Massachusetts House Seeks to Limit Collective Bargaining

Elise Amendola/Associated Press

Teachers protested proposed changes in bargaining rights for municipal workers at the State House in Boston.

By ABBY GOODNOUGH

Published: April 29, 2011

RelatedBOSTON — Union leaders in this traditionally labor-friendly state are fuming over a plan passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives this week to curtail bargaining rights for municipal workers, a highly unusual move by Democratic lawmakers.

• In Florida, G.O.P. Help for Unions(April 30, 2011)

Enlarge This Image

Elise Amendola/Associated Press

Steven L. Levy, a Republican state representative in Massachusetts, spoke with constituents like Carolyn Balinskas, a speech therapist in a public school district, about proposed changes.

Enlarge This Image

Steven Senne/Associated Press

Gov. Deval Patrick

The bill, passed late Tuesday night in advance of planned labor protests, would let local officials unilaterally sethealth insurance co-payments and deductibles for their employees after a monthlong discussion period with unions. Leaders of the House said it would save cities and towns $100 million in the budget year that starts in July.

While Republican-controlled legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio this year have weakened the ability of public-sector unions to bargain collectively, and Republicans in other states have pushed for a variety of curbs on unions, Massachusetts is the first state where a Democratic-led chamber has voted to limit bargaining rights.

“Everybody’s pretty upset,” said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts A.F.L.-C.I.O. “It’s hard for me to understand how my good friends in the Massachusetts House, that have told me they support collective bargaining, could do this.”

But the bill faces uncertain prospects in the Senate, which is also controlled by Democrats. Senate President Therese Murray said Wednesday that she was pleased the House had “moved the needle” on the contentious issue of health care costs, but she has not endorsed the plan.

Dave Falcone, a Senate spokesman, said Friday that Ms. Murray “has been consistent in her message that something has to be done, that there has to be savings, and that everyone should have a seat at the table.”

While Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, has not pledged to sign the bill if it reaches his desk, he proposed a similar plan early this year and praised the House this week for its “important” vote. He also raised concerns about a provision of the House plan allowing towns and cities to opt out of it and said unions must not have veto power over municipal health plans.

On Friday, Mr. Patrick said through a spokesman that labor must have “a meaningful role” in determining how to control health care costs, though he did not elaborate.

The House voted 111-42 in favor of the plan, with 81 Democrats approving it.

Representative Brian Dempsey, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he supported it — and in fact helped create it — after seeing no other way of avoiding disastrous cuts to local public safety and education budgets. The legislature had urged municipalities and their unions to curb rising health costs for several years, he said, but with no success.

“We have to get a handle on this,” he said. “The fact of the matter is costs are going up and the money is not going to the areas we desperately need it to.”

He acknowledged, though, that it was “certainly difficult” to hear labor’s angry response.

Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that supported the plan, said the health care costs for cities and towns had been growing by about 11 percent a year and “cannibalizing” local budgets.

“Yes, it’s a small curtailment of their collective bargaining powers,” Mr. Widmer said of municipal unions, “but with the corollary that it will save lots of their members’ jobs.”

Under the House plan, co-payments and deductibles for municipal workers would have to be at least equal to those of state employees. And unions would retain the right to negotiate what portion of premiums their members paid.

Mr. Patrick and House leaders have sought to head off comparisons with the legislation that Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed earlier this year, saying the Massachusetts plan does not go nearly as far. That did not stop the Republican Party of Wisconsin from proclaiming Mr. Patrick “an ally” on Friday and congratulating him on the bill. Mr. Patrick is to speak at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin on Saturday.

“It’s refreshing to see that even a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts recognizes the importance of collective bargaining reform,” Mark Jefferson, the Wisconsin Republican Party’s executive director, said in a statement.

Braun: Expert with ties to N.J. says if pensions aren't protected, nation will suffer

Published: Monday, April 25, 2011, 7:30 AM     Updated: Monday, April 25, 2011, 11:27 AM

 By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist 

Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerGov. Chris Christie speaks at a press conference at the Statehouse earlier this month. A funds manager says Christie's attempts to reduce pension benefits will have a detrimental effect on the country's future.

He is an unlikely Jeremiah, a funds manager in a pinstripe suit with a résumé that includes a stint as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond, Va. Yet Thomas Mackell Jr. is warning of a future in which the homeless elderly live under bridges and the old and the young engage in “intergenerational warfare” over disappearing jobs.

Mackell, a graduate of Seton Hall and Rutgers, spoke last week to a convention of Bell System retirees in Atlantic City. He got up to speak at the same time the lawyer for the Christie administration, miles away in Trenton, rose to tell the state Supreme Court it should not bother itself with “minor” breaches of constitutional law involving schools.

There is a connection between the two events. Peter Verniero, the former court member and state attorney general hired by the governor to defend cuts in school aid, represented a strain of political thought that the rich cannot be taxed further to help the poor. His governor regularly bashes public employee unions as “selfish” and “greedy” and wants to reduce pension benefits.

Mackell takes opposite views. Unions protect the middle class, he says, pensions are essential, and, if the rich do not pay a greater share of their wealth, then the “nation faces a horrendous future.”

“What he had to say was pretty frightening,” said Jack Brennan of Hillsdale, chairman of the Association of BellTel Retirees, a group with 112,000 members throughout the country.“If something doesn’t happen soon, this country will go the same way as every other empire,” said Mackell. Citing the growing income gap between rich and poor, the deterioration of infrastructure, and, most of all, the problems facing the 77 million aging members of the Baby Boom, the financial funds manager called America’s prospects “abysmal.”

“But his purpose wasn’t to scare us, but rather to energize us into taking action.”

The action — protecting pension benefits and health care for retirees. “We have to keep fighting for what we fought for years ago,” Brennan said.

What’s worrisome about Mackell is his ability to see the future. Years ago, he predicted unemployment would top 9 percent, states would take bargaining rights from public employee unions, and Congress would seriously consider cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits — all ideas that seemed over the top then.

Now Mackell, son of a former Queens district attorney, travels the country warning of the consequences of the shift in pensions from defined benefits — in which retirees are guaranteed a set amount based on the number of years they worked — to defined contributions — in which retirees contribute to and manage their own pension funds, mostly through 401(k) plans.

“It’s a recipe for disaster,” he said in an interview, noting the average 401(k) account amounts to some $50,000. In the past 30 years, Mackell said, the percentage of workers in defined benefit plans dropped from more than 80 percent to less than 30 percent.

“Fewer than half of the Baby Boomers have plans for their retirement and a third saved nothing at all,” he says, adding that 401(k)s were intended to supplement, not replace, pensions.

Many will be unable to retire, says Mackell, who heads an association of benefit administrators and is author of “When the Good Pensions Go Away” published by Wiley. He predicts growing hostility between young and old workers.

“Good jobs won’t be there for the younger workers because older workers will hold on to them,” Mackell said. Unless, of course, seniority rights are taken away as a cost-saving tool.

He says defined pension benefits were eliminated to help corporations improve profit margins and increase shareholder income.

“The risk has been transferred to workers who have no clue how to manage stock portfolios,” he says. “Even people on Wall Street don’t do well predicting how stocks will react, but you’re asking people who don’t know the difference between a stock and a bond to make decisions that could make the difference between a future of comfort and a future of poverty.”

In his speeches, he encourages workers and retirees to lobby Congress to require a restoration of defined benefit pensions. Mackell has a website, AmericansforBenefits. org, that posts a petition asking for the elimination of pension and health-care benefits for members of Congress until workers are guaranteed good pensions.

“If 5 million people sign it,” he says, “it will get their attention.”

N.J. alerts 200K Medicaid recipients of requirement to enroll in HMO

Published: Friday, April 29, 2011, 6:25 AM     Updated: Friday, April 29, 2011, 6:41 AM

 By Susan K. Livio/Statehouse Bureau 

Ed Murray/The Star-LedgerThen Governor-elect Chris Christie looks on as Department of Human Services Commissioner Jennifer Velez speaks in this January 2010 file photo.

TRENTON — Not content to wait for the state budget to pass in late June, the Department of Human Services is alerting about 200,000 Medicaid recipients — many with developmental or mental disabilities — that they will be required to enroll in an HMO.

Gov. Chris Christie’s administration anticipates the move will save about $41 million over the budget year that begins July 1.

But at least one advocacy group is worried people with complicated medical histories will be forced to find new doctors or new drugs, disrupting their care.

"We understand about shared sacrifice. But the time frame is too rapid for people to really understand what’s happening and to make a choice," said Beverly Roberts, a director at The Arc of New Jersey. "There are concerns about people with the most complex conditions. They have to pick one HMO for all their needs.’’

The letters, dated today and expected to be mailed next week, tell Medicaid recipients "you do not need to take any action at this time’’ because the federal government must first approve the switch. But approval is expected.

Roberts said she’s telling Arc members that based on meetings she’s attended with state officials, the first wave of Medicaid clients will have to select a managed care provider by June 10, or one will be chosen for them.

This group includes 137,000 people with numerous disabilities, and about 11,000 children in the child welfare system, both of whom are covered by Medicaid under the more costly pay-as-go plan, according to department statistics.

