CoalitionBargaining

Coalition Bargaining

The Town and the Coalition have agreed upon new contract terms, effective 7/1/2010. Here is the Memorandum of Agreement they executed.

The previous agreement was negotiated in 2007. Here is the Memorandum of Understanding from that time. It replaced these agreements from 1994 and 2003.

The town offers various health insurance plans to its employees through the coalition bargaining process. Here is the plan offering for the HMO Blue offering. Here is the Plan Document for the Harvard Pilgrim HMO offering. Retirees get the Blue Cross Medex offering. Here is that plan document.

Lexington is one of only 17 communities in Massachusetts, out of 351, that have elected coalition bargaining, a method of negotiating health insurance coverage with all of a municipality's unions simultaneously. Because so few towns have adopted this measure, little has been written about it.

Like every employer that provides health insurance, Lexington has been experiencing rapidly rising costs. Municipal governments are especially hard hit, as they are restricted in what measures they can take in the face of rising costs. See this report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

In Lexington, a Health Benefits Review Committee was appointed to investigate this issue. Here is their report . The benefits described can then be compared to those find in the private sector, as described in this survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Coalition bargaining was recently in the news in neighboring Belmont, Arlington and Watertown, as well as Worcester. In Belmont and Arlington, a proposal to adopt coalition bargaining was rejected by the Board of Selectmen. In Watertown, the Town Manager took the unusual step of rejecting the recommendation of the Town Council, despite their having made it with a large majority. Worcester's City Manager also rejected it. Here's the Watertown story from the Watertown Tab:

Home > Watertown TAB & Press > Local News >

Driscoll says no

By Christopher Loh/ Staff Writer
Friday, May 19, 2006 - Updated: 10:50 AM EST

Town Manager Michael Driscoll has nixed a request to let the town’s unions negotiate together on health insurance. The Town Council agreed to allow unions to bargain as a coalition, in a 7-2 vote this winter. But the move also required Driscoll’s approval and he’s against it.

Coalition bargaining would have gathered all the town’s union leaders into one group to negotiate with the town manager on health insurance.

But Driscoll opposes the idea, saying in a letter to the council that he believed coalition bargaining would actually "hinder, rather than help" the process and force the town to "give up far too many bargaining rights, which is reflected by the fact that so few communities have adopted the statute."

Some councilors and union leaders had hoped that coalition bargaining would break the ice between the town manager and unions, but apparently that will not be the case.

"I’m concerned there was a 7-2 vote and it’s not being accepted," At-Large Councilor Mark Sideris said. "According to the letter, there’s a reason it’s not being accepted."

In a letter to the Town Council dated May 12, Driscoll said he told the council at the beginning of March, he "would look at the Union Leaders’ thoughts on what they are proposing for this initial agreement" in making his decision regarding coalition bargaining.

"In the 10 weeks since the Town Council voted to approve the provisions of [coalition bargaining], the unions have not come forward with any ideas or proposals to help reduce the cost of health insurance," Driscoll said.

"All of the union [leaders] are trying desperately to attempt to provide cost savings the manager is looking for," Town Council President Clyde Younger said. "In order to do so they have to take it back to their membership with the manager willing to approve [coalition bargaining]."

Younger was optimistic the situation would be resolved, "one way or another" by next week.

Firefighter Joe Costa, president of the IAFF Local 1347, said his union did not interpret the letter as an outright rejection to the adoption of coalition bargaining.

"He met with us once," Costa said. "Hopefully he’ll give it more than one meeting. It is premature at this point to say that the manager has rejected it."

"We’ve identified cost saving measures," Costa said. "Under [coalition bargaining] the law has to be approved by the manager before we even start negotiations."

Sideris did not read Driscoll’s letter as an outright rejection, saying he’s hoping there’s further discussion.

While rejecting the formal adoption of coalition bargaining, Driscoll said in the letter he would accept a bargaining practice that "mimics" the concept.

"It is my sincere hope that this bargaining procedure will produce a ’win-win’ scenario for all concerned," Driscoll said, "whereby the parties can meet and collectively discuss, and ultimately agree, on ways to control the rising costs of health-care benefits while still providing affordable quality health coverage."

But Younger said there was no hope for the unions to accept anything but the adoption of state law, and not a similar practice saying it was an "all or nothing" kind of deal.

At-Large Councilor Marilyn Devaney, who championed coalition bargaining was disappointed Driscoll did not approve the concept.

"I think he has to approve it and then you sit down and you say, ’Well, how can we work this out?’" Devaney said. "He’s saying he can do things without coalition bargaining."

"This is something that can be worked out," Sideris said. "The bottom line is that everyone realizes that we have to do something about health insurance costs."

"I am hoping that we can continue with some dialogue," Costa said. "We’re hoping for more dialogue with the manager."

Sideris said, as of right now, no union has a contract with the town.

Costa said unions are operating under the conditions of their previous contracts that expired in the summer of 2005.

Rising health insurance costs have been an ongoing problem across the nation. Watertown, according to Driscoll, faces a $4.9 million increase over the next three years if a new agreement is not reached.

In last week’s TAB, Driscoll emphasized the importance of "addressing this significant multi-year problem, as the town cannot continue providing the current health insurance benefit level without impacting the level of services currently being offered to the citizens of Watertown."

Christopher Loh can be reached at cloh@cnc.com.

Third time’s not the charm: unions rejected
By Christopher Loh/ Staff Writer
Friday, June 23, 2006 - Updated: 10:39 AM EST

The answer is "no."

Town Manager Michael Driscoll wants to make it perfectly clear he is rejecting the concept of gathering unions into one body to negotiate health insurance benefits with the town.

"I’m very disappointed," Town Council President Clyde Younger said of Driscoll’s rejection. "I think it would help the schools because currently they’re negotiating. Health is too important of an issue to be held as a bargaining chip. All unions are willing to work with the community and administration to get a handle on the escalating costs and make it so there are cost savings for the community. A 7-2 vote is as clear cut as I can see it, and then you disregard it, in my estimation that is outlandish, to be honest with you."

In February, the Town Council voted to recommend to Driscoll the adoption of the concept by a 7-2 vote.

The concept cannot officially be put into practice until the town manager accepts the practice, which he has made clear that he will not do.

While Driscoll’s rejection of coalition bargaining is not new even after what seemed to be a firm denial of the concept a month ago, town unions kept gesturing for Driscoll to reconsider.

The Insurance Advisory Committee, a group of union representatives gathered together to help with insurance issues, have sent three letters to Driscoll imploring him to adopt coalition bargaining to negotiate for town employees’ health insurance coverage.

Apparently the third time is the charm, at least for a response, as Driscoll finally responded in a letter to the IAC dated June 16.

"I cannot say how disappointed I continue to be with the actions and strategies that are being employed by the IAC," Driscoll said. "Although your correspondence claims that tactics have been used to delay my decision regarding the adoption of [Coalition Bargaining], it ignores and omits the true and accurate facts of what has transpired. In the attached May 12, 2006 correspondence, I made clear that I am ’simply unwilling to risk the interests of the taxpayers’ that are associated with the adoption of [Coalition Bargaining]."

"I’m extremely disappointed because it was the vote of the council, and I guess what we need to do is sit down and talk with him and listen to what he has to say about the issues," said Kathy Lenaghan, IAC representative for the teachers’ union, adding she is worried about the rejection being a major setback to further negotiations.

Currently the unions are operating under their old contracts that expired last summer.

In its third letter, dated June 9, the IAC says over a three-year period savings of nearly $1.2 million in health insurance costs would be realized if coalition bargaining were accepted.

Lenaghan and teachers’ union president Bill Fratta could not say specifically how the figure was reached, but said the figure was based on information Driscoll had provided to the unions.

"The unions have consistently held to the premise that we’re interested in finding cost-saving measures in terms of health insurance," Lenaghan said.

"It’s frustrating to a point," Fratta said. "Because in order for this [Coalition Bargaining] to go forth, there has to be an answer."

Driscoll goes on in his letter to suggest a practice that "mimics" the concept to be adopted, something previously suggested in his original response last month.

"To date, I have not received any response or feedback from the unions regarding my suggestion," Driscoll said in the letter.

Apparently, a lack of communication between the town manager and the unions seems to be the key characteristic in the controversy.

Lenaghan said Driscoll was to meet with union reps after the schools’ April vacation but did not.

In Driscoll’s most recent response he sets a deadline date to meet of June 21 or 22.

On the afternoon of June 21, Lenaghan said she was unable to make the meeting on either date, and was unsure if it was actually happening.

Christopher Loh can be reached at cloh@cnc.com.

Here are minutes from the Arlington Board of Selectmen with their reasons for rejecting coalition bargaining:

Discussion: Coalition Bargaining of Health Insurance
        Brian F. Sullivan, Town Manager
        (from 2/13/06 meeting)
        Mrs. Mahon moved to adopt Coalition Bargaining under Chapter 32B, Section 19.

Kenneth Hughes, Chairman of the Town’s Health Insurance Advisory Committee, said that he believes coalition bargaining is the best way to solve the impending health care emergency.
Mr. Kenneth Donnelly, President, International Firefighters Union, once again spoke in behalf of Coalition Bargaining. He referred to a situation in Worcester where negotiations didn’t go well and turned to arbitration. He stated that there are ways to have civil disputes with unions and there are ways where you can have an adversarial relationship with your unions.
David Blakely, Arlington Education Association President, said he sees a challenge in getting his union members to agree to what might be difficult plan changes, if they cannot be assured the other unions are doing the same. He stated that the Town is facing a health care crisis and it requires an emergency response.
Mr. Brian Sullivan, Town Manager, presented the following reasons on why Coalition Bargaining is not good for Arlington

Reasons why accepting Section 19 is not in the Town’s best interest

o       Divorces wage discussions from healthcare discussions.
o       Override commitment requires that wage and benefit costs be linked.
o       Weighted vote of unions leaves one or two unions in control.
o       Acceptance is forever, 70% of the unions must vote to dissolve.
o       Acceptance gives away the Town’s right to determine retiree healthcare benefits.
o       Does not allow for different benefit structure or contribution levels for different unions.

Mr. Greeley stated that if you look at this from our side of the table, we’d be crazy, in his opinion, to enter into coalition bargaining.
Mrs. Dias stated that she doesn’t think it is in the best interest of the community.
Mrs. Mahon stated that what she thinks she is hearing from the Board is that you just don’t want to do it, you don’t like it, and you don’t trust the unions.
Ms. LaCourt stated that we have talked a lot about what this law does but one of the things that is clear to me from all of these discussions is a lot of people don’t know the answers to a lot of the questions.
Mr. Hurd stated that if this is such a worthy goal, this coalition bargaining, why is it that such a small percentage of cities and towns are utilizing it.

Mr. Greeley moved against adopting Coalition Bargaining, Chapter 32, Section 19. Mrs. Mahon voted in the affirmative. SO VOTED (1-4)

On June 5th, 2006, Belmont's board of selectmen voted to reject coalition bargaining. Here are the relevant minutes:

MINUTES
Page 1 of 12
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2006
REGULAR SESSION
SELECTMEN’S MEETING ROOM, TOWN HALL
7:00 PM

Call to Order

A regular meeting of the Board was called to order in open session at 7:00 PM in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at Town Hall. All members were present. Town Administrator Tom Younger and Assistant Town Administrator Jeff Conti were also present.

Action by Appointment

Coalition Bargaining Discussion – Executive Session
The Board moved: to enter into executive session to discuss collective bargaining and subsequently to return to open session.

The motion was carried unanimously (3-0). The Board entered executive session at 7:02 PM.

(During executive session, one substantive motion was offered and passed unanimously.)

The Board of Selectmen returned to open session at 8:16 PM.

The Board stated for the record that during executive session, it voted to reject the request of the unions for coalition bargaining of health insurance by a 2-1 vote, with Chairman Solomon and Selectman Firenze voting aye and Selectman Brownsberger voting nay. The vote was primarily due to concerns about the long-term legal implications of the statute as currently constituted and mindful that legislative amendments have been proposed which might inform a future decision on the matter. The Board did indicate that it is open to working with the unions to try to implement some sort of coalition-style bargaining.

Selectman Brownsberger stated that he shares his colleagues’ reservations but voted no because he wished to see if some of the concerns about the bargaining process could be resolved.

Below is the text of the enabling legislation, MGL Chapter 32B, Section 19.

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE IV. CIVIL SERVICE, RETIREMENTS AND PENSIONS

CHAPTER 32B. CONTRIBUTORY GROUP GENERAL OR BLANKET INSURANCE FOR PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS, AND THEIR DEPENDENTS

Chapter 32B: Section 19. Health carriers; contracts; public employee committees; agreements with public authorities

Section 19. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other section in this chapter, the appropriate public authority of any governmental unit which has undertaken to provide health coverage to its employees, retirees, surviving spouses or dependents, who shall hereafter be referred to collectively as subscribers, by acceptance of any other section of this chapter may instead elect to provide health coverage to all such subscribers pursuant to the provisions of this section, by entering into a contract or contracts with any one or more health carriers, or by transferring such subscribers to the group insurance commission established in chapter thirty-two A, pursuant to subsection (e) herein. This section shall take effect in a county, except in Worcester county, city, town or district upon its acceptance in the following manner: in a county except in Worcester county, by a vote of the county commissioners; in a city having Plan D or a Plan E charter, by majority vote of its city council and approved by the manager; in any other city by majority vote of the city council and approved by the mayor; in a town, by vote of the board of selectmen; in a regional school district, by vote of the regional district school committee; and in all other districts, by vote of the registered voters of the district at a district meeting. Acceptance hereunder shall not take effect until a written agreement is reached between the appropriate public authority and the public employee committee established herein.

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of section four of chapter four, the acceptance of this designation may be revoked in the same manner it was accepted in accordance with all other subsections of section four B of chapter four, subject to the requirements of any public employee committee agreements as provided in this section and chapter one hundred and fifty E; provided, that revocation of this section shall not take effect until a written agreement providing for such revocation is reached between the appropriate public authority and the employee committee established herein. Nothing in this section shall preclude an appropriate public authority from agreeing to establish a health and welfare trust fund under section fifteen.

Any such contract or contracts with any one or more health insurance carriers shall be in conformity with an agreement reached by an appropriate public authority and a public employee committee. Such election by the appropriate public authority may be renewed in conformity with any successor agreement reached with a public employee committee.

The public employee committee shall be composed of a representative of each collective bargaining unit in the governmental unit and a retiree. The retiree representative shall be a designee of the Retired State, County and Municipal Employees Association. The retiree representative shall have a ten percent vote. The remaining ninety percent vote shall be divided as follows: each collective bargaining unit represented on the public employee committee shall have a weighted vote equal to the proportion which the number of employees eligible for health insurance under this chapter employed in the bargaining unit he represents bears to the total number of employees eligible for health insurance in all bargaining units of the governmental unit. Any agreement with the public authority must be approved by seventy percent of votes cast by the representatives on the public employee committee.

For the purposes of this section, a health carrier shall include any insurance company organized pursuant to chapter one hundred seventy-five, hospital service corporation organized pursuant to chapter one hundred seventy-six A, medical service corporation organized pursuant to chapter one hundred and seventy-six B, a health maintenance organization organized pursuant to chapter one hundred and seventy-six G, a preferred provider organization organized pursuant to chapter one hundred seventy-six I, or, in the case of a governmental unit which is partially or fully self-insured with respect to health coverage, any third party administrator selected by the governmental unit, which may include but is not limited to any health carrier.

An agreement so approved under this section shall be binding on all active and retired employees for whom health coverage is being purchased; shall supersede any conflicting provisions of all collective bargaining agreements and shall itself not be subject to supercedence in any statutory impasse proceeding under chapter one hundred and fifty E. Any dispute arising over the interpretation or application of the public employee committee agreement under this section may be submitted to binding arbitration under the labor arbitration provisions of the American Arbitration Association upon request of the public employee committee. Any request must be approved by seventy percent of votes cast by the representatives on the public employee committee.

A governmental unit which elects to provide health coverage to subscribers under this section shall be deemed in full compliance with any other provisions of this chapter regulating the procurement of health insurance.

A governmental unit which elects to provide health coverage under this section pursuant to an agreement approved by a public employee committee, may provide such coverage either as a single governmental unit or, pursuant to section twelve, through joint purchase with other governmental units or, with multiple governmental units, through a risk-sharing pool, trust or health carrier or third party administrator, or by making payments to a health and welfare trust fund to provide health coverage under this section either as a single governmental unit or together with multiple governmental units.

The appropriate public authority may contract with a health carrier for direct coverage of subscribers for whom the carrier’s geographic service area provides appropriate access and coverage for other subscribers in accordance with subsection (d) herein.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require, preclude or permit any change in any aspect of health coverage for active employees authorized by this section except where an agreement to provide for such change is reached by an appropriate public authority and a public employee committee in an agreement entered into or modified subsequent to the effective date of this subsection. In the absence of a successor agreement approved under this section the prior agreement of the public employee committee and the appropriate public authority regarding the provision of health insurance shall remain in effect.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to relieve any governmental unit from providing health coverage to any employee, retiree, surviving spouse or dependent to whom it has an obligation to provide coverage under any other provision of this chapter.

(d) The agreement reached between an appropriate public authority and the public employee committee shall provide for those subscribers who, by reason of residence or domicile, cannot be appropriately served within the service area of the health carrier or carriers included in said agreement, subject to the provisions set forth in this subsection.

Coverage for active employees under this subsection shall be pursuant to and in conformity with the agreement required by this section and shall conform to all requirements of this section. The agreement reached between an appropriate public authority and the public employee committee shall provide that any subscriber who for reasons of residency is not eligible for enrollment in any such plan offered by a governmental unit shall be covered under a plan offered pursuant to chapter one hundred and seventy-six I, if any such plan is provided for under said agreement; provided, that any such subscriber who lives ten miles or more from the nearest primary care physician providing care under said plan shall have out-of-pocket payments and medical deductibles limited to the amount that he would have paid had he utilized the network of medical services of the plan offered pursuant to chapter one hundred and seventy-six I. If the agreement reached between the appropriate public authority and the public employee committee provides for only health maintenance organizations or other health carriers that limit enrollment to a particular geographic area, then, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, health maintenance organizations or other health carriers shall provide for the coverage of services provided or arranged for all subscribers who do not reside within the geographic service area of said carriers in the following manner: Any subscriber not eligible for direct coverage due to his residency shall have the same benefit schedule and premium contribution provided to subscribers residing within the carrier’s geographic service area, including but not limited to covered services, out-of-pocket payments and medical deductibles for any and all medical services provided for or arranged pursuant to such agreement.

(e) Where an agreement reached by an appropriate public authority and the public employee committee covering the public employee committee of the governmental unit executed or modified subsequent to the effective date of this subsection so provides, the appropriate public authority shall, for a period of time specified by regulation of the group insurance commission transfer to said commission all subscribers for whom it provides health coverage. The regulations of said commission shall permit the governmental unit, upon agreement reached by the appropriate public authority and the public employee committee pursuant to this section, to withdraw from such transfer to said commission after a period of not less than three years following such transfer consistent with the provisions of subsection (f).

(f) Said commission shall negotiate and purchase health coverage for subscribers transferred pursuant to subsection (e) and shall promulgate regulations for coverage of such subscribers so transferred. The schedule of benefits available to such transferred subscribers shall be determined by said commission in accordance with chapter thirty-two A. Said commission shall offer such subscribers at least the same choice as to health carriers as is made available to state employees, subject only to the agreement reached between the appropriate governmental unit and the public authority committee. The governmental unit’s contribution to the cost of health coverage for such subscribers, shall be as determined under this section, and shall not be subject to the provisions on contributions in said chapter thirty-two A. Said commission shall require the governmental unit to collect and forward to the said commission the full premium or cost of coverage, including the subscriber’s contribution, if any; provided, that the commission shall require any governmental unit so transferring subscribers under this section, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, to forward to the commission the full cost of at least one month’s but not more than three month’s premiums for such transferred subscribers thirty days prior to the effective date of said transfer. For the purpose of determining the cost to subscribers transferred pursuant to subsection (d), the dollar amount payable by said subscribers shall be the same as the dollar amount paid by subscribers covered by the plan offered by the appropriate governmental unit, distinguishing only by the type of plan, individual, family or optional medicare extension plan, in which the subscriber enrolls. Said commission may also charge the governmental unit an administrative fee, to be determined by said commission, which shall be paid by the governmental unit and shall not be considered as part of the cost of coverage for purposes of determining the contributions of the governmental unit and its employees to the cost of health coverage. Any such administrative fee charged hereunder shall be used by said commission to pay any personnel or other costs associated with the administration of said plans.

(g) Any agreement reached between the governmental unit and the public employee committee shall provide that within the same health coverage plan the percentage contributed by the governmental unit to the premium or cost of health coverage shall be the same for all subscribers covered under this section. Said payments shall differ only by the type of coverage elected under the plan, individual, family, optional medicare extension or other; provided, however, that the percentage contributed by the governmental unit may vary among the different health coverage plans offered under the agreement reached between the governmental unit and the public employee committee. The agreement reached hereunder shall provide that the percentage contributed by said governmental unit to the premium or cost of at least one medicare extension plan available to all eligible subscribers shall be no less than the minimum percentage contributed by said governmental unit to any other health coverage plan offered pursuant to the agreement reached hereunder. Any governmental unit that accepts this section shall establish by agreement with the public employee committee a contribution by said governmental unit to said premium or cost of health coverage that provides for a minimum of fifty percent but not more than ninety-nine percent.

Lexopengov.com

An Open Government Initiative