Letter: GIC not a good deal for Swampscott employees

Opinion

Discussion

The Salem News has a real-name policy for commenting. Users may sign in using the Facebook Connect tool above the comments field. Once your first comment is posted by a moderator, all future comments will post automatically. If you prefer not to use Facebook, send an e-mail with your comments user name (which must be the same as your real name), city or town, street address and daytime phone number to comments@salemnews.com. A staff member will contact you directly to confirm your identity. It may take a day or two before you can post comments. Only your user name will be public. All users are required to follow our rules for commenting, which can be found here.

comments powered by Disqus

October 7, 2008

Anonymous The Salem News Tue Oct 07, 2008, 05:43 AM EDT

To the editor:

Your Wednesday, Oct. 1, article about the Swampscott unions' decision not to receive health insurance through the state Group Insurance Commission ("Union rejects insurance change; layoffs predicted"), badly misrepresented the employees' point of view.

Members of all of the unions in Swampscott, not just the teachers' union, rejected the plan for a simple reason: It would have cost many employees and retirees a lot of money.

Right now, the town pays 60 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums and employees pay 40 percent — a 60/40 split. Under the town's proposal, the split gradually would have shifted to 70/30, but at an unacceptable cost.

For example, the co-payment for hospital admissions for covered employees would have jumped from the current level of zero to anywhere from $200 to $400 per family member per quarter.

Co-payments for routine doctors' office visits, prescription drugs and many other benefits would also have risen sharply.

Legislators and other state employees are covered by the GIC, so why isn't it good enough for Swampscott employees? Also simple: Most state employees pay an 85/15 premium split, saving them thousands of dollars a year compared to what we pay. If the town wants to offer us the same premium split that state employees get, we'd jump at the offer.

Although we found the town's plan unacceptable, we have not shut the door on looking for ways to save employees and taxpayers money on health insurance. We are all affected by the high cost of health insurance and we would all benefit from fair and reasonable cost-saving measures. We are ready to meet again, and urge town and school officials to join us.

PAUL MAGUIRE

SEA President, for the Swampscott Public Employee Committee

Swampscott