By Joe Maniscalco

A letter sent to New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and signed by 35 retired union leaders — largely from the uniformed services — is calling further BS on claims that pending legislation aimed at protecting municipal retiree healthcare from privatization would somehow impinge on collective bargaining rights.

The letter, which also went out to every other member of the New York City Council, says, “The Municipal Labor Committee [MLC] and others are being less than truthful in telling you that supporting Intro 1099-2023 is an attack on collective bargaining. We strongly disagree with that statement. As former labor officials, we have the utmost respect for collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining cannot conflict with federal, state or municipal laws and retirees cannot bargain. Very simply, the Taylor law specifically prohibits unions — or the MLC, from bargaining for retired employees.”

New York City municipal retirees have spent more than two years fighting back against ongoing attempts to strip them of their traditional Medicare benefits and push them into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan — a struggle that mirrors similar battles being fought by retirees in other cities across the country against the privatization of traditional Medicare.

“The MLC’s claim that Int. 1099-2023 would violate collective bargaining is simply false,” Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees said in a statement. “This bill does not interfere with the collective bargaining process in any way. It simply protects retirees from being forced into an inferior Medicare Advantage plan that strips away access to our long-term doctors, physicians, and treatment facilities.”

City Council members — despite being touted as the most progressive bunch New York City has ever had — have largely run away from the Medicare Advantage issue under tremendous pressure from MLC heads Michael Mulgrew, Henry Garrido and Harry Nespoli.

So far, just 17 City Council members have stepped up to support Intro. 1099.

“Unfortunately, the MLC has been less than trustworthy about a lot of issues lately,” NYC Laborers Local 924 President Kyle Simmons told Work-Bites.

Simmons has been a vocal opponent of the ongoing campaign to privatize retiree healthcare.

“It goes to show the depth they are willing to deceive the individuals they took an oath to represent,” Simmons added. “I only wish that the [active civil service workers] were also motivated on this issue.”

Retirees facing the well-documented delays and denials of care associated with profit-driven Medicare Advantage programs, along with the loss of their doctors, are calling on the New York City Council to hold a hearing on Intro. 1099.

In June, Speaker Adams [D-28th District] sounded as if she had already bought into MLC claims that Intro. 1099 would undermine collective bargaining when she told reporters, “We don’t want to unilaterally intervene in a process that intersects with collective bargaining.”

In response to Work-Bites’ request for comment, the Speaker’s office reiterated what it’s already said previously following State Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank’s decision blocking NYC from implementing its Medicare Advantage contract with Aetna — that it “continues to monitor this case now that it is moving to a higher court, while we seek opportunities to bring the parties to the table towards a resolution. Introduction 1099 was introduced in June and is going through the legislative process.” 

Council of Municipal Retiree Organizations [COMRO] President Stu Eber told Work-Bites he hopes the letter defending passage of Intro. 1099 signed by almost three dozen retired New York City union leaders will be a “wake-up call for the Administration, City Council, and MLC to remember our history of the collective commitment to preserving Social Security and Medicare for all New York City employees and retirees.”

Earlier this week, UFT President Michael Mulgrew called the Medicare Advantage plan the MLC negotiated with Aetna “unprecedented” and said there’s “nothing like it in the country.”

“As far as I am concerned,” Mulgrew told Work-Bites, “you saw just last week, New York passed the new rate increases for medical insurance. Double-digits,  unacceptable; this is what the fight is really about. I am fully confident that the Medicare Advantage Program we negotiated with Aetna — it’s unprecedented — nothing like it in the country. It's never been done before. But in the end, this is all about a fight about healthcare.”

That said, Mulgrew also made it clear he does not support passage of the NY Health Act — proposed legislation to bring single-payer healthcare to the Empire State.

“It's a federal issue,” he said. “You cannot bankrupt your state's economy to make a point. We have seen two other states try this and back away from it quickly.”

When pressed on the federal government’s ability to address the healthcare crisis in a serious way, Mulgrew said, “I have to talk about other things.”

“In terms of healthcare,” he said, “it's really about our job to continue what we can do. But I can't say we are going to blow a $5 billion hole in the state budget. Then what are we going to do for education? What are we going to do for social services? These are real issues that need to be thought through.”

Pizzitola said the only thing “unprecedented” is “unions stealing from their former members” and “forcing them into inferior managed care.”

“Michael Mulgrew’s comments are further proof why he shouldn’t be responsible for healthcare,” Pizzitola told Work-Bites. “It’s unacceptable for a union leader to negotiate away, or diminish benefits of a retiree. And now he’s speaking about double-digit insurance rates that are ACA rates. They are very different than employer group rates, which are coming in at 4-7 percent.”

The head of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees further said retirees are in this situation because for the first time in history a union — the UFT —negotiated a contract “partially funded on the backs of other unions and retirees.”

“The Medicare Advantage plan Michael Mulgrew is pushing is exactly like every other Medicare advantage plan out there,” Pizzitola said. “He’s reducing our benefits, forcing us into managed healthcare inferior to Medicare so he can use the value of our healthcare in his collective bargaining. That’s criminal. The Aetna rep admitted in the MLC meeting the only thing custom about his prized managed care plan is they added two hospitals to the NYC plan. Statute and the constitution protect our pensions from diminishment. Sadly, our healthcare isn’t covered under that, which is allowing him to negotiate it away.”

In their letter defending the legality of Intro. 1099, municipal retirees urge Speaker Adams and the rest of the New York City Council to ask themselves one simple question: “How does Aetna generate a profit from a government-run health care system?”

The answer, they insist, is simple. “On the backs of our retirees, by denying them access to procedures and tests without their approval.”

The letter continues, “At a time when many progressive politicians are supporting Medicare for all, NYC wants to deny retired NYC employees’ access to Medicare without the approval of a for-profit, healthcare manager. It is simply wrong and violates the promises made to them.”

— Additional reporting by Bob Hennelly

Read the signed letter in its entirety below: