OPINION – NYC Union Retirees Health Plan Debate: Ageist Collusion Harms Elders

A Message From the Assertive Kids Foundation President

One of the aims of Assertive Kids is to combat ageism in all its forms. This is a priority because we wish for our elders to live freely in society as respected members with full rights, not lessers simply because bias against elders is common in contemporary American society, and it’s easier going with the flow than reconsidering ingrained habits. Elders are people, too, individuals we should treat with a certain measure of dignity, simply because they are our elders. I posit that this is the moral thing to do, regardless of which moral system one subscribes to. We can all agree on this, I am quite certain.

In every field of endeavor, there are men and women who came before, doing that same job.

While this is true, some jobs no longer serve the community’s needs, like feeding coal to a locomotive engine. Likewise, new jobs emerge in society, like today’s pioneering AI specialists working across a varied segment of trade and commerce, research, and so much more. However, there is always a lineage, and the younger generation learns from their seniors – the “long-timers” – on-the-job, as it were. This is just how it’s been, probably as long as people have lived and survived, passing on the Light of Knowledge, the invaluable firsthand experience working a craft, by way of expanding the knowledge base, skills, workways, and job culture associated with a skilled trade or occupation.

Presently, ALL retired NY City municipal workers face a drastic and permanent change in their health care coverage. This includes, but is not limited to retirees represented by many different unions, including  police, firefighters, EMTs, MTA workers, teachers, educational administrators, clerks, and even office staffers. I won’t get into the finer details; for more information see this article and this other article, previously published on the Staten Islander. (Click to begin researching online with Google to obtain a broader perspective; there’s plenty of material available.) For the purposes of this article, what you must realize is that retirees are losing health care coverage, as the proposed replacement privatized health plan is not equivalent. There is no plainer way to state this; anything else is minutia.

While the battle to stop this proposed change in health care coverage for retirees in presently unfolding in the courts, dedicated stalwarts like Marianne Pizottolo, a retired NYC FDNY-EMT, does her part in the fight with her ever-enthusiastic and well-reasoned presence on social media. As the finality of it all draws near, we can’t escape the obvious: The unions sold out the retirees to benefit the current union members. If this seems debatable, consider that a retirement fund for NYC pensioners was drained to cover a pay increase for on-the-job city workers.

This is shifting debt onto elder members of society; there’s no escaping the obvious. Proof enough? Sure, people can debate the finer aspects, but at its base, this description is apt, if incomplete and lacking context. (Though no context, whatsoever, could change the fact that this is as I describe, a travesty in the making.)

It’s ageism in action.

So, why is this acceptable for those still on-the-job? Are cops and firefighters for real? Teachers? EMTs? Is all this somehow okay? Is it even a possibility that this could be considered so under any set of circumstances? These retirees were the trailblazers, the men and women who came before, those who trained the people presently working city union jobs. And, since we live longer these days, those adversely affected by the proposed changes will certainly also include those pensioners who taught their own seniors when they were first on the job. And so, it’s quite disrespectful that the men and women working today are allowing this to happen. They are the current-day union members; they are the ones with the voice to say no and dissent to this treachery.

If nothing else, this massive inter-generational funds transfer sets a bad precedent, and realistically, those working union jobs today should realize that future promises mean little. One day, they’ll be retired, too. And, when that day finally arrives, I suppose they should expect the same (lack of) regard by their own junior union members, as the younger generation follows the trend of disrespecting their elders, learning that it’s acceptable  to do so from their own elders, the workers of today, in an ironic yet just outcome.

When we look at it from afar, it’s clearly a deal with a devilish twist: It’s the younger workers grifting their elders, with the city and unions as accomplices. Is this really necessary? Is it too much to ask for NYC workers to stand up for retirees and demand that the city figures out some other way to balance its books, have money for raises, and keep retirees having the full range of health care options they enjoy today? Obviously, I don’t believe so, and so I say, let your politicians know, if you don’t either.

Only in a time frame when people have so little concern for others, and consider only their own self interest and personal gain, would this nightmarish situation even be possible. City workers need to have a moral backbone and defend those who need health care the most, and have certainly earned that right, having put in their time and retired. Pitting different generations of workers in a war for scarce funds is no solution. It’s a clever trick, really. It’s an ageist war, and what we really need, as a society, as a nation, as a city, is a war on ageism!

We all need to stand up against this injustice, as it’s a great disrespect, in principle, to our elders, one and all.

