You Can Have A Raise, But Only If You Pay For Your Health Care

That's the message from the plutocracy for NYC municipal union workers:

A mayor who signs costly contracts would face the politically fraught prospect of raising taxes, budget experts say. Pushing for big concessions risks a continued stalemate, which isn't a palatable alternative for the Democratic candidates—one of whom is likely to be the next mayor in the overwhelmingly Democratic city—who depend on union support.

The unions want any new deal to include raises for the years since their contracts ran out. The city calculates that retroactive raises plus future raises at the rate of inflation would cost $3 billion a year—more than the annual $2.4 billion budget of the city's sanitation department.

Mr. Bloomberg's union offer didn't include retroactive raises and would have provided future pay increases of just over 1% a year. He also wanted workers to pay 10% of the cost of their health plans for individual coverage and 20% for family coverage.

Currently, 95% of city employees pay nothing for basic health plans—a rarity even among public employees.

"I don't think there's any chance that they can resolve this without employee contributions to health care," said Kathy Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group that opposes raising taxes. "The numbers just don't work."

Here's the union response:

Harry Nespoli, the head of the sanitation-workers union who also is president of an umbrella municipal-union group, said workers want to help the city find health-care savings, but they don't want to contribute to premiums. He said, for example, the unions would be willing to help the city negotiate savings from vendors of services like health insurance. But unions recently sued to stop a Bloomberg administration attempt to shop for a new provider for the city's $6 billion health plan.

And here's where the candidates are on health care:

Two of the four leading Democratic candidates for mayor—Ms. Quinn, who has the support of Mr. Nespoli's sanitation workers, and Mr. Weiner—have said employee health-care costs should be on the table.

Another, Mr. de Blasio, who has been endorsed by the health-care workers union, wants to reduce costs by creating 20 city-run clinics to provide basic care at job sites. Mr. Thompson—who is backed by the teachers and firefighters unions—has been less specific, saying he doesn't want to negotiate in public.

Paying for health care to get a raise would essentially nullify that raise.

Once unions open the door to paying for health care, even some small percentage of the overall cost, the door will remain open forever in future negotiations.

If we sell out the health care benefit now for raises, the increases on health care payments they'll force through in future negotiations will eat away whatever little raise you get now.

That's my take.

How about you?

Any of you out there willing to pay for health care in order to get a retro raise (or just a raise)?

If so, explain to me why you are willing to do so.

Maybe I'm missing something on this issue.