The more the details from the city’s contract with the teachers union emerge — particularly how the “health savings” will be achieved — the fishier it gets.
Remember, when the mayor was selling the $9 billion contract to the public, the clincher was the $1 billion in “health savings” over the life of the nine-year deal. But we were given few specifics about where these savings will come from.
Now we’re told that roughly 12 percent of these savings is to come from purging various employee relatives who enjoy health-insurance benefits for which they are actually ineligible. These ineligible recipients include divorced spouses or children who aged out of parents’ health plans. The city claims eliminating ineligible family plans would save $8,500 per person.
Removing from the rolls those who get city-paid benefits even though they are ineligible is a good thing. But why is this action part of a negotiated labor agreement? Shouldn’t rooting out people ineligible for benefits be what the city government does as a matter of course?
To add insult to injury, the Bloomberg administration actually began identifying the very same waste and fraud last year, only to be battled every step of the way — including by a lawsuit filed by organized labor initially to block an audit of employees.
Mayor Bloomberg, of course, was looking for a bigger bang for the city buck. By contrast, Mayor de Blasio is making these moves only to help him justify rewarding the UFT with back pay and higher wages.
Our question is this: If the taxpayers do not realize the benefit from these moves, can we really call them “savings”?