RTC Chapter Leader Bennett Fischer Writes Mulgrew

I further share Mulgrew's Royal Response, and Bennett's response to that.

One thing I have in common with Bennett Fischer is that we were both chapter leaders of very large schools. An important thing for any chapter leader, if you ask me, is that you keep the chapter apprised of what you’re doing. Every time I filed an operational complaint, or a grievance on behalf of the chapter, I’d send details of it to the entire staff. I never wanted them to think I was sitting around doing nothing.

So I suppose I should not have been surprised when Bennett asked me why I published Mulgrew’s response without the letter that provoked it. That answer is simple—I wanted to debunk Unity’s outlandish new talking point. But you really should know that Bennett is lobbying for us. Here’s Bennett’s first email, Mulgrew’s answer, and Bennett’s subsequent response:

Dear Michael,

As you know, the legality of the City’s original plan to opt retirees into Medicare Advantage (“MA”) will be heard by the New York State Court of Appeals later this year in NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees v. Campion.  In addition, last month, the City asked the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal its loss in Bentkowski v. City of New York, which concerns the City’s revised plan to shift retirees into MA.

Now that the UFT has withdrawn its support for MA, it should make its position known in Campion and—if the Court of Appeals agrees to hear it—Bentkowski.  If the UFT is serious about opposing the City’s MA program, it is imperative that it do so in the NY State Court of Appeals, the body that has ultimate say on this issue.

With respect to Campion, the MLC filed an amicus brief in support of the City’s MA program in November 2023. That was when the UFT still supported that program.  Now that the UFT no longer supports the City’s MA program, the UFT should correct the record and clarify for the Court that it has withdrawn its support.  Filing an amicus brief in support of retirees would be an effective way to achieve this.

At the very least, the UFT should file a letter—or ask the MLC to file a letter—notifying the Court that the UFT no longer supports the City’s MA program.  

With respect to Bentkowski, if the Court of Appeals grants the City’s motion for leave to appeal, the UFT should: (1) file an amicus brief in support of the retirees; and (2) urge the MLC not to file an amicus brief in support of the City.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Bennett Fischer

After asking Mulgrew to support retirees by filing an amicus brief in favor of the lawsuits, or to at least alert the court of the UFT's new position on Medicare Advantage, Mulgrew made excuses about why he would not support retirees. Here, again, is Mulgrew’s response.

Dear Bennett, 

I appreciate your email and your shared commitment to retiree healthcare. As you know, by withdrawing our support for the city’s move towards a Medicare Advantage plan in early June, we have been very clear that no matter what happens in the courts, we are firmly against a Medicare Advantage plan for our retirees. We withdrew support for the Medicare advantage plan because we understand the anxiety and concern overwhelmingly expressed by UFT retirees, as well as their desire to keep the coverage they presently have.

We cannot, however, support this lawsuit, as there are many untrue allegations about the proposed AETNA plan. For example, it claimed that retirees would be denied access to doctors, prior authorizations would prevent retirees from receiving needed treatment and that retirees would be subject to high out-of-pocket costs. These allegations are patently false and the UFT would never have agreed to a plan that had this effect on our members. We cannot sign on to a lawsuit that spreads harmful misinformation.

But let’s be clear: as a union, we stand with our retirees and remain committed to fighting to preserve Medicare and social security benefits because that is what they deserve. 

Last week, we motivated a resolution for Federal legislation protecting Medicare and Social Security on a national level at last week’s AFT Convention. Our members pay into Medicare and Social Security throughout their career, and we cannot let opponents chip away at these programs. Our retirement security depends on them and we will fight to keep them safe. 

One line of Mulgrew’s is quite disturbing to me:

…no matter what happens in the courts, we are firmly against a Medicare Advantage plan for our retirees.

That’s quite a passive statement. There’s nothing resembling responsibility attached to it. It indicates, bascially, que será, será. Yeah, we are firmly opposed to it. Of course, it’s just court business, so if you’re stuck with it anyway, what the hell do you expect me to do about it? I wrote pretty extensively about Mulgrew’s absurd assertions just yesterday. However, Bennett does an excellent job responding to it, in great detail, below.

Dear Michael,

I appreciate the UFT's reversal of position, but I don't understand how you can continue to assert that the lawsuit has untrue allegations about the AETNA plan, when those allegations have been upheld in both Manhattan Supreme Court and the NY State Appellate Division. It seems to me that at a certain point - after two courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and after AETNA's lawyers admitted in sworn testimony that the allegations you claim to be untrue are actually true - you must realize that what you call "untrue allegations" are proven facts.

It's just amazing to me. You say you are now against the City's plan, yet you still defend it.

It's simple. If you no longer support the City's plan to move retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan, put your money where your mouth is and tell the courts you no longer support the City's plan. One way to do that is with an amicus brief. An amicus brief doesn't have to support every contention made by a plaintiff. It need only offer general support to send a message. The amicus brief filed by PSC-CUNY doesn't support every contention made in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. PSC’s brief even makes arguments of its own that the plaintiffs aren't necessarily happy with. But it sends a message to the courts that, while they may not support every word of the lawsuit, they support its end goal of stopping the City from implementing the AETNA plan. That is your stated goal also. So, what's the problem?

If you are so uncomfortable with filing an amicus brief, then I offer you an alternative: Simply notify the NY State Court of Appeals that the UFT no longer supports Medicare Advantage.  Easy, peasy. That would correct the record and would not require you to say anything you are uncomfortable with. In your letter to me you wrote, "we have been very clear that no matter what happens in the courts, we are firmly against a Medicare Advantage plan for our retirees." Hallelujah! So, tell it to the damn court!

And may I take that same line to mean that you are against any Medicare Advantage plan being pushed onto retirees, not just the AETNA plan? That is fantastic. So, then please, please, please (as the Godfather of Soul so beautifully sang) use the UFT's lobbying arm to support legislation in the New York City Council, and in the NY State legislature, that would prevent that kind of a move from ever happening to our public service retirees.

All that, because, if you truly want the sort of Federal legislation that you called for in the resolution you motivated at the AFT convention in July - legislation that prevents our opponents from chipping away at Medicare and Social Security - why not support such legislation on the State and local levels as well? The most effective method that our opponents have used to chip away at Medicare is through the manipulation of Medicare Advantage loopholes to increase profits for their shareholders at the expense of the health and wellbeing of their customers.

Are we both in agreement that moving 250,000 NYC municipal retirees from traditional Medicare and into Medicare Advantage is a significant part of the chip, chip, chipping away at Medicare that our opponents so love, and that you and I so abhor? I hope so. If we agree on that, then let's go! Let's use the political clout of "the powerful teachers union" (that's us, the UFT) to push back against our opponents on all levels of government - Federal, State, and local. Walk and chew gum. We can do this.

In solidarity,

Bennett Fischer

Alas, Mulgrew did not see fit to respond to this. It’s understandable. His position, basically, is we oppose this plan but we will do absolutely nothing to stop it. It reminds me of a line from Catch 22—You’re my good friend and there’s just about nothing I would do for you. As far as I can tell, that’s the official UFT Unity position. We support you, but will not lift a finger to help you.

So again, I don’t blame Mulgrew (or whoever he has writing this stuff) for not responding. I couldn’t defend that position either.