You Can't Create the Divide and Then Blame the People Who Were Harmed by It

​​

​

Michael Mulgrew says he opposes “division,” yet his own actions created one of the deepest divisions in our union’s history.

​

He tried to force retirees into Medicare Advantage against their will. When the courts stopped that plan, he agreed to impose copays on retirees for the first time in more than 60 years to replace the alleged “savings” that Medicare Advantage would have generated, which he promised he would give the city in his funding agreements.

Now, when retirees ask for those copays to be removed, he dismisses the request as “divisive” and an attack on active workers.

​

That’s the contradiction.

 

The division did not begin when retirees asked to restore the healthcare they earned. It began when retirees, who are not members of the bargaining unit, had no seat at the bargaining table, and no vote, were singled out to bear new healthcare costs to create a funding stream for Michael Mulgrew.

​

Mulgrew repeatedly argues that if the UFT refused to continue imposing retiree copays, the City would simply tell the union to “make up the money” during collective bargaining. But he never addresses the obvious question:

Why was it acceptable for retirees to make up the money instead?

​

He says, “Nobody likes copays.” If that’s true, why were retirees expected to absorb them without representation while active members were and are protected? Why did he think it was ok to assess them in the first place? An why demand that any change we sent to the in-house hand-picked “Health Committee” tasking them to come up with another solution in order for him to accept the retiree resolution to end them? If he, the big smart union leader negotiator couldn’t find a way to fund in-service worker raises another way, how would this committee? Mind you, this is the same committee that passed the NYCEPPO contract without ever reading it or questioning the 100 redacted pages in it.

​

Throughout his remarks, the discussion is framed entirely around what active employees might lose. There is almost no acknowledgment of what retirees have already lost: the first copays in over six decades, imposed on many people living on modest fixed incomes that amount to a car payment for many. We are in medical debt because of it, and this creates an obstacle for us to access the care we need. He knew that imposing this new scheme, he would win either way: a cash flow from the copays forced on us, or “savings” by retirees not going to the doctor because they can’t afford it. That is not what a good union is supposed to do.

He argues that asking to eliminate retiree copays pits retirees against active members. But imposing copays on retirees to preserve resources elsewhere did exactly that. It shifted the financial burden from one group to another, and then labeled retirees divisive when they objected.

​

Mulgrew is more concerned about the in-service reaction than the retirees’ reaction to his imposed copays

Mulgrew also continues to oppose legislation that would protect retiree healthcare, claiming that the City Council cannot “usurp” collective bargaining. Yet our state legislation explicitly states that nothing in the bill impairs or limits the collective bargaining rights of unions representing active employees. The UFT and AFLCIO had no problem with lobbying against them anyway. I guess this is the next generation of excuses for attacking retirees.

 

 

The bill does not interfere with bargaining over active employees’ wages or benefits. It simply protects current retirees from having their earned healthcare diminished after they have left the bargaining unit. Mulgrew is welcome to diminish the healthcare of in-service workers if they want that. We are saying, we are current retirees and have not been in unions for decades and he should not be diminishing our to fund in-service workers. PERIOD. And the in-service should not want that, because if this is allowed to happen to us, what will be done to them?

That raises an important question: if the legislation expressly preserves collective bargaining, then what exactly is being protected by opposing it?

​

Retirees can reasonably conclude that what is being protected is the ability to continue negotiating retiree healthcare benefits away as a source of “savings: in future labor agreements. Otherwise, why oppose a bill that safeguards retirees while leaving collective bargaining untouched?

​

Mulgrew also tells retirees to “be smart” and find another way to pay for eliminating copays, even suggesting ideas like taxing millionaires. But he never acknowledges that the Municipal Labor Committee, the very body that agreed to impose retiree copays, has the authority to revisit that decision. The same leadership that voted to create these copays could vote to eliminate them.

​

He says he wants unity because “the easiest groups to divide would be in-service versus retiree.” On that point, he is right. But unity is not achieved by asking retirees to sacrifice its earned healthcare while using its value to benefit active workers. Unity is built by treating both groups with equal dignity and equal concern. Current retirees’ vested benefits should be protected.

Retirees are not asking active workers to lose anything. They are asking not to lose what they earned over decades of public service.

​

The real question isn’t whether protecting retirees is divisive.

​

The real question is why diminishing retiree healthcare has become acceptable and why protecting it is treated as the problem.