News

Editorial: Lack of info a lame excuse for GIC rejection


Published: November 28, 2008

They didn't say no. But they didn't say yes, either.

That means Gloucester's unionized work force has effectively said "no for now" to a change in health insurance that could have saved local government up to $1 million a year and each worker as much as $100 a month on premiums.

At least 70 percent of city employees would have had to approve the change in time to meet a Dec. 1 deadline to join the state Group Insurance Commission. But a group representing the 16 municipal unions declined to vote on it after a Monday negotiating session with the city, which means that deadline will be missed.

The reason given by union leaders was a lack of information — Deputy fire Chief Steve Aiello, chairman of the union negotiating committee, said the city didn't provide specifics on how much workers' out-of-pocket expenses would change.

Mayor Carolyn Kirk said she doesn't blame the rank-and-file workers for the breakdown, but says union leaders failed to provide the needed information to their members.

Whoever is responsible, it is the lamest of excuses for rejecting a change that could have cut spending and preserved services, which is what those on both sides of the labor-management divide say is their goal.

The option to join GIC, the agency that manages health insurance plans for the state, has been available to cities and towns since last year, as part of Gov. Deval Patrick's Municipal Partnership Act. The governor promoted it as a way to cut health care costs for city and town workers, or at least slow the annual increases, through economies of scale and through the greater bargaining power offered by the state. In Gloucester's case, it could cut expenses from $9 million to $8 million.

Mayor Kirk said she first asked the unions to consider joining the GIC shortly after she took office, in February. The original deadline to agree to join the GIC was Oct. 1. It was extended to Dec. 1.

In other words, there was time — lots of time — for everybody on all sides to collect whatever information they needed long before now. Unions and municipalities spend months of time, and thousands of dollars on attorneys fees, negotiating contracts that cover the tiniest of details. If there had been any motivation to get this done, in the interest of preserving services to the public at an affordable price, it could have been done months ago.

So the claim that union members didn't have enough information is little more than a dodge, a way to say no without officially saying no.

Yes, it is possible that employees would have spent more on out-of-pocket expenses. But what do union leaders think has been going on in the private sector for years? Most people have to cope with what is effectively a pay cut every year, because their salaries are frozen and their health care expenses increase.

If they wanted information, they could have contacted the governor's office — Patrick is an outspoken friend of unions. He is unlikely to propose something that would undermine their support for him.

They also ought to know that this is a move Gloucester desperately needs. The city has been in difficult financial straits for most of the decade, and things are likely to get worse by an order of magnitude, given what most economists say will be a prolonged and deep recession. But apparently none of that was enough to prompt union leaders to spend a few hours collecting information and educating their membership. As Councilor Jason Grow said, in a classic understatement, this was a "missed opportunity."

If — or, really, when — the time comes when the city has no choice but to lay off employees to avoid a deeper financial hole, union leaders and workers shouldn't wonder why it's happening. They need only look in the mirror.