Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PiedmontSteward" data-source="post: 2485273" data-attributes="member: 42270">I&#039;ve said it once and I&#039;ll say it again.On principal, I have no issues with TeamCare. I had serious issues with child wellness visits and immunizations not being covered but the plan now covers them. I don&#039;t have an issue with non-emergency ER visits not being 100% covered as going to the ER in lieu of an Urgent Care facility is a major cost issue facing all health care plans. I don&#039;t like having a deductible, but I&#039;m also realistic. Thousands of young part-timers being rolled into our Taft-Hartley plan is better for everyone and will &quot;mostly&quot; take health care off the table for future negotiations (the only thing that&#039;s negotiated now is the amount of the company contribution to the plan; negotiating a reduction would amount to a non-starter). We would also be better covered -- strategically -- in a strike as the fund would continue coverage for members honoring the picket lines.It&#039;s unfortunate that so much of the opposition to the current CBA coalesced around health care rather than other issues such as the four year progression (the company wanted two-tier wages for FT and that was the compromise, which I still disagree with), lack of solid language keeping 22.3&#039;s in the locals where they were created, and starting PT pay only being bumped to $10/hr (the turnover is a nightmare on the local union administrative side not to mention $10/hr for a union job being atrocious.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PiedmontSteward, post: 2485273, member: 42270"] I've said it once and I'll say it again. On principal, I have no issues with TeamCare. I had serious issues with child wellness visits and immunizations not being covered but the plan now covers them. I don't have an issue with non-emergency ER visits not being 100% covered as going to the ER in lieu of an Urgent Care facility is a major cost issue facing all health care plans. I don't like having a deductible, but I'm also realistic. Thousands of young part-timers being rolled into our Taft-Hartley plan is better for [B]everyone[/B] and will "mostly" take health care off the table for future negotiations (the only thing that's negotiated now is the amount of the company contribution to the plan; negotiating a reduction would amount to a non-starter). We would also be better covered -- strategically -- in a strike as the fund would continue coverage for members honoring the picket lines. It's unfortunate that so much of the opposition to the current CBA coalesced around health care rather than other issues such as the four year progression (the company wanted two-tier wages for FT and that was the compromise, which I still disagree with), lack of solid language keeping 22.3's in the locals where they were created, and starting PT pay only being bumped to $10/hr (the turnover is a nightmare on the local union administrative side not to mention $10/hr for a union job being atrocious.) [/QUOTE]

Verification