UNION LEADERS SAY ROMNEY WIPES OUT FAMILY HEALTH INSURANCE IN BUDGET

By Michael C. Levenson
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
Michael.Levenson@statehousenews.com

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MARCH 6, 2003….Union leaders and House Democrats on Thursday angrily accused Gov. Mitt Romney of eliminating family health insurance coverage for state employees and retirees in his budget proposal for next year.

Romney administration officials said they believed coverage had not been eliminated, but left open the possibility that an “error” had been made. Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said if a mistake had been made, the governor would seek to fix it with legislative leaders before the budget becomes law.

“If we made an error, we will certainly correct it,” Feddeman said. “The governor wants to extend family coverage for all state employees.” She pointed out that Romney has included $718 million for state employee health care coverage, the same amount appropriated last year.

But those statements proved little consolation to irate leaders of the state’s largest union, the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, who held a placard-toting press conference to say the proposal, as laid out in Romney’s budget, would end coverage for 75,000 spouses and children of state workers.

“This quite frankly is the most anti-family health insurance proposal any of us at the AFL-CIO has ever seen,” union president Robert Haynes said. Rep. Martin Walsh (D-Boston) accused Romney of an “assault on the working class people of the Commonwealth.” And Health Care for All activist Mark Rukavina called Romney’s plan “heartless.”

Current law says the state must pay a share of health insurance “on behalf of active and retired employees and their dependents.” Under Romney's budget, the reference to dependents is deleted, replaced by language saying the state will make contributions “for each individual.”

House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers (D-Norwood), who oversees the budget for Speaker Thomas Finneran, said Romney administration officials told him the change was a mistake.

“We have been informed by the administration that this language change was a mistake,” Rogers said in a statement. In the past, he said, governors have fixed such mistakes by filing a corrective measure with the Legislature, known as an “errata sheet.”

“We await this document,” Rogers said. Union officials said the change would cost workers with the least costly health plans an additional $227 per month. Workers with costlier plans, such as GIC Indemnity, would pay an additional $918 per month, union officials said.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Patrice Devin, a UMass-Boston employee. “If this law by Romney goes through, I will not be able to pay insurance.”

The dispute is the latest chapter in a battle between union leaders and the Republican governor, a former CEO and venture capitalist. The unions are already fighting Romney over his plans to raise the amount state workers pay for their health coverage, and his efforts to roll back union protections on public contracts.

The rift between Romney and the unions deepened even before union workers held their midday protest at the State House. Early in the day, the Romney administration issued a statement calling the union’s claims “preposterous” and an example of stonewalling government reforms. “This is preposterous,” the statement from Feddeman said. “This type of distortion is not only silly, it also reveals the length to which the opponents of change will go to stop any reform of state government practices.”

Union leaders later rejected that assertion. “The language is pretty clear in the state budget,” Haynes said. “They’re known for their business acumen, and for that language to be left out, their motivation is clear. In my mind, they did not intend to fund dependents.”