HSM LATEST UPDATE
By Kenny KohlmeyerAfter receiving the company’s latest offer, the Union Executive Board spent an extensive amount of time discussing what it meant and what was the right thing for the Union to do. In a nutshell the company has knowingly put us between a rock and a hard place. The latest offer would have us vote on a waiver wherein we would be giving up our rights to bargain over the HSM subsidies (forever) in exchange for a side agreement stating our subsidies will remain the same as non-represented employees. Ratification of this agreement (should it occur) would be contingent upon our GCIWU bargaining units (Chemical Plant and Refinery) both passing it. Both BEF bargaining units of the GCIWU (Lab and Clerical) would have to ratify it as a whole. We have four individual contracts, which complicates our ability to ratify an agreement in this manner and there is no reason why these restrictions have to be put on the offer.
Assuming we could get over that hurdle, pending any ratification of the waiver there may be a lump sum adjustment (bait) for both the BEF and that portion of the GCIWU membership currently in one of the Company sponsored plans. The portion of the GCIWU membership currently in United Healthcare (a total of 367 GCIWU-represented employees according to the latest census from UHC) may be provided an opportunity to cross over during an open enrollment period in May if there was a qualifying event. In the event there was not a “qualifying event”, the company will not provide an open enrollment period. At first the qualifying event stated was described as a greater than 10% increase in premiums. However that provision was deleted from the offer delivered to the Union on February 21, 2002, and now a qualifying event seems to be whatever the company may decide it wants it to be and at any time it decides – which could be May 2002 or not until November or December of this year.
The Union requested certain information from the company on December 20 so that we could analyze the company plans. The request was repeated in writing on January 3 and January 17. They still haven’t given us the information. With this information we will be able to analyze the data and determine if we are getting the “most bang for our buck” concerning the company plan. We want to make sure that our members get the least out of pocket expenses with the best possible coverage. In addition to this, our insurance agent is currently analyzing the four company plans to develop a one page summary in order to show valid comparisons in order to give our UHC members a better idea of where they stand in relation to their personal medical situations. One of the reasons we have continued to keep our insurance plan is that it gave us some assurance the company would have to provide a minimum level of benefits while keeping our out of pocket expenses in check. We will still be providing our Union Dental Plan at this point in time although it took until Jan. 21st 2002 to get written clarification of a verbal agreement reached on Dec. 20th of 2001 to remove it from the table. However, the company is still telling its management people through management information bulletins that the dental plan is included. The fact is, this Union provided a Dental Insurance Plan long before the company had even offered one to its employees.
There are many reasons why I believe this latest company offer is not in our best interests. I will share with you the three reasons that stand out most in my mind. It is very evident after communicating with our brothers and sisters at the other ExxonMobil sites that we have been singled out and treated differently. As a Union we should never give up bargaining rights. It is interesting to note that at no other site has anyone given up their rights to bargain. In Torrance and a few other locations, which have Union-sponsored medical plans the subsidies have been matched, with nothing given up. One can’t help but believe that this is an attempt by the company to destroy the basis of our Union and an attempt to punish us for affiliating with PACE. In the entire history of our Union I am unaware of any example where we have given up our rights to bargain. It is a very dangerous precedent and one we shouldn’t be starting. Today it’s the HSM subsidies. What will be next? Our Pension Plan? Our Thrift? They have already shown their true colors when the first proposal was floated which had the effect of doing away with our rights to bargain over any of our benefits and to give them the right to terminate and suspend any of our benefit plans at their whim. Therefore, the company with this offer is attempting to undermine our very existence as a Union.Secondly, we still don’t have all the answers to the information we’ve requested. The company by insisting on a timeline of its own choosing has made it impossible for us to educate and inform our members. How can we possibly be asking our members to make the tough choices over healthcare for their families without this information? By putting off a vote until March (our normal point in time for negotiating subsidies) we will have more time to obtain this information.
Thirdly, and in closing, the most important reason to me why this is very detrimental to the Union is this: what the company is asking us to do would in effect put us in the position of cutting our own throats. We have 367 members in our United Healthcare Plan, and 1070 with their dependents. Many have chosen to remain in the plan even with our increased premiums due to personal medical circumstances. (Some of their stories are included elsewhere in this Bulletin.) Even with the increased cost of the premiums they come out ahead financially. We are I believe at a crossroads as a Union. There have been examples in the past where we have chosen to “take the money” when clearly it has not been in our best interest (2.7 and IWP come to mind). If we take this money there is no guarantee that our members in UHC will be given a lump sum adjustment, an open enrollment period, or the ability to manage their medical situations financially without drawing from their savings. Yes, it is true that if we don’t pass this waiver by a vote, that portion of our membership in one of the company’s plans won’t get the subsidy and adjustment. I just ask you to remember that this Union didn’t cause this current situation. Direct you anger and focus it in the right direction. The company knowingly placed us in this dilemma. Remember when the company failed to deduct the proper premiums for our UHC plan for six months? We currently have people still paying for that “error”. Now, looking back I wonder, was it really an error? It would be with the greatest of regrets that I would be forced to place my signature at the bottom of a side agreement, which will clearly have the effect of placing our future workers in Baytown in jeopardy and which will have as its ultimate goal the destruction of our Union’s reason for existence: the right to bargain for wages, hours, working conditions and benefits.
WHAT THE COMPANY SAYS ABOUT WHY IT IS TREATING THIS UNION DIFFERENTLY FROM ANY OTHER UNION
By: Sharon Groth(The following is summary of information prepared by Ken Evans who has been involved in the various meetings with the company on the subsidy issue, about the various reasons the company has advanced for refusing to treat us as they have al other ExxonMobil employees on the subsidy issue and why those reasons do not hold water. This information was presented to the Board of Stewards on January 21, 2002, and will be presented at the special called membership meetings on January 25 and 28.)
1. GCIWU Challenges to benefit plan changes (Thrift Fund & Disability Policy) are AMickey Mouse@ and have cost Exxon over $500,000 in outside attorney fees.
FACT: Current proposal does nothing to address this and company now says that is not an issue.
2. The Company wants all employees in the same insurance plan(s) so they Acan enjoy the benefit of our experience for rating purposes.@
FACT: In the overall scheme of things, adding an additional 350/400 employees to the EOM plans would have minimal impact from a rating perspective. In fact, adding our members (United) would probably have a negative impact because our folks are much more apt to utilize the benefits at a higher than normal rate (That=s why they are willing to pay higher premiums.)
3. Negotiating subsidies every year is a distraction and they want to get this out of the way once and for all. This proposal would insure that employees HSM policies are adequately subsidized because they have to do that to attract new employees and remain competitive.
FACT: We have offered to develop language that would provide a Afloor@ on the amount of subsidy. In other words we could agree to something that included an 80/20 split on premiums cost sharing or Athe greater of a) industry pattern or b) amount offered to non-represented.@ (This language is what Billings has in their contract). This language would not only keep EOM competitive in this benefits area, but would do away with the need to renegotiate subsidies annually.
4. We are not interested in doing away with the Union medical plan.
FACT: The practical outcome of this proposal would do just that.
5. $$ We have a pot of money (1.4 million) to spend on benefits and we want to treat all employees fairly and equitably.
FACT: How can this be true when our members in United get $0???
6. We=ve had discussions and reached an understanding in principle and we want you to take this to a membership vote.....trust us, we=ll reduce our offer to writing based on our discussions.
FACT: On 12/20/01 and 1/15/02 it was expressly stated that a) Dental was not a part of these discussions for GCIWU and b) Acceptance by any one bargaining unit was not contingent upon acceptance by any other group. In two (2) separate management information bulletins dental was part of the proposal. In a 1/21/02 letter to Kenny Kohlmeyer the company reversed their earlier commitment said that BEF Clerical AND Lab had to accept as well as GCIWU Refinery AND Chemical Plant.
1/21/02 The company stated that if a Aqualifying event@ does not occur then there would be no open enrollment until November 2002. In other words those members in United would get no increase in subsidy.
FACT: The company has the ability to declare an open enrollment at any time but chooses not to.
At the 1/15/02, meeting, Stephane deMahieu went so far as to suggest that the GCIWU as policy holder with United Health Care could Aguarantee that an open enrollment occurred by manipulating the plan design, benefits and/or premium@ of the UHC policy during the renewal process so that our increase was 10% or greater (the company’s definition of a “qualifying event”). Our response was that our responsibility to our members was to negotiate the best policy and coverage possible for the least amount and not to manipulate the process in order to force people into the company plan(s).
On 12/20/01, an information request was made in order to obtain data needed to analyze the Company plans. Assurances were given by Steve Hart, Stephane deMahieu and Charlie Jones that every effort would be made to expedite this request. This request was formalized on 1/3/02 in a letter to Stephane deMahieu. On 1/21/02, Charlie Jones informed us that they would Aprovide a response to the Union=s information request by Friday, February 2, 2002.@ The information requested is the same data that the company should have reviewed prior to accepting these latest substantial increase in premiums and changes in plan designs. If they did not review and concur with the conclusions of the analyst of the data then they have not done their job in this latest renewal. If they did review the data then it is simply a matter of copying it and forwarding it to the Union. The Union is entitled to this information and there is no reasonable excuse for not providing it within the eight (8) working days provided for in the 1/3/02 request.
The issues are two fold and this proposal undermines us as a Union in several ways:
1) Acceptance would cut out a significant portion of our membership from receiving any benefit (UHC who aren=t/can=t be in the company plan)
2) We have to waive a fundamental right to bargain over subsidies FOREVER. And you can rest assured this would not be the last benefit plan they would go after.
PERSONAL HISTORIES FROM OUR MEMBERS ABOUT
HEALTH CARE(The following are stories that two of our members have offered to share about how they have been impacted in their health coverage and what belonging to the Union healthcare plans means to them. There will be more stories in future issues of the Bulletin.)
January 14, 2002
Want to loose most of your thrift fund? Or how about your kids skipping college? I had the “regular” hospital insurance at one time. It cost me on my thrift dearly. I was to pay 20 percent and the insurance was to pay 80 percent. After the insurance co. disallowed what they determined was not “Customary or Reasonable” charges for my wife’s hospital stay, they only paid 60 percent of the bill, I was stuck with the rest. I was pulling from my thrift every six months to pay hospital, doctor and medication costs when I became very frustrated. I talked to the Union and they said to try United Health Care; I wish I had done it sooner, I would be able to retire at 55.
My wife takes Zomig and Imitrex for her headaches; the cost of the Zomig is $353.00 for 9 pills. My part is $25.00 under United Medical. With the Exxon Medical, I won’t be able to afford the medication. We get Oxygen delivered to the house for her use on a regular basis again supplied by United Medical. Under Exxon Medical, no oxygen. My out of pocket expenses for my wife this year has been about $600 for drugs with the co-pay under United Medical, with Exxon Medical I won’t be able to afford it.
I just had surgery on my neck, C-4, 5 and 6 were fused and a titanium plate put in. Total cost to me was $30 for office visits to the specialist. Total cost under the Exxon Plan would have been over $2,000.00 for my “20” percent of the total bill after my deductible was met. In 97 I started coughing blood, I went to the hospital and my right lung was operated on, the lower lobe was removed and the surgeon did know what it was (it was diagnosed as cancer at first). I have seen 31 specialists gone to Denver Colorado to see specialist and I am still being treated for whatever destroyed my lung. The rest of my lung died and is stuck to the chest wall. The specialist said they could try to remove it but the chances are I won’t live through the surgery. Under the Exxon Medical plan, this would have been the rest of my thrift had it not been for the Union advising me to switch to United Medical. They for everything and all I was out for 4 years of medical treatments and specialist was the $10 co pays for the office visits.
I pay a higher premium with United Healthcare but it is well worth it. I have the peace of mind knowing that I can afford my wife’s medicine and I get the treatment I need. I don’t know about you but I cannot afford to go on the Exxon Medical Plan.
I have heard the comments that if I had taken better care of myself I wouldn’t be in this shape. My answer to that is if you can tell me what killed my lung, then maybe I could have prevented it. The best specialists in the world have not been able to figure it out.
I’m sticking with United Medical if I can because I know first hand that a “regular” insurance plan is for the insurance co and the provider, not the insured.
Joe Grimes
January 21, 2002
I would like to write to each of the Union members and ask them this one very serious question about the current insurance subsidy issue. Why is the company singling the Baytown site out? It has given the subsidy to all of the other ExxonMobil sites who have Unions that have their own insurance plans so it cannot be because our Union has its own insurance plan. What they forgot to tell you is the local Union plan is both cheaper and carries more benefits than the current ExxonMobil plans with more than 35,000 people and approximately 360 people are currently in the Union insurance plan. They would like to split us up and get us to leave those 360 people out in the cold and say, too bad, it was your choice but a strong Union will stand by all of its membership.
Why can the Union get cheaper and better insurance than a major company with over 35,000 people in their plan? They'd like to tell you it's a money issue but we know that it is not. They'd like to tell you that they have worked diligently with our Union representatives but every time we thought we understood the offer, they have changed their minds at every meeting to date and changed or rearranged the facts that the representatives are to take back to our membership.
They'd like to tell all the single mothers out there that the Union is doing this to them but have they told you what they are asking our Union to give up? They are asking that we never use our benefits as bargaining tools but aren't our benefits part of our hiring packages? They are wanting us to allow them in good faith, to not have us question them on major issues in the HSM category. They would like to tell you that our company is one of the leaders in the insurance game but a poll was taken at the latest PACE Regional meeting and among the twenty-five companies represented at the meeting, we are next to last. Only one other company is below us and they pay a 77/23% ratio on insurance. Our ratio, average over the four levels of coverage is 76/24%. Most of the larger companies go with an 80/20% split with the company picking up 80% of the premium. The company is blaming the current issue on the Union but who is it affecting? Is it affecting the Labor Relations folks? No, they can afford to pay their insurance. It's affecting those folks (especially single mothers, of which I have been one) who have come to me and said we can't afford to pay this insurance and how it is negatively affecting their children by not carrying insurance on them.
Why can't a Company as big as ExxonMobil get a Company like Aetna to bring their prices down -- where is all their great bargaining power? Maybe they should send the Labor Relations group to that job and let them get tough with the big boys at Aetna instead of picking on the poorest paid group in the Refinery, the clerical group. Aetna is ripping off ExxonMobil and crying all the way to the bank and it's the lower wage employees who have to pay! Some of our single mothers and some married mothers are going to go ahead and drop the insurance because it has hit their paychecks too hard. Is this our company standing behind us, I think not! ExxonMobil just put 3 million dollars into a day care plan but they don't have enough money to help carry our children on insurance policies or defray our out of pocket costs. What sounds wrong with this picture?
I presently work with Contractors who are single mothers and can't afford to get insurance for their children either but these folks are hard working and should be hired but ExxonMobil continues as does so many other major companies these days, using people's resources but not wanting to give them any benefits. These types of companies are creating a welfare state of people who will have to be supported by the government ultimately one day at retirement age. It's time major companies started carrying their load again and treating folks with respect and dignity. I work hard and I will continue to work hard. I don't take advantage of ExxonMobil and I am a loyal employee but let's look at this insurance issue with open eyes! Come to the membership meetings on Friday, January 25 at 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and again on Monday, January 28 at 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and get the real story. I'll be there and so should you!
Charlotte Popham
Exxon/Mobil Council Meeting
By Kenny KohlmeyerOn Saturday Jan. 19th we met with the other members of our Exxon/Mobil Council. The Council is comprised of Union members from all the represented sites within the continental United States and even some from Canada. These represented facilