Essex County retirees sue over health insurance

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

April 21, 2011

Paying more violates contract, Essex County group argues

LOHR McKINSTRY Press-Republican The Press Republican Thu Apr 21, 2011, 06:41 AM EDT

ELIZABETHTOWN — A group of retired Essex County employees are suing the county over an attempt to make them pay a larger portion of their health insurance.

The county asked them to pay 12 percent of their premiums this year, but that violates their contract, the suit contends.

The litigation was filed by the Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, representing Essex County workers, on behalf of 27 retirees, against the county, the County Board of Supervisors and board Chairman Randy Douglas (D-Jay).

It seeks to have the retirees' contribution levels restored to the 0-to-8-percent cost each had been paying. All retired in either 2009 or 2010 under a contract that runs from 2009 to 2012.

GRIM OUTLOOK

Douglas said Wednesday that when the latest contract was negotiated, it included a clause that employees would pay the full cost of any insurance increase to the county greater than 9 percent.

The provider at the time, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, said that because of high claims, the county's medical-insurance cost was going up 46 percent.

The county switched to Excellus and got a 15-percent increase instead.

Instead of passing that on to workers, "we took $400,000 out of contingency to offset their cost. Now the same employees have turned around and sued us," Douglas said.

He said planning for the 2012 county budget has been grim.

"The county is looking at a $1.5 million shortfall if we keep the services we have now. We're at a 12-percent increase before we even start."

'SLAP IN FACE'

Layoffs, home health-care, Horace Nye Nursing Home and other non-mandated services are all on the table, Douglas said.

"These are great services, but we can't afford them. We're being forced to cut services and cut positions. It's unfortunate, but that's what we have to do."

Fighting the lawsuit will cost more money, he said.

"This comes out of the budget. We'll have less money to give the current employees. It's a slap in the face."

CSEA Capital Region Communications Specialist Therese Assalian said the contract language is in their favor.

"The CSEA contends the contract language is clear with respect to retirees' health insurance. The county violated the terms of the contract. It was pretty clear the dates and terms in place at the time of their retirement shall continue."

'FAST AND LOOSE'

Douglas pointed out that state retirees pay health-insurance shares of 35 percent, up from 25 percent.

"This is not a huge increase compared to the state. Everybody's got to make some concessions. I feel these 27 individuals do not care about their fellow CSEA workers. It's going to have a huge effect on them (current workers)."

The litigation could be costly, Assalian said, but the retirees worked their careers as public servants and have a right to expect what was guaranteed to them.

"When money is tight, public officials should be careful how they move forward. These can be expensive battles."

Assalian said they're waiting now for the county to respond to the initial filing in State Supreme Court of Essex County.

"We're seeing a lot of these cases around the country. Local government officials think they can play fast and loose with contract interpretations. Retirees are especially susceptible to this. Maybe they think they're not going to fight back. In this case, CSEA is prepared to fully represent our members."

County Manager Daniel Palmer said they believe the present union contract allows for a 14-percent insurance increase for retirees, but the county held it to 12 percent.

"The union ratified this change. Ultimately, the court will decide, but we believe we acted in good faith and in the best interest of both parties."

Email Lohr McKinstry at: lmckinstry@pressrepublican.com