THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

TWU Health Boondoggle

To the Editor:

While I applaud The Chief's efforts to reveal the truth behind Roger Toussaint's Machiavellian machinations, it continues to mischaracterize contractual issues as they relate to the infamous Health-Care Contribution. This misrepresentation occurs in two passages contained in the otherwise excellent commentary by Richard Steier in his July 25 column, "For Toussaint, Power Is All That's Left."

In this article, as well as virtually all articles in all periodicals, the ever-rising "contribution" is said to pay a portion of the cost of members' health-care benefits. This description overstates the actual benefit received, as it implies that said contribution is for the general health-care fund which covers active members. The contractual language clearly states that the contribution is to have a much more circumscribed use ... to offset the cost of retiree health benefits (Section 4, Paragraph 4).

In the column's passage regarding the negotiations for the 2005 contract, there is another reference to the animosity engendered amongst the Transport Workers Union members by having to contribute for their health-care coverage. While it is true members were angered by the fact that premiums were tied to gross earnings, there was also realization by many that we would be paying dearly for a limited benefit. Those especially angered were the ones who would not be eligible for the pre-Medicare portion or would be eligible for a negligible amount of time (it would be far cheaper for me to buy a COBRA plan for the six months I will be eligible than "contribute" for the next 15 years). In addition, it is dubious whether the Metropolitan Transportation Authority brass ever sought to reduce future member health benefits. The copy of proposals submitted by the MTA to the arbitration board has a more-onerous pension contribution for new hires but no indication of reduction in health benefits for these hires (contained in the fax received Jan. 25, 2006 by the Local 100 president.)

For many of us, this escalating "contribution" remains a sore spot. Salt was rubbed into this wound during the past tax season when, contrary to pre-vote literature distributed by the union, our contribution was taxed by New York State.

In addition, many of us are bewildered by Mr. Toussaint's dual role of contract negotiator and board member of GHI. How can he perform his fiduciary duty to both the union and GHI? Why has he not spoken out against the GHI/HIP merger and the plan to make them a public company? There is a provision in our contract for union oversight of health-care provider reports to the MTA. Has the union invoked this right? A clear and factual discussion of our health-care contribution and what it is purchasing is needed to objectively analyze the adequacy of our past negotiations and the course we should take in the next negotiation vis à vis health-care. It is my sincere hope that all future references to our contribution will include analysis that will "contribute" to that end.

WALTER COLON, Station Agent

Editor's note: In the Dec. 30, 2005 edition of this newspaper, it was reported that in the final hours of bargaining before Transport Workers Union Local 100 opted to call a strike at 3 a.m. Dec. 20, then-Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Peter S. Kalikow withdrew a demand that new members contribute 1 percent of their earnings toward their health premiums.