(from CHA)
We are disappointed with Friday’s decision by the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board and are reviewing our legal options with regard to next steps.
We continue to believe our negotiations with the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA), which represents the Cambridge Hospital nurses, were conducted fairly and with proper consideration. We remain confident we can ultimately demonstrate the serious need to implement the desired changes for the benefit of the entire organization. Four other labor unions representing more than 750 Cambridge Hospital employees understood how important this change is to Cambridge Health Alliance’s financial stability, and ratified the proposed changes to the public employee retiree health plan.
The issue in last week's testimony involved whether a financial exigency existed that justified our decision to declare an impasse with the MNA following its rejection of our proposal and implement the changes to the retiree health plan at the well-established deadline. We felt that the financial results of FY 2009, which ended with the largest deficit in the history of the organization, and the other external pressures exerted upon CHA as a public safety net hospital were conclusive and compelling evidence of the serious economic threat under which we are operating. In the last two years we have closed six health centers and all inpatient services at Somerville Hospital. We’ve closed our inpatient pediatric services and ceased offering inpatient addictions services and further had to close 35 adult psychiatric beds. In doing so, we have had to reduce our workforce by 450 full-time employees. That just gets us to where we are today: still confronting the forces of a deteriorating economy and a healthcare environment that is experiencing declining volumes, shrinking reimbursement, and continuing pressures from state and federal health care reform. If this does not meet the definition of financial exigency, I’m not sure what would.
At all times, our goal in reducing costs associated with the retiree health plan was to preserve the benefit without resorting to further job cuts, particularly since the economy shows no sign of rebounding. While some private and governmental entities are shelving pension and retiree health plans and abandoning their former employees, we wanted to retain a fair benefit. We feel that providing 50 percent of a retiree’s health care costs is a reasonable and affordable offer to our public employees.
The CERB decision will not change the fact we are unable to fund this benefit under the current terms. Unlike municipalities, we don't have taxing authority and cannot raise revenues to cover massively rising costs. While we remain ready and eager to return to the bargaining table and develop a mutually agreeable labor contract, we need to be clear that the MNA's rejection of CHA’s reasoned proposal threatens CHA’s future.
Comments