Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Frances Bolton's avatar

Your notes are always so useful! The woman who asked Q1 was also given opportunity to ask questions in three of the last four DA. (I know you’re online so don’t see it)

Expand full comment
Marianne Pizzitola's avatar

I would love for once that he or Beth Norton actually break down exactly how 1096 violates the law when the Taylor law is for employees. And there is no collective bargaining agreement that speaks to healthcare plans. The reason being healthcare in the city of New York was legislative. The MLC doesn’t have a bargaining certificate. Healthcare is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Michael Mulgrew, and Henry Garrido under the leader ship of the MLC hijacked healthcare for the city of New York all union members and Retirees.

What Mulgrew isn’t telling you is because school district employees have a state law covered by the moratorium act whereas school district retirees health benefits can be diminished if they equally diminish it to an employee.

Mulgrew was offered a lot in contract equity for putting in motion, a diminution of health benefits. He knew he could diminish your Retirees health benefit if he equally reduced it for an employee.

I believe it’s why he was chosen to go first

And it’s also why the AFL-CIO was trying to enforce that same law on every employee and Retiree statewide. And they don’t even see it coming.

We do. And as I said in the newsletter, a couple months ago, not only is that a no, but that is a hell no and Henry Garrido and Michael Mulgrew can kiss my ass and Macy’s window if they think that they’re going to keep reducing a Retirees healthcare benefit and an employees health benefit at that point we should be taking the both of them And tossing them in the river. Labor should never be agreeing to diminish benefits for employees or retirees and if labor leaders are, they don’t deserve to be a labor leader.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts