The plan, GradCare, is used by the vast majority of graduate students, according to GEO President David Dobbie. The agreement, which GEO members approved by a margin of 115-3 last night, keeps GradCare monthly premiums free for all GSIs with one or no dependents, and keep premiums at $20 for those with two or more dependents.

About 10 percent of GSIs have two or more dependents, GEO said.

While GEO members seemed happy that one plan was kept free, some said they wish they could have succeeded with all the insurance plans GSIs are being offered.

“We shouldn’t be happy with this offer, but we should take it,” Dobbie said, adding that it was a good deal for GSIs. “I think this is the pragmatic choice for this union to make.”

University spokeswoman Julie Peterson said she was very happy that both sides came to an agreement.

“This settlement is really good for both our students and our University,” Peterson said, noting the rising expenditures for the University.

Last Thursday, GEO decided by a vote of 195-15 not to strike and to return to the bargaining table with the University. Yesterday afternoon, both sides managed to work out the final deal.

The University will give the GSIs that do not use GradCare two weeks starting Monday to switch over from their other plan if they so desire.

The final clause of the agreement said this deal should not be viewed as a precedent for either side in regard to future negotiations, especially since GEO’s current contract expires Feb. 1, 2005.

Peterson said she could not speculate what would have happened if GEO rejected the agreement. But Dobbie acknowledged that he was worried about the possibility of further negotiations, or worst, a strike.

“The risks associated with pushing that kind of strategy outweigh what we can get,” Dobbie said.

“I think that it’s a reasonable process considering all the University is going through (financially),” history GSI Andrew Goss said.

Geological sciences GSI Erika Carter also said she was pleased with the outcome, although she is a little worried about her colleagues who might need to take a plan beside GradCare for other reasons.

“It’s not the best deal for all of our members,” Carter said. “(But) I’m glad we made the decision that we did.”

But several GSIs noted that the prominent reasons for choosing another plan were settled by the agreement, including a new clause in GradCare, which covers maternity leave for GSIs outside Ann Arbor at the time of their child’s birth.

Without a full victory, members raised concerns at the meeting that the agreement would put them in a weak position in next year’s contract negotiations. But there was a consensus among most people that if GEO rallied and stood together next year like they did in the last few weeks, contract talks should go relatively smoothly.

“I don’t think this sets a precedent,” Goss said.

Dobbie added that GEO needs to work hard during the next year to come in with a strong platform once negotiations start.

In this hearing, the University’s representation requested further meetings to attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement, going so far as to offer to have the negotiation on central campus (an unprecedented accomodation in favor of GEO). He also requested that, as a statement of good faith, GEO not take a strike vote.

The membership discussed this proposal for about 90 minutes, before taking a vote authorizing:

1) recognition of the role that the organizing effort of the members of GEO played in bringing the University to the table

2) provisionally accepting the University’s offer to negotiate a settlement on Monday morning

3) scheduling an additional membership meeting on Tuesday, 11/25 at 7 p.m. to reassess the University’s proposal and to take a ratification vote. At that meeting any further decisions could be made by the membership in response to the University’s offer.

I write to you today as a graduate student in history, a GSI in history,
and a member of GEO to request that you revisit the misguided
co-premium policies the Committee on Health Insurance Premium Design
(CHIPD) and Provost Courant are attempting to impose on GEO members. I am
concerned with the process by which this decision was reached, the
implications for how the university attempts to treat its employees and
the standing of the university as a progressive social force in the US. I
have a series of questions I’m hoping you can address to help me better
understand how these decisions were made and the reasoning behind them.

CHIPD represents a committee of, frankly, fairly well-off faculty members
and university administrators. Why did the committee not have
representatives from all groups affected by the changes in health
coverage? Were alternatives, such as sliding-scale payments, considered?
If not, why? While the committee has wrapped its explanations in the
language of shared sacrifice in a time of budget cuts, I fear, that due to
its makeup, it failed to take into consideration of how “equal” pay cuts
(and that’s what these new premiums are, for all effects) differently affect
employees making $16,000 and $120,000 (or $675,000 for that matter).

Secondly, I am concerned at the university’s willingness to abrogate both
the spirit and the letter of GEO’s contract with the university. The time
to introduce such proposals to the union was in the most recent round of
contract negotiation. Why did the university not bargain these changes or
negotiate having unequivocal language placed in the contract? From my
perspective, it seems the administration is daring GEO to conduct a job
action.

Finally, I am concerned about what this change says about the university
as a responsible social actor. This university went to the mat to protect
affirmative action. This courageous political stance made me proud to be
affiliated with the university and I supported the University’s actions
with words and actions of my own (helping to organize Academics for
Affirmative Action and Social Justice and travelling to various court
hearings). Now, I am shocked to find myself questioning the university’s
committment to diversity. As many of the university’s opponents hammered
in the affirmative action cases, economic diversity is important as well
as racial diversity. When defending the university, its GEO contract, that
allows non-wealthy, non-elite students to afford graduate education,
helped me defend the university’s committment to economic as well as
racial and ethnic diversity. As I walk around campus and see the life
sciences buildings, witness and attend lavishly catered events for
visiting speakers, read the amount that university administrators are
being paid, see the renovations to your house (which look very nice), I
find the CHIPD changes that much more unbelievable. With all the changes
and building going on, why does the university need to cut the pay of some
of its lowest paid employees? What does it say about the University of
Michigan, an institution with a cherished history of
preserving public health through the Salk Vaccine, and its commitment
to be a responsible social actor, when the university is willing to price
health care beyond the means of graduate students with children? What more
does it say about the university when it is unwilling to pursue this
policy openly but instead attempts to impose it through administrative
fiat?

Thank you for your time and in advance for your response.

Sincerely
Andrew

——————————————————————————-

The University plan:
There are two separate proposals on the table: the 2004 recommendations made by Provost Courant, and the recommendations for 2005 and beyond made by the Committee on Health Insurance Premium Design (CHIPD), on which only administrators were represented. The only firm numbers at this point are for 2004. GradCare would cost $12/mo ($144/yr) for one person, $23/mo ($276/yr) for two, and $27/mo ($324/yr) for three or more. Those choosing other plans would pay significantly more.

The University has issued projected premiums for 2005 under the CHIPD plan based on a projected 7.5% DECREASE in total costs, which seems unlikely since the University has based their argument for changes on the fact that costs are RISING 15% a year. Based on this estimate, premiums for one person in 2005 would probably be around $21/mo ($252/yr). Families of three or more would likely pay about $31/mo ($372/yr). Again, those choosing other plans would pay significantly more.

For GSI’s and GSSA’s, this change is illegal:
While we do not think this is a fair or well-considered plan for any employees, the University has the right to change the health care of faculty and GSRA’s. However, 1700 GEO members are covered by a contract through February 1, 2005. State labor law designates health benefits as a “mandatory subject of bargaining,” meaning employers cannot change workers’ benefits without reopening formal negotiations. This law applies in all cases, unless the contract contains a “clear and unequivocal waiver” of the right to bargain. The line in our contract (Article XI) that says the Administration’s contribution to our health care will be the same as for other instructional staff is in no means a waiver by the standards set by the law.

Whatever the exact amount, forcing us to pay premiums is a breach of contract.

This is a question of priorities:
The numbers provided by the Provost suggest that the University would make about $120,000 from the premiums of GEO members in 2004. This is a drop in the bucket for the University, whose Health System made $22.5 million last year, and the University spent over $2 million remodeling the President’s mansion over the past year. The University has more than enough money to pay for our health benefits.

Is $120,000 worth breaking our contract?