Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

soupdumplinglover t1_j6i3w8t wrote

As a city employee, this makes me furious. We are underpaid with the understanding that our retirement benefits will be superior to those in the private sector. Why would anyone want to work for the city for low salaries AND shitty benefits?

185

Babhadfad12 t1_j6ih1fc wrote

The lesson here is cash is king. Do not trust someone to pay you in non fungible, subjectively valued “benefits”, many decades in the future. Especially not someone who cannot print money (i.e. everyone that is not the federal government).

62

_Maxolotl t1_j6ilbn9 wrote

Fuck Eric Adams.

If you strike I will bring you donuts on the picket line.
(Or some other healthier treat of similar value if you prefer.)

41

lurrkee t1_j6ip6g6 wrote

This was first started by Di Blasio

17

carmansam123 t1_j6j5v3f wrote

or Nixon when you really think about it.

Sorry what were we talking about again? Anyway we can remain focused on the matter at hand to actually make an impact?

3

BourdainTiffin t1_j6j7ynq wrote

The fact that it was started under De Blasio is relevant. I would say De Blasio has pretty solid progressive Bona Fides and he was ready to make this transition. This is because the City has a limited budget and cannot deficit spend. If we are not switching to Medicare Advantage we are going to either cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes.

4

grandzu t1_j6lobbb wrote

They're screwing retired to pay for current. The supposed saved money directly gets funneled into the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund initially established in the 1980s to balance the costs of the health plans available to current city workers.

1

sutisuc t1_j6j920q wrote

City employees can’t strike as far as I know

10

Pbpopcorn t1_j6jroju wrote

Can confirm. Got an email during the nurse’s strike few weeks ago reminding city employees that if they strike they’re automatically fired

10

ChipsAndLime t1_j6l9ru8 wrote

Edit: you’re right, I was wrong.

The recent strike was won by nurses at private hospitals.

1

Pbpopcorn t1_j6lb6n0 wrote

The nurses that went in strike were at private hospitals, not city

3

ViolatedGhost t1_j6mmndi wrote

Municpal employees cant strike because of Taylor Law. Its Unions who are supposed to protect city employees from the mayor and city council. But they are like a dog without teeth.

1

story_island t1_j6ip0vk wrote

The cost of healthcare has gone up immensely since these systems were put in place.

Everyone pays more for less now, and I don't know how city/state governments can afford to absorb that massive increase in cost.

3

mowotlarx OP t1_j6ipye4 wrote

So how are the retirees on a fixed income who were promised these benefits supposed to absorb it? For perspective, this would only save $500 million a year. That is less than 2/3 of what we spent on NYPD overtime alone in 2022. There are ways we could save this money, but it's much easier to fuck over retirees I guess.

19

DrRat t1_j6j1avr wrote

Advantage plans are notorious for denying anything they can get away with and really making the customer jump through hoops. Private Health insurance companies have stock holders to please whereas government-funded Medicare only loyalty lies with the enrollee. It'll be an instant and noticeable decrease in benefits and services, I'm afraid.

11

mowotlarx OP t1_j6j2jb9 wrote

The irony is it costs way more to make people access services only in an emergency rather than allowing people access to affordable preventative medicine. The decline in benefits costs us all more in the long run.

6

BourdainTiffin t1_j6j8i9e wrote

The retirees will not have increased costs.

−5

mowotlarx OP t1_j6jc2rl wrote

Yes, they will. They will pay for more out of pocket because less will be covered. They will have fewer options for local doctors, meaning many may need to go out of network for specialty care. Medicare Advantage isn't Medicare, it's a private insurance company chosen because they intend to nickel and dime aging retirees who require more healthcare.

10

sirzoop t1_j6j71j9 wrote

>our retirement benefits will be superior to those in the private sector

Hate to break it to you but your retirement benefits haven't been better than the private sector for decades

2

soupdumplinglover t1_j6jd0q0 wrote

Thanks. Does this make you feel better about yourself

−1

sirzoop t1_j6jdn7w wrote

No it makes me feel empathetic towards public employees and enraged at the government for undervaluing and underfunding them. You deserve better

16

Spider_pig448 t1_j6jsr7r wrote

How does this make the benefits shittier?

1

mowotlarx OP t1_j6jwu4u wrote

Because city workers are no longer guaranteed quality healthcare upon retirement. They will get a worse health care package that costs then more, covers less and has less options for doctors. When you really think about it, this is just a ploy to help retired workers die sooner due to substandard care.

So watching all of this play out, who would a prospective worker faced with lower salary and no schedule flexibility choose this route? They'll ultimately end up with less funds saved to cover the out of pocket expenses than someone making $20k more at a similar job in the private sector.

14

Spider_pig448 t1_j6jypzk wrote

Does the new health plan cost more? The article says it will continue to be premium free and is further subsidized. I haven't read much about the plans to know the differences besides the article. It simply being private isn't a reason to be against it though.

2

mowotlarx OP t1_j6jzn02 wrote

>Does the new health plan cost more

It costs more when a cheaper insurance plan covers less services and fewer doctors accept it.

6

myassholealt t1_j6ndh02 wrote

>It simply being private

is a reason to assume it's not gonna be of the same coverage and quality as the plan it replaces. The last 60 years or so of private healthcare in America is all the proof you need. Insurances nickel and dime you out of coverage every chance they get.

2

VFL2015 t1_j6ibxhw wrote

Job security

−6

mowotlarx OP t1_j6iirbn wrote

Does job security matter if you still can't retire on a living wage with basic healthcare required for older people?

16

George4Mayor86 t1_j6jaocb wrote

Great, you can be “secure” in a job with shit pay and shit benefits. Or if you’re remotely bright or ambitious, you’ll probably bail and move to the private sector.

1