June 25, 2008
Vetoing health savings
Public employee unions could veto any attempt to alter retiree health benefits--even if a government employer found a way to offer the same benefits for less money, under a bill passed Tuesday by both houses of the Legislature.
The bill imposes a one-year moratorium during which time state and local governments cannot diminish retiree benefits or the amount of money taxpayers spend providing those benefits--unless the union representing current employees agrees to such benefits for themselves.
In the case of Medicare, this is problematic since few government workers are old enough to qualify. The New York State Association of Counties says the bill:
...would effectively prohibit local governments from seeking to manage their prescription drug benefit costs for example, by packaging the federal Medicare prescription drug benefit, along with its own drug benefit program, even if the benefits provided would be relatively similar to the existing benefit received by the retiree.
The City of New York--which may or may not be affected by the bill-- has weighed in against it, arguing it ties the hands of employers who seek to control "ever-increasing costs of retiree benefits".
As the economy presents increasingly difficult challenges for the public sector, it is most unwise to exempt any group from even potentially bearing a share of the burden, or to hamstring state and local governments in any way that impeded their efforts to find a fair and equitable way to contain costs.
Why are local governments so exercised about a one-year moratorium? Because a similar moratorium covering retired teachers has been renewed annually since 1994. The bill also creates 12-member taskforce to study retiree health benefits, which would include at least three union members, but none from local government.
For more background, news articles and editorials, see here, here and here.
« Previous |
Main
| Next »
|
