City Budget Update: Protecting City Workers’ Health Benefits
 
At a meeting last week of the Joint Labor-Management Benefits Committee (JLMBC), which is a City committee that meets regularly to discuss employee health benefits, City Administrative Officer (CAO) Miguel Santana made a motion that would dramatically increase the cost of employee health benefits.
Leaders of SEIU 721 and the Coalition of LA City Unions immediately voted it down.
CAO Miguel Santana’s response? He declared impasse, which means he is trying to force the agreement on city workers because the union coalition rejected it.
This is the first time in the history of the City of Los Angeles that a city official has attempted to declare impasse in a committee, outside of traditional contract bargaining.
Santana will take his request to the Employee Relations Board (ERB)–without precedent or legal authority. Lawyers for the Coalition of LA City Unions are preparing our response, but according to the rules of the Joint Labor-Management Benefits Committee, it can vote down any motion.
Here are answers to some questions you might be asking.
What did CAO Miguel Santana propose for city workers?
Here are the changes Santana is trying to impose on city workers:
Increase HMO office visit co-payments from $10 to $20 
Increase the emergency room visit co-payment from $50 to $100
Eliminate the $7.50 per pay period Flex Credit; and,
Establish a uniform, 30-day supply, prescription drug co-payment structure for all plans ($10 Generic, $20 brand name on Formulary, and $40 brand name off Formulary).
Will SEIU and the Coalition of LA City Unions accept this proposal?
Absolutely not. The benefit changes Santana seeks could end up costing the City more than they save. The new federal health care reform act grandfathers large benefit plans as long as no substantial changes are made to the plan. If enacted, Santana’s proposal would jeopardize LA’s grandfather status and risk triggering costly benefit mandates required by the federal law.
Why is Santana doing this?
It’s unclear. Again, this is the first time in the history of the City of Los Angeles that a city official has attempted to declare impasse in a committee, outside of traditional contract bargaining.
Didn’t most members of the Engineers & Architects Assn. (EAA) recently reject a similar proposal to pass additional health costs onto City employees?
Yes. Earlier this month LA City employees represented by EAA, in 3 out of 4 units, voted to reject a contract proposal that contained these types of cuts to health care.
Unfortunately, EAA, apparently working with City officials, has decided to ignore its members vote and is conducting another mail ballot vote on the same contract proposal.
Coalition members continue to be alarmed that another city union would collaborate with the CAO to drive down the quality of benefits for all city workers.
What is the Coalition doing to fight ongoing service cuts and furloughs?
Coalition members have filed group grievances for every job classification, in every bargaining unit and every department affected by furloughs:
Opposing unilateral mandatory furloughs as a violation of the Letter of Agreement ratified overwhelmingly by Coalition members last year
Challenging the City’s jump to layoffs before exhausting less drastic steps they agreed to follow first 
Challenging the layoffs as discriminatory and unfair because the City failed to follow seniority, as called for in every MOU and in the City’s own civil service rules
I have more questions. How can I get answers?
We will report back to you on our progress including any new information released by the city. Please contact your steward if you have questions or call the SEIU 721 Member Resource Center anytime Monday through Friday between 7 am and 7 pm at (877) 721-4YOU.
 
 
 

 
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 721