August 2002 UE 506 News
PRESIDENT’S REMARKS
Insurance Whack
Just before shutdown the company gave us a vacation going away present, increased co-pays for those of us in the HCP Medical Plan. By now you know the amounts the company originally proposed but since the announcement there have been some minor reductions. The company can seek increases do to a provision in the 1997 contract that, concerning the HCP program, allows them a "contract re-opener," This comes at a time when the average American’s faith in the financial system in this country is at an all time low. Why is it that there is still not a push by the majority of the politicians in this country for a national health care plan? You and I both know that their concern for the average American is idle rhetoric. Isn’t it fool hardy for these statesmen to say that a national health plan isn’t needed when roughly 40 million Americans don’t have any insurance and others that do are either paying exorbitant premiums for plans that are weak at best.
We do need a national health plan in this country and maybe, which has been the case so many times before; the states themselves may have to take the initiative if the feds don’t feel the urgency. This doesn’t change the fact that GE should be ashamed of itself for imposing increases on us at this time. If this is indeed a preview of the June contract talks, we better be ready for a fight. Although the company can’t be totally blamed for the increased costs for health care, I don’t see them lobbying for any national health care initiative either. Up in Canada where national health care is a way of life, their system seems to be working fine. Oh sure there is no perfect system but despite the naysayers their plan there seems to be working. It is just a tragedy that in the richest country in the world we can’t keep our people under the best medical care available. Shame on all of us. R.J. Majewski
Kitchen’s Kabinet August 2002
The grievance activity has slowed down as of late however this may be because of the vacation shutdown. Total for the month - seven cases, for the year - 30 cases.
Since last month we continue to see the negative results of the company not wanting to hire indirects. It never did make sense to us that the company considers indirects so dispensable. We think anyone gainfully employed for forty hours performing necessary tasks to be useful. The grievances over work being outsourced instead of hiring workers will be pursued as long as this indefensible company position exists.
Another indefensible position the company has taken lately occurred at the last Step # 2 grievance meeting. A case concerning a worker who received a warning notice for an unsafe act was on the agenda. The worker cut himself while trying to remove his shop apron and received stitches as the result of the cut. The boss interviewed the worker as part of the accident investigation process and used certain statements against him. The Union took the position at the grievance meeting that the worker had the right to Union representation when interviewed because discipline could result. The company representative stated there was no right to representation at these meetings even if things you may say may lead to discipline. Based on their position, the Union made it very clear that we would no longer participate, voluntarily, in their accident investigations. In the future if you are unfortunate to get hurt in the shop you should simply inform a company representative of your injury and volunteer no further information unless a Union representative is present.
We again will say to the company, your heavy-handed reactions lately have created an atmosphere not conducive to the ongoing cooperative effort in regards to safety programs.
Since 1985 we have had an agreement with the company on the use of computer programs not being used to monitor or discipline workers. At the last grievance meeting this agreement came under attack from the company. It appears they are willing to allow management any tool at their disposal to track workers and use this information for the purpose of discipline if they so choose. When the company approached the Union last year to discuss a new computer system involving each Building 2 work station, a healthy discussion took place first, giving the officers an opportunity to express our concerns. The company laid out the reasons they wanted the new system installed, they addressed our concerns and acknowledged their ongoing responsibility toward maintaining the 1985 agreement. It was disappointing to listen to the company take a much harsher stance at the grievance meeting. We do not intend to allow management the opportunity to reverse a hard fought agreement just because of advancements in technology.
ODDS AND ENDS
With the Company seeking HCP increases in co-pays, a slogan developed by UE Political Action Director Chris Townsend during the 2000 Negotiations is very much appropriate today. No "Special Health Insurance Takeaways," the acronym for which is "NO SHIT."
With 3 Insurance plans to choose from and the Company pressing for HCP increases, members might be considering switching back to the CMB or UPMC Plan during the October 1st to October 31st enrollment period. Those members are cautioned to closely study these options before switching to make sure they don’t end up paying higher premiums and out of pocket costs or end up with a managed plan that is even more restrictive than HCP.