Many services will be gradually phased into managed care plans. They include adult and pediatric medical day care, prescription drug coverage, and home health care, Arc and state officials said.

Arc officials asked whether some clients with complicated medical histories can be exempt from enrolling into an HMO, Roberts said. "The answer is no — it’s not in the cards at this point," she said.

Christie has said the state must make dramatic changes to close a projected $1.3 billion deficit in Medicaid, a $4.4 billion program supported by state and federal funds. About 1.3 million New Jerseyans get their health care from Medicaid.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said he was aware the Christie administration is moving ahead, but that won’t preclude the Legislature from debating whether the decision should stand.

"Until we know the details and make sure there is a proper level of care, it’s not a budget savings," Sweeney said.

Assembly Budget and Appropriations Committee Chairman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) agreed.

"We want to ensure there is no disruption in care that would damage client health and ultimately lead to much higher costs for taxpayers," Greenwald said.

N.J. plans to seek federal approval to reduce parent eligibility for FamilyCare health insurance

Published: Friday, April 29, 2011, 8:35 PM     Updated: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 8:35 AM

 By Jarrett Renshaw/Statehouse Bureau 

Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerSenator Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) sponsor the 2008 bill to expand the NJFamilyCare program. Now, Gov. Christie wants to reduce the number of parents eligible for the FamilyCare health insurance program, with federal approval.

TRENTON — New Jersey plans to seek federal approval to reduce the number of parents eligible for a popular health insurance program aimed at poor working families, officials of the Department of Human Services said today.

The decision to close the FamilyCare program to parents with a household income above the federal poverty level — about $18,530 annually for a family of three — is part of Gov. Chris Christie’s plan to save $300 million by overhauling Medicaid, the officials said.

The state also plans to raise premiums and co-pays on FamilyCare participants, they said.

The proposal, announced by Jennifer Velez, the commissioner of Human Services, received a mixed response from lawmakers and advocacy groups.

"It’s unacceptable," said State Sen. Joe Vitale (D-Middlesex), who helped bring the program to the state. "This is not about personal responsibility, this is about a single mother struggling to keep the lights on, and I am going to do all I can do to fight it."

Known nationally as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, FamilyCare is a Medicaid-sponsored program for families who do not have access to affordable employer insurance, and can’t afford the steep cost of private health insurance.

As of February, there were 916,476 people enrolled in the program, which included 668,315 children who would not lose coverage.

With the loss of federal stimulus funds and the state’s poor financial situation, tough choices have to be made, state officials said.

"There are no easy solutions, but the comprehensive waiver framework outlines sound policy reform principles, which will allow New Jersey to manage the program benefits in accordance with budget resources," Nicole Brossoie, a spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services, said in a written statement.

Last year, the Christie administration froze entry into the program for parents who earned above 133 percent of the poverty level — $24,645 for a family of three — a move that did not require federal approval because the money came from the state.

As a result, nearly 50,000 residents were denied coverage, according to Ray Castro, a senior policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective, a research organization. He said that under the new proposal about 90,000 people would be denied coverage.

"This was a bit of a surprise," Castro said. "We were told the waiver was about redesigning, not cutting, but this is a cut. I don’t care how you slice it."

Critics say the freeze is not only bad news for struggling parents who will be left with few alternatives, but for their children as well.

"There are plenty of statistics and studies that show that parents who don’t have health insurance are less apt to get insurance for the children, even when they’re eligible," said Mary Coogan, assistant director at Advocates for Children of New Jersey.

The parents who are being denied access to FamilyCare will be eligible for insurance under the Affordable Care Act in a few years, with the federal government paying the full cost, Vitale said.

"Can’t we wait and help people who are working hard, but can’t afford insurance," he said.

In announcing the new proposal, Velez said the state planned to combine all of its Medicaid waivers into one global waiver. She said streamlining the system would result in significant savings while giving the state more flexibility to control costs.

Velez said the state will also seek to move more Medicaid recipients into managed care, and try other cost-saving measures suggested by advocates for the poor and disabled.

Lowell Arye, executive director of the Alliance for the Betterment of Citizens with Disabilities, who was briefed on the plan today, applauded the state’s effort to retain programs by seeking more federal funds dollars and enacting administrative changes.

"It’s a reasonable proposal, though we need more information," said Arye, who in the past has been a critic of the state’s handling of Medicaid.

Overall, state officials said they expected to realize $540 million in Medicaid savings without cutting services or programs.

But Robert N. Davison, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Essex County, was dubious.

"I commend their efforts," Davison said, "but getting $540 million in savings without cutting services is the type of delusion only a bureaucrat can embrace."

After Rutgers students stage 35-hour sit-in, president says he won't support tuition freeze

Published: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 8:00 AM

 By Tom Haydon/The Star-Ledger 

EnlargeTom Wright-Piersanti/The Star-LedgerStudents are camped outside the administrative office at Rutgers in support of the nine students still inside on day two of a sit-in. (Tom Wright-Piersanti/The Star-Ledger)Rutgers students extend sit-in protest to second day gallery (11 photos)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

NEW BRUNSWICK — Rutgers University students who staged 35-hour sit-in at the campus administration building this week to protest tuition hikes "were courteous and caused no damage," university President Richard McCormick said in his first public response to the demonstration.

McCormick said he will discuss the protesters' issues, but with members of the Rutgers University Student Assembly.

"As I have done in the past and will continue to do in the future, I will work with the elected representatives of the student government, RUSA, on issues of concern to students," McCormick said in statement released late Friday.

McCormick said he will meet early next week to talk with the new assembly president and other assembly officers and students.

Shortly after 10 a.m. Wednesday, about 20 students took over two rooms on the third-floor of the Old Queens administration building on the university's New Brunswick campus. Nine of the students remained until 8:30 p.m. Thursday, when they left peacefully.

The students had six demands, including that McCormick publicly call for a tuition freeze, and that the university provide students with up to 10 transcripts free of charge. The protesters also demanded that funds raised through the "Our Rutgers, Our Future Campaign" be given to the Equal Opportunity Fund to assist the neediest students.

McCormick said the administration will not support a tuition freeze, adding that said state aid has dropped to 1994 levels. McCormick said the administration will recommend only the tuition necessary to maintain institutional quality and university's needs. Any increase, he said, will be accompanied by an increase in funding for Rutgers Assistance Grants to help needy students.

Unions to rally against Wall Street, Mayor Bloomberg on May 12, protesting potential budget cuts

CELESTE KATZ

Monday, April 25th 2011, 4:00 AM

Susan Walsh/AP

Demonstrators will rally against Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Wall Street on May 12.

RELATED NEWS

• Rescued firehouses may get hosed
• Banks bailed out, homeless booted out
• City must grit and Bear it
• Why New Yorkers may soon kiss their tax cuts goodbye
• Voice of the People for September 26, 2010
• New watchdog under Wall St. overhaul protects consumers

Unions are hoping it'll be the shout heard around Wall Street - and City Hall. They'd also like its echo to reverberate into 2013.

On May 12, demonstrators will stage what they hope will be a massive rally against the financial industry - and Mayor Bloomberg - over policies and budget cuts that could mean layoffs and the slashing of social services.

No question about it: The protesters have got to be smelling blood as third-termer Bloomberg struggles to burnish a blizzard-tarnished legacy.

Organizers are billing the rally as "The Day We Made Wall Street Stand Still." Participants include community groups and unions such as the United Federation of Teachers and 1199/SEIU.

"The big banks wrecked our economy and are back to making billions in profits and lavish bonuses, while the rest of us are still cleaning up the mess," said Mary Brosnahan of the Coalition for the Homeless.

She says the mayor should "ask Wall Street bankers to contribute their fair share to fixing New York City, rather than enacting devastating cuts."

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser, asked about the groups' gripes, retorted, "If only they'd raised their voices when Washington and Albany slashed billions of dollars in funding for New York City, which is what's causing the need for cuts at the local level."

UFT chief Michael Mulgrew begs to differ: "We were up in Albany trying to get the millionaire's tax put back. It was a shame that City Hall would not join us."

He says the unions are saying, "Look, why are we being made to pay for what the financial institutions did?"

As David Birdsell of Baruch College sees it, rallies against the cuts aren't only about generating discontent with Bloomberg, but also about setting the stage for the next mayoral election.

Birdsell notes that in the past five or so mayoral cycles, with the possible exception of 2001, "There hasn't been a really kind of strong, Democratic unionist argument for the way the city should run."

With Bloomberg out of the picture in 2013 and no obvious GOP hopeful, Democratic candidates are already making noise.

"This is an effort [to] suggest what kind of debate we should be having," Birdsell said. "We know that people are not confident about the economy - or their part in it."

Wall Street executive suites may barely hear protesters' chants. It may be too late to expect Bloomberg to alter his attitude toward what he sees as the city's economic engine. Unions and citizens alike may well end up feeling the budget knife.

But one thing's sure: 2013 hopefuls will be listening. Whether the unions' theme will be their rallying cry in the next election is a story yet to be written.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/25/2011-04-25_may_12_rally_on_wall_street_aimed_at_bloomberg__and_his_successor_union_target13.html#ixzz1L10oJXAe