I have three main points. First, the University’s proposed health care changes violate the GEO contract and state labor law. Second, the University can afford to keep health care free. Finally, we all know there is a crisis in health care provision in this country; however, the University’s proposed plans are short-sighted cost-shifting measures.
The University plan:
There are two separate proposals on the table: the 2004 recommendations made by Provost Courant, and the recommendations for 2005 and beyond made by the Committee on Health Insurance Premium Design (CHIPD), on which only administrators were represented. The only firm numbers at this point are for 2004. GradCare would cost /mo (4/yr) for one person, /mo (6/yr) for two, and /mo (4/yr) for three or more. Those choosing other plans would pay significantly more.
The University has issued projected premiums for 2005 under the CHIPD plan based on a projected 7.5% DECREASE in total costs, which seems unlikely since the University has based their argument for changes on the fact that costs are RISING 15% a year. Based on this estimate, premiums for one person in 2005 would probably be around /mo (2/yr). Families of three or more would likely pay about /mo (2/yr). Again, those choosing other plans would pay significantly more.
For GSI’s and GSSA’s, this change is illegal:
While we do not think this is a fair or well-considered plan for any employees, the University has the right to change the health care of faculty and GSRA’s. However, 1700 GEO members are covered by a contract through February 1, 2005. State labor law designates health benefits as a “mandatory subject of bargaining,†meaning employers cannot change workers’ benefits without reopening formal negotiations. This law applies in all cases, unless the contract contains a “clear and unequivocal waiver†of the right to bargain. The line in our contract (Article XI) that says the Administration’s contribution to our health care will be the same as for other instructional staff is in no means a waiver by the standards set by the law.
Whatever the exact amount, forcing us to pay premiums is a breach of contract.
This is a question of priorities:
The numbers provided by the Provost suggest that the University would make about 0,000 from the premiums of GEO members in 2004. This is a drop in the bucket for the University, whose Health System made .5 million last year, and the University spent over million remodeling the President’s mansion over the past year. The University has more than enough money to pay for our health benefits.
Is 0,000 worth breaking our contract?
There are other alternatives:
Last year, the University of Michigan took the lead in defending affirmative action, an issue most institutions were unwilling or afraid to touch. Health care in this country is also an issue that demands vision and leadership. Shifting costs onto workers is like trying to hold up a sinking ship by taking life jackets from passengers and tying them to the hull—it is a short-term reaction that is hurting the health of people in this country without moving toward any real solutions. The University of Michigan has a formidable collection of resources and could lead the way in the effort to create a health care system that provides affordable, quality care to all people. Just as with affirmative action, the first step begins at home, in fulfilling the University’s commitment to its employees.
Comments are closed