Today, Saturday Nov 9th, we had our meeting for the WR177 healthcare plan. I have a few points to make about the meeting, its contents and then an opinion on what to do at this point.
First, let me say that our local has thousands of UPSers, and this contract most likely is the tipping point for our future contracts, and yet, less than 70 people showed up for the meeting. This is a ginormous failure by the members. 100% complain, but everyone is too busy to get involved in the direction of our Union.
As for the content.
Andy M brought his powerpoint presentation and played it for those in attendance. I wil say that the presentation was infomative and gave details not previously given to us by our local officers.
The plan looks good and although Laguna Brown called it "the same", even Andy M admits, "its not the same". There are minor differences between what we had and major differences between how it is paid for.
Small changes like $5 dollar copays for all prescriptions unless you order through the mail, or employee's covering the difference in cost for brand name drugs via retail outlets. These are minor.
The coverages are good, and the retiree benefits appear ok at this point.
The cost of the plan to the employees is one difference that some members find disturbing. Diverting pension money to "build reserves" for the plan opens the door to larger diversions down the road should the plan fail to pay for itself, OR if the stock market tanks in the next 5 years. The stock market would have a greater impact on the plan should it crash like it did in the recession 2007/2009.
Overall, the plan is acceptable to me, however, the future is not so bright.
I had the opportunity to ask Andy M several questions from the floor and he answered them honestly. First, I asked him if he could guarantee that no more than the money he stated would be diverted from the pension (.50 cents the first year x 2080, and 1.00 the second and third years x 2080) would have to be diverted in the 4th and 5th years.
He stated, "i cannot guarantee that it wont". He stated that there are no absolutes, and it could cost us more in years 4 or 5, but at this point, it was impossible to predict what the plan and its finances would look like.
I then asked if he could guarantee that "we" wouldnt have to pay for the plan "out of pocket" starting with the next contract, and he again stated that "i cannot guarantee that you wont" and furthered with "you can bet that UPS will demand that you contribute towards your own health care in the next contract".
This "we" already know. ( my opinion ) As I stated before the contract was settled and sent out for ratification, I believe that the Teamsters agreed to taking over our health care plan back in 2008. I believe they thought we would agree to pay for it out of pocket and "we" voted that down forcing a change of direction.
Now, I believe that the teamsters have merely delayed making us pay for our healthcare "out of pocket" for 5 years and "we" can expect to do so in the next contract.
Andy himself said that the company will for sure present this in the next contract.
As for the coverage, there were no big surprises here, as Andy stated they simply had to "mirror" the enhanced C6 plan as provided in the addendum ( carve out language ), so no celebration was needed for negotiations. At the minimum, once the C6 plan was enhanced, the southwest had no choice but to "mirror" it.
There were a couple of improvements that go a long way for the members and this I can appreciate. Spousal coverage for retirees, and active members is something unexpected and worthy of note.
However, there are some down sides to this as well.
First, for now, we get to keep our providers ( blue cross, blue shield, kaiser) for one year. Then, next october during open enrollment, Andy M explained that other providers will be bidding for the contract, and we could LOSE these providers and have to select a new one.
Again, being asked if we could keep Blue shield/Blue Cross, for example, Andy stated " i cannot guarantee that, and you could find you will lose those providers and have to replace it with aetna, etc etc"... He indicated it depends on the bidding of the contract for services, but we would not know until later next year.
After all was said and done, I find myself having to vote YES on this contract proposal, as i do not see there being any room for improvement. At this point, Andy made it clear that a NO vote could find its way to the National negotiating committee and they will vote to approve it without our consent.
All other issues in the contract are mute, as Andy stated that the National was a done deal and they were not going to reopen any other issues we may have with the contract as a whole.
This is unfortunate, but it does clear the air for the members unhappy with the other portions of the contract that they are unhappy with. In five years, the members will get to see how the new language in the national master affects them or their co workers and then decide if "we" can afford having the same people negotiating a THIRD contract in five years.
So to be clear, I am recommending a YES vote at this junction of negotiations, and NOT because of the strength of the insurance, but for the weakness in the position for change.
At least for the next five years, we know how much this will cost each of us personally. Year 5 has the begining of the deductible cycles and you can bet in the next contract they will be even higher.
This is only the begining.
TOS.