Big Business, through the Pa Chamber of Business and Industry, is pushing to undermine Unemployment Compensation like they did Workers Comp in 1991. UC Ripper bill HB 2728 has been introduced to make it harder for workers who lose their jobs to collect unemployment. HB2728 requires increased earnings to re-qualify in a base year. The Bill would also restrict some from collecting benefits by taking away considerations for jobs lost due to some necessary and compelling reasons. Thousands of men and women have lost their jobs as a result of a soft economy caused, in part, to big business men caught with their hands in the till. Now they want the very workers suffering the consequence of their actions cut off unemployment benefits.
On Friday, August 2, 2002 the Company gave the Union information regarding the next round of layoffs. The layoffs, scheduled for this month, will impact 53 workers. 18 of the jobs affected are due to the transfer of work from Building 2 (gear cases and U-tubes) while volume layoffs will consume another 35 jobs. Of the 35 volume layoffs, 5 will come from Transportation, 2 from Central Services (tool cribs), 6 from Building Maintenance, 1 from Salvage and 16 from Central Maintenance.
The exact number of SEROs and SVLB retirements that will reduce the number of outplacements wasn’t known as of this writing but the Company expects that they will cover over 50% of the volume reductions.
Regarding the work transfers, 18 workers will actually come out of Building 2 and be processed in the layoff procedure. Rate guarantees are applicable under Article XXIII and the officers along with Building 2 Chief Steward Jim Jaroski have met with the Company to identify the workers deemed eligible for the guarantee and to resolve other surrounding issues.
Will there be any more layoffs the rest of the year? The officers asked the Company that question and were told much will depend on negotiations with one major domestic rail carrier and one overseas entity. We will report information regarding the status of these orders and any other change in events affecting future employment levels, as it becomes available.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ADOPTED
Members attending the May 22, 2002 membership meetings voted to adopt an amendment to Article V , Section 12 (a) as printed in the May 17, 2002 UE LOCAL 506 NEWS. The amendment reads as follows:
Article V
Add beneath Section 12(a)
(b) Members shall not be eligible to serve consecutive terms as additional rank and file delegates to the National Convention unless there are not enough eligible members to fill the (4) additional rank and file delegate positions.
UNION REJECTS HCP PROPOSALS
On Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Chief Plant Steward Dave Kitchen and Business Agent Pat Rafferty traveled to Pittsburgh, Pa to take part in the negotiations over GE’s Health Care Preferred Proposals. The two Local 506 officers were part of a committee comprised of representatives from most major Unions affiliated with the CBC. As reported on July 16th, GE is pushing to further shift the cost of hospitalization, prescriptions and specialists onto employees,
Art Smith of the IUE-CWA opened the meeting by restating the Union’s counter proposals which included maintaining hospital and treatment admissions at $0 and lowering existing emergency room and pharmacy prescription co-pays. Smith told the company, "You may think our proposals are ridiculous but now maybe you see what we think of yours."
Weighing the Union’s proposals against their own, the Company negotiator said that, "The gulf separating us was too wide to bridge." The Union committee continued arguing especially for those who can least afford the increased co-pays like retirees and those on sick leave. The Union also raised the fact that while GE’s health care cost per employee has risen, their aggregate costs have been reduced through downsizing and plant closings.
At one point, close to the end of the session, the Company offered to freeze the 5 (higher) co-pays along with the $15 primary care physician co-payment through the duration of the next contract.
70/30% SPLIT - What Goods a Freeze? The larger issue raised first during the July 9th meeting and continued to be discussed on the 24th regarded GE’s ultimate pursuit of a 70/30% sharing of health care expenses. Steve Tormey, Secretary of the UE-GE Conference Board said, " 30% is outrageous. And that’s much more than many other companies are doing." Tormey noted that even if certain co-pays were frozen now, GE would surely be after increases in contributions and other co-pays in the 2003 Contract to achieve their 70/30 split.
The Company’s last offer to the committee (printed below) shows some improvement however, as UE National President John Hovis told the Company, " It’s not the best we can do. We’re bargaining against ourselves – You (the Company) can do better."
In a letter dated July 30, 2002 the GE Manager of Union Relations declared impasse and indicated that the Company was prepared to increase the co-pays on January 1, 2003. In response, Locals of the UE-GE Conference Board will be encouraged to mount rank and file protests in the shop and plant gate demonstrations nationally. Beyond those actions, we will have to ramp up for the 2003 National Negotiations, preparing our offense to secure a fair contract and sending a clear message to GE that we aren’t receptive to any further medical cost sharing.
Statement of the UE-GE Conference Board on
GE's Proposed Changes to Health Care Preferred (HCP)
Last week General Electric informed the Union of their "intent to change" certain provisions of HCP, effective January 1, 2003. The proposed changes involve major cost shifting from GE to employees and to retirees under age 65. GE's proposals include:
* A 50% increase in the co-pay (from $12 to $18 per prescription) for brand-name prescription drugs purchased at a pharmacy.
* A 100% increase in the co-pay (from $20 to $40) for mail order prescriptions for brand-name drugs.
* The imposition for the first time ever of a deductible ($250) for in-patient hospital admissions and for each and every other treatment facility admission, such as a surgical or rehabilitation center or even a hospice.
* Increases of 67% in the current co-pays for medical specialists and for hospital emergency room treatment.
These increases hit the most vulnerable the hardest - employees and dependents who have ongoing health problems, retirees on fixed incomes, those who require prescriptions for which no generic equivalent may be available, those who will have to be off work and lose income because of hospitalization, and so on.
GE's official explanation for these outrageous increases is that they are experiencing higher than anticipated increases in medical costs, combined with "a much tougher economic environment". We have to ask "tougher for whom"? Despite wailing about medical costs and imposing numerous cost-shifting provisions onto employees in every negotiation since 1985, last year GE's total medical costs were less than they were ten years ago in 1992! Moreover, this year new CEO Jeff Immelt has promised a 17-18% increase in profits even if recessionary conditions continue. That means GE will net over $16 billion this year alone!
It should also be remembered that HCP, a "managed care" plan, has been promoted by GE for a number of years as a lower cost alternative to the traditional Comprehensive Medical Benefits (CMB) plan. One of the methods GE has used to get employees to switch to HCP (which of course also costs GE less) has been to increase substantially the costs to employees under CMB. As a result employee contributions to CMB are about $200 per year more than HCP for employees with dependents. Deductibles for doctors’ fees and other outpatient medical services have also risen substantially.
The end result is that about three quarters of GE workers are in HCP as are about two thirds of pre-65 retirees. Nevertheless because HCP is still technically an "alternative" plan, GE is allowed to open the contract mid-term to ratchet up HCP co-pays, while hypocritically telling us that we can switch back to CMB in the fall if we don’t like it.
But GE is also making it crystal clear that they will be back next June for yet another round of cost-shifting in both HCP and CMB, as well as taking dead aim at the Pensioners Prescription Drug Plan covering post-65 retirees, among the numerous items on their wish list. In the meantime, they hope to get away with their present menu of HCP takeaways.
The UE-GE Conference Board meeting today in Pittsburgh, PA, categorically rejects GE’s cost- shifting proposals. We will undertake negotiations with GE on this matter, but we are not optimistic about GE changing its mind willingly. We intend to mobilize opposition within the UE-GE membership, and we also look forward to joining with other unions, affected non-union workers, and retirees against this act of naked greed on the part of GE, the world’s most financially successful company.
This mid-contract attack by GE should also serve to remind all of us that the time is now to begin preparations for next year’s National Contract negotiations. For openers, we must insure that HCP be bargained on the same basis as any other Benefit Plan and not be subject to reopening whenever the company feels like it. As always, unity is the key to winning any justice from GE. We are confident of a unified membership in opposition to the takeaways listed above and for a Contract next year that will move us forward.
Statement adopted unanimously by the UE-GE Conference Board
June 27, 2002
Pittsburgh, PA