Don’t sell out our elders! This message should hit home with those to the Right, Left, and Center, politically. It should resonate with the apolitical reader. If the premise that this generational theft is happening can be proven, it is fair to assume that it would be difficult to find a single person who disagrees. This is a basic issue of caring for, and protecting, our elders. Making the issue into anything else is pure manipulation. Of course, it’s also about union representation, health care, politics, and more. There is an intersection of many aspects of modern life in this dilemma, and the outcome in this case will likely garner quite a bit of attention, either way.

So, some say that President Biden is “getting old.” The same was claimed about President Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, Madonna, even. The only time we should even use the word “old” in any way referring to people, it should be to strongly affirm that Ageism’s Getting Old!™ Are we really a culture so transfixed on promoting bias against our elders that we don’t even notice?

Remarkably, this sort of behavior is still socially acceptable, and runs across the political spectrum. For instance, many who would dare not joke about immigrants or LGBTQAI+ individuals can be heard cracking jokes about the elders in their lives, or the previous generations, generally speaking. While jokes are a great way to let off steam and even learn from one another and grow closer, the key is to be respectful and not let our joking devolve into raw hatred untempered by kindness.

Keep in mind that we do have an obligation to one another as members of this civilization. Workers who allow politicians, unions, and health care companies to jeopardize retired workers’ health and well-being, and even economic security, are forgetting that it’s their place to protect those who served and came before, and that it’s certainly not appropriate to accept a raise predicated on taking any saved funds from retirees that the retirees earned and chose to have the city squirrel away as their trusted steward.

Whether taking this money was legal or not, it’s still not the least bit a morally sound practice. It’s wrong, and we all know it. Of course, it would be equally wrong to run up debt and leave that for future generations to deal with. Pushing the responsibility one way or the other is problematic in its own way.

Direct action will help. This matter should not have even required adjudication. If you feel for these retirees and their spouses, get involved by letting your politicians, at all levels from city, state, to congressional representatives, know that you are not at all happy with this situation, and you think ageism is despicable. Let them know. They can change things. It’s your right, and frankly, it’s your obligation, especially if you’re currently on-the-job in NYC. Retirees are older, and consequently, health issues are not uncommon. Many are well, but unsurprisingly, some are ill.

For some N.Y.C. retirees, this proposed change will make the specialized care they’re currently receiving to maintain health impossible to afford, as some medical providers will no longer be covered in the proposed health plan, like the Cancer Center at Colombian Presbyterian Hospital, to provide a single example out of a field of many. Colombian Presbyterian won’t be accepting the new Medicare Advantage plan that’s proposed, and so what are patients to do?

Please, be a caring and responsible human being, and stand up for the now-retired NYPD, NYFD, teachers, EMS, and everyone else who put their time in and completed their tenure honorably. Aren’t these the very people who kept our city going? They kept us safe from those who shun society’s, and individuals’, protective boundaries. They taught our city’s children, helping to guide entire generations. They fought raging fires, bravely walking into hazardous situations because others required help. They transported the sick and injured to the hospital safely and quickly, making sure that every life that could be saved, was.

These humble city workers even did things we might at first glance not even notice, like processing our paperwork or cleaning hallways and offices. They matter, too. Unnamed city workers at less well-known, less visible jobs performed all the behind-the-scenes work that allowed the city run like a finely tuned machine. Or, as close to a finely tuned machine as is possible, given that no city is a machine, and humans, weather, and history, are all unknown variables.

Some retirees are even the same people we called heroes again and again because of their selfless service on September 11th, 2001. According to Scientific American, “Nearly half of living responders have a respiratory or digestive condition related to 9/11, and 16 percent have developed a cancer. Another 16 percent have a mental health condition, such as PTSD, depression or substance abuse.”  Is it fair to leave this vulnerable population with less robust access to cancer treatment and other vital health services? I can’t believe I just had to ask that. What’s happened to us as a culture of take-no-crap New Yorkers? Or, the idea of Standing Together, like we all did after 9/11?

Was all the talk of heroes just lip service? Will we let our praise ring hollow, accolades without real-life appreciation or meaningful effect? Is this how we honor our heroes?

Certainly not; in fact it’s a clear dishonor to them! The city will find the money; it always does. Firstly, there should be more of a focus on prevention and wellness as a crucial component of healthcare, but that’s for another time, another day. Use your voice and make a difference in this debate if you feel, as I do, that the entire matter is ludicrous and is clearly a settled question. NYC union retirees should get to keep their coverage, plain and simple.

D. F. Alban
President, Assertive Kids Foundation

www.AssertiveKids.org

(877) 235-3319