to “clean up” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
“There were clear rules to that game,” Gonzalez adds. “Union rules. Legislative rules. Rules of conduct. I abided by those rules, played the game and retired under those rules. Now that game is over for me—I can’t go back and change those rules. I can’t go back and not work dangerous jobs. I can’t go back and not get the cancers that I walked away with from my work with the city. The city should not be allowed to go back and change the rules that were in force while I was working. Those rules that I retired under promised me my original Medicare and my supplemental GHI—paid for by the City.”
Indeed, that’s been the deal in NYC for nearly 60 years—and defined much of what working families here have always thought of as “good city jobs.” On March 30, 2023, however, Mayor Eric Adams signed a five-year-contract with Aetna in an effort to scrap that deal and replace it with a profit-driven Medicare Advantage plan that makes money by denying recipients like Gonzalez the care they need—when they need it.
Stu Eber, head of the Council of Municipal Retiree Organizations [COMRO], says that just like the last time around, Nespoli and the rest of the MLC is once again trying to misrepresent retirees and their attempts to enact City Council legislation to further protect the Traditional Medicare benefits they earned on the job.
“The [MLC] letter says, ‘seize control of City health benefits from the unions representing them in violation of state and local law,’” Eber pointed out in an email to Work-Bites this week. “‘Them’ does not include retirees. Retirees are not employees, are not represented by a collective bargaining unit, are not covered by any union contract—and do not have a vote on the MLC. The state courts have recognized our legitimate claims to protection for our Medicare benefits.”
Suspended DC 37 Retirees Association officer Neal Frumkin also challenges the MLC’s interpretation of existing law.
“Their interpretation of the law has been roundly defeated in the courts,” Frumkin told Work-Bites. “They have lost over and over again—and the City Council ought to take that into consideration. When someone from the MLC says what the law is and what the law is not—they’re just saying things for their own purposes. If you don’t challenge it, you could think that they’re correct. But the courts have found their interpretations are incorrect.”
Intro. 1096 still has fewer than 10 sponsors, but Marte says he’s hopeful three or four more of his colleagues will be signing onto the bill over the next few weeks.
“The Speaker needs to hold a hearing on this bill,” New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees President Marianne Pizzitola told Work-Bites this week. “All of the facts need to come out publicly under oath—on both sides.”
Speaker Adams assured Work-Bites in December that “retirees are also a priority of this council,” but shot down the idea of giving retiree legislation a hearing.
“We are watching the court proceedings and the way that the courts are working through the different cases coming through,” the Speaker said. “Those court processes are not done yet.”
Those proceedings, of course, are not yet done because Mayor Eric Adams keeps appealing rulings in favor of retirees trying to retain their Traditional Medicare benefits. The Speaker is also on record lamenting that prolonged litigation process, and calling for “closure.”
Meanwhile, Marte says “current members of unions like DC37 have received letters [against Intro. 1096] from their unions telling them to call our office.”
"It’s been very interesting,” Marte told Work-Bites, “because every call has been very supportive of what we are doing—and really shocked that their unions would send individual members those letters. We actually had one person come into our office yesterday and say, ‘I can't believe I got this letter—but I'm with you all the way.’ And so, we feel confident that we're on the right side of working people here in New York.”
According to Gonzalez, Nespoli and other union heads continuing to back Mayor Adams’ ongoing Medicare Advantage push are “trying to have it both ways.”
“They want us retirees who no longer work and who they do not represent to provide them with givebacks,” she added. “When we did do givebacks when I was working, it was in exchange for something. We got something…vacation time…fewer hours…or a raise. Now, they just want to take something away from us retirees. But we will never have an opportunity to renegotiate anything—because we are not working—and the unions cannot represent us.”