Massachusetts Union Demonstrations Over Anti-Collective Bargaining Bill - Sure Looks Like Wisconsin! image WBUR
From: The Worcester Telegram and Gazette: Deval Patrick (D) Massachusetts told unions to “dial down the rhetoric”, after the House voted 113 to 42 to allow the Commonwealth’s Cities and Towns to change co-pays and deductibles on Union contracts in order to avoid layoffs. The roll call available here at Mass.gov/legis/journal/RollCallPDFs/187.0051.pdf” shows the majority of Democrat legislatures voting with the reality of the Commonwealth drowning in debt.
The fact, again, that Patrick, who insists that this is “not Wisconsin” failed to mention as the Gazette points out, that the major difference in the two bills, is that Massachusetts’ has not yet reached his desk. It has to first go to the Mass. Senate, however, should it pass the Senate, the Governor, does not have the right to veto the legislation.
The Unions next target: The Massachusetts Senate.
It is not that they do not understand that without a change in the system, they are faced with layoffs; it is that the unions prize the fact that they can invest themselves in the legislative process, in order to continue to hold sway over its membership. Layoffs are all but guaranteed should this measure not pass the Senate.
The question now arises; how many of the rank and file are willing to take a chance at being layer off, without the security of continued unemployment checks that, in the current economic climate (rising food, fuel costs), would push them into penury. Additionally, with the Federal Government Stimulus end, the budget battle at the Federal Level with Republican’s asking for major concession from the Democrats in order to balance the budget, and those Democrats, to borrow a phrase from the Governor “dialing up the rhetoric” over giving up one red cent of spending, how long can the Federal Government be able to fund the States?
The ridiculous cost of health care insurance plans in Massachusetts, due to the Mandated Health Care bill, and few choices in carriers to allow competition to drive pricing downward, is causing the cities and town of the Commonwealth to seriously look at staff reductions including essential police and fire, and public workers – others include teachers. The big problem: The States are asking those employees of the towns and cities to join a health care plan that is now offered to workers at the State Level.
This is not Wisconsin? Oh yes it is.
It is not that the Massachusetts municipal public employee’s union members will not have health care that is the problem; it is that they will lose “collective bargaining” rights should this bill pass. The fact that these “salaried union officials”, hired by and for the union, are holding sway over the fiscal futures of their membership, as well as the health and well-being of the individuals in Massachusetts towns and cities, who face reductions in Police and Fire, shows just how powerful the unions believe they have become, just as their membership continues to decline.
The Massachusetts State Employees Health Plan options here at Mass.gov show eleven different benefits plans from which to choose, with month rates (published as of 2020 here at mass.gov that are to say the least, less than the Commonwealths’ Connector (universal health care plan) that is not offering, according to its website, plans to new enrollees. Those costs for family plans on a level with the State Employees can run up to $3,264.81 per month!
for State mandated insurance from the Commonwealth.
Therefore, should one be laid off, the future isn't too rosey: the economy continues to decline and tax revenues spiral downward, as there may be additional layoffs in the private tax paying sector, coupled with the rising costs of food and fuel, which may force residents to move to more tax friendly states, those extra tax dollars to pay for municipal plans may be something that no longer exists. Massachusetts is broke.
That would leave the employees: fire, police, public works, and yes, teachers, without a job, without health care and without control over their own density all because some highly paid union bosses do not want to give up their power over the employees and/or the Commonwealth.
It is not that employees across the board, that face danger and harm every day, be it fire, police and or those who work in the variety of department of public work across the commonwealth do not need a union, they do – but they need a union that cares about the employees enough to make sane choices for them when it comes to losing a few battles to win the greater war. It is mind-boggling that these men and women, who protect and serve us, are being forced to lose everything in favor of a union official that will lose nothing. (Unless of course, that union official no longer has any “rank and file” left).
There are a few fine points that are in the article that also bring up questions about the relationship of unions and the Commonwealth. Again from the Gazette
Patrick makes note that the unions will have a seat at the table of during the legislative process, and additionally, the final version of the House bill included: a measure would let unions share in 20 percent of the savings. It also would allow sharing up to 10 percent of savings from other insurance coverage changes they agreed to by unions. One thing of note: the unions will share in 20 percent of the savings, not the rank and file.
No comments:
Post a Comment