Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Olivia Wood's avatar

I would like to see a lot more from ZM about his mayoral approach to bargaining with the municipal unions, especially since that's an area where he's way better positioned to partially achieve some of his proposals like a $30 minimum wage. Even if Albany is required to make that the law of the 5 boroughs, explicitly supporting it _as a minimum for city workers_ as we begin the next round of bargaining, when many DC37 jobs in particular do not pay that much, would be significant - can mayors make direct asks to labor relations city management-side reps about what to agree to?

Expand full comment
Marianne Pizzitola's avatar

Found your sub stack interesting. Let me share with you our personal experience. We are New York City retirees, there are 250,000 of us who have been fighting the city of New York from trying to force us off our public health benefit of Medicare and statutorily paid supplement and into a Medicare advantage plan. No, this wasn’t just Mayor Di Blasio who did this, this scheme was initiated by the largest unions in the city of New York that had no issue with privatizing a federal public health benefit that labor helped pass in 1965, becoming one of the greatest civil rights achievements ever in health.

Why did they have no issue doing it? Because they were told by management that if they gave them back the Retirees supplemental plan paid for by the city of New York since 1967 under a city statute known as 12–126, they would give the less than $600 million a year that The City was paying for Retiree healthcare to the union and give them a raise. And they did.

New York City, Retirees are majority unionists, and a small portion of managerial retirees who were never in a union. However, the retired unionists knew what the unions were doing was illegal and immoral. Not just because of the promise made to us, not just because they were walking back protecting a retiree who is no longer in the union because they’re retired, but because they were privatizing a federal public health benefit and diminishing our healthcare at a time when we needed it most and forcing us into a predatory for-profit health scam. We earned Medicare, we paid for it, and it was our vested benefit and one of the reasons why we joined a union 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Our oldest Retiree is 104 years old, and today feels betrayed by her union, the Uft, for trying to claw back her healthcare, my oldest DC 37 Retiree is 103 years old and she too feels betrayed by Henry Garrido. Unions do not represent current retirees, but they had a moral and fiduciary responsibility to protect us and what we earned.

If you speak of what a mayoral candidate can do to strengthen unionism in the city of New York, I find no comfort in your belief that that could be Zohran Mamdani.

Here’s why.

His platform should tell me that he supports a federal public health benefit and not privatizing healthcare. However, he’s refused to speak with us. I am the president of the New York City organization of public service Retirees who represents these 250,000 retired unionists. The statement on his website speak to EMPLOYEES, NOT RETIREES.

He met with me once, came late to the meeting, was unprepared, promised he’d get back to us and never did. He did not attend our mayoral debate in April. And his staff does not reply to our communications.

We currently have a bill that would protect all municipal retirees in the state of New York in the state legislature. He is not on that bill.

We have another bill in the City Council to protect city Retirees he won’t support that bill either. And he won’t communicate with us.

We laid out a pledge to every candidate for office, and said if you can commit to these three things and keep a line of open communication as a candidate and when you’re elected, we would support you. The only two who have not done that are Zohran Mamdani and Eric Adams.

The pledge says these three things:

We asked candidates seeking our endorsement if they agreed to support fixing the three biggest issues a retiree has today:

1. Not being forced into Medicare Advantage - preserving our promised paid-for supplement to Traditional Medicare & not permitting backdoor premium onto us in the form of copays and deductibles.

2. Medicare B reimbursement isn't refunded as required by law till 16-22 months later. This needs to be monthly or quarterly in the year it's paid.

3. Our family healthcare dies the day we do. There needs to be a 30, 60 or 90 days grace for loved ones to get their affairs in order and the City to advise them their alternatives.

And agree to continue open communication with retirees.

If the candidate met with us, attended our debate, agreed to these issues in writing, on their campaign letterhead with a signature, we would endorse them so retirees know WHO is on their side. We endorse candidates who supports these issues as "Retiree Approved."

The next thing to watch for is, AFTER they agree, are they quiet about their support or do they proudly say they support it?

******

That’s not too much for anyone to pledge to protect right? However, the people who implemented that scheme to force current retirees into a Medicare advantage plan, is the United Federation of Teachers, District Council 37, Mayor Bill DiBlasio, and Dean Fuleihan who served in the Office of Management and Budget and the first Deputy Mayor to DiBlasio. What do they all have in common? They are all on. Zohran’s organization's inner circle.

part 1

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts