|
|
|
|
|
 "Unions, Strikes, and Reality"
03/15/2001
|
|
|
Have unions outlived their usefulness? In my opinion, which isn’t always so humble, yes,
they have. In fact, they outlived their usefulness years ago.
The reason I’m jumping unions this time is because of a local issue here in Philadelphia,
the city of Brotherly Love, but a problem common to most every metropolitan area in the
United States, and probably many areas abroad. The local mass transit district, the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is currently in negotiation
with workers for a new contract. Most issues have been resolved, and the major hanging
point deals with SEPTA workers, um, union members, um, the folks who want to strike – not
wanting to foot the bill for health coverage. The workers are members of Transportation
Workers Union Local 234.
While I can’t speak for everyone else in the United States, I can speak about several
areas – both on the East Coast as well as in the Midwest – from personal experience.
From what I’ve seen, the age of employers covering employee health coverage has long since
past. Costs for healthcare skyrocketed so greatly that it became economically impractical
for employers – public or private – to foot the bill for the employee health coverage.
Even so, (http://www.septa.org/) employees – through union negotiation – have managed to
hold onto health coverage through the years, despite increasing costs. For the SEPTA
employees, sure, it’s a terrific plan, but for SEPTA, and ultimately, the riders, it’s a
losing proposition.
SEPTA, you see, have about 5,000 workers. A strike by those 5,000 workers would have a
serious impact on some 400,000 commuters, as well as 23,500 schoolchildren in the local
area. The last strike by SEPTA employees was in 1998, and service was halted for 40 days.
In one newsgroup that deals with transportation issues in the Philadelphia area,
(phl.transportation) the merits of the state stepping in and forcing transportation
workers to follow the same rules as police and firefighters has ensued. Police and
firefighters cannot go out on strike.
According to information posted on the Local 234 website
(http://www.twulocal234.org/back1.htm), the union is “faced with an attack on the
very core of our benefits. These benefits have been won through years of bargaining with
SEPTA. The benefits our members enjoy are among the best in the region.” Perhaps the
benefits are too good.
The site goes on, explaining, “Now SEPTA wants to change all that and take away these hard
won benefits. These benefits allow our members to live a decent life and take care of
themselves and their families.”
One of the benefits SEPTA wants to “take away,” as the union calls it, is to limit the
retired members prescription plan. SEPTA has proposed that retired members be limited to
three years of prescription coverage. As the benefits currently stand, retired members are
entitled to lifetime prescription coverage. On this point, the union may have a valid
argument, but balanced against other arguments, this point seems moot.
SEPTA is also proposing a formulary plan where TWU members choose medication based on
their effectiveness, as decided by outside consultants and SEPTA’s insurers. An “Open
Formulary” plan would be one option. If the employee chose a non-preferred medication,
higher co-pays would be required. The union says “this forces employees to use medication
defined by SEPTA as effective (and cheap.)” I’m trying to figure out what’s wrong with a
medication that is less expensive, yet effective. The union seems to be saying that SEPTA
might have some high school chemistry student concoct a potion similar to a brand-name
drug for dispensing. This plan seems fair, as many Americans are covered under this type
of prescription coverage. Personally, I’d prefer to have a prescription plan that may
limit the choice of pharmacy, yet not have any dictate on medications that are covered.
Another option for the formulary would be a “Closed Formulary” plan. If an employee
selects a non-preferred medication, the employee will pay the full cost of the
prescription. This is typical of many plans that I’ve seen and been covered under for more
than a decade.
The union is also angered because SEPTA wants to increase prescription co-pay amounts. In
its website propaganda, TWU Local 234 never said what the current co-pay rate is, so I
would be inclined to agree with SEPTA’s side of the argument.
SEPTA wants to see multilevel co-pays implemented. This would result in lower co-pays for
generic drugs, but for brand-name medications, higher co-pays would be required. I see no
problem with this concept, as many health insurance plans have had this type of coverage
since the mid-1980s.
The union has a problem with SEPTA wanting prior authorization for access to non-formulary
medications, such as fertility, growth hormone, cosmetic, and anti-obesity drugs. Again,
this is something that’s pretty much a commonly accepted practice in the health insurance
industry, and has been for several years.
There’s a “Pharmacy Intervention” stipulation that SEPTA wants to have implements. This
would allow the dispensing pharmacist to contact the physician to seek to have the
prescribed medication changed to a generic alternative. I don’t see anything wrong with
this, provided, of course, the generic alternative is equivalent. The doctor, of course,
does not have to agree to any generic substitute, and a pharmacist may only dispense what
the physician prescribes. This leaves the medical care, as well as medications, fully in
the hands of the physician.
A “Managed Drug Limitation” stipulation would limit access to medication based on
quantity, dollar amount, and/or time limits between refills. In some respects, this is
very logical, not to mention fiscally responsible. Many health insurance companies have
adopted this type of provision, as it attempts, in one regard, possible abuse.
Another problem area for the union involves the annual premiums. The union, although it
doesn’t give current costs on its website, is against members paying more for health
insurance. The union’s website explains that “SEPTA will only pay up to a 4% increase in
annual premiums, while Independence Blue Cross warns that double-digit increases in the
high teens or greater over the next several years are likely. The results of such a scheme
would shift the cost of health care on to the backs of TWU members. The cost would be to
the tune of hundreds of dollars a month per member after only a couple of years.” As I see
it, it’s another case of a union wanting everyone else to foot the bill for its members.
That’s just not how life works, TWU Local 234. There is no free lunch for anyone.
SEPTA also wants to change the primary insurance plan to an HMO. “If employees choose
Personal Choice or BC/BS Traditional, the employee will pay the difference,” the union’s
website explains. I’m trying to see where the union has a problem. Health insurance is
still available, but the last time I checked, businesses, including quasi-governmental
agencies, were supposed to be responsible with handling their financial matters. In that
regard, switching to an HMO could possibly lower SEPTA overhead for health insurance.
Tied directly to the health insurance is the issue of deductibles. SEPTA wants to
implement a deductible of a $250 individual or a $500 family deductible for in-network
services. The union has a beef with this because there is currently no deductible.
The issue of co-pays for office visits may also be increased to $10 from the present $5
rate. Personally, I haven’t seen a $5 co-pay since 1987. An additional co-pay for
in-patient hospitalizations of $250 is also being considered by SEPTA, which the union is
against. There is presently no hospitalization co-pay, either.
On the employment front, in efforts to reduce overall costs, SEPTA wants to privatize all
trash pick-up and removal. This seems to be fiscally responsible.
SEPTA also wants to contract out all maintenance, construction, and janitorial work at its
main headquarters in downtown Philadelphia.
“We now get 4 days off a year without attendance points for emergencies or sickness at
home. SEPTA wants to eliminate that. They also want to eliminate earned excused days and
to reduce vacation pay based on days missed in a previous year,” the union’s website
explains. I have no problem with SEPTA proposal in this area. What other employer gives
you four days off work, without penalty?
The idea of unions, years ago, was to ensure fair pay for work. SEPTA workers aren’t paid
too shabbily. For bus drivers, the starting salary is $11.68 per hour, with a top salary
of $19.47 per hour after just four years of service.
With the salary being commanded by new bus drivers, union officials, in my eyes, are
barking up the wrong tree for additional concessions by SEPTA. The union needs to realize
that SEPTA is spending money that is being provided by commuters. Those commuters have no
need to foot the bill for their own health insurance while also being held responsible for
paying for the health insurance benefits of SEPTA employees.
Like I said at the beginning of this column, the heyday for unions is over, and I’m not
talking only about TWU Local 234. Unions, as a whole, have outlived usefulness. Working
solely for employee benefits is commendable, but when things are as far out of hand as
they are now, with squabbles about whether employees should foot the bill for their own
health care comes into play, I say it’s time to toss everything to the wind.
Do unions have any redeeming aspects? Sure. Unions have sought to improve work conditions,
as well as pay. That’s all terrific. Now matters are coming down to paying your own way in
life. That’s called individual responsibility. If workers want health insurance, they need
to pay their fair share – like the rest of the American public.
|
|
- by Dave Jackson (Scoop0901)
|
|
| Feature Writer Links: |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Related
Newsgroups: |
| |
|
alt.society.labor-unions |
|
phl.transportation |
|
misc.transport.urban-transit |
|
|
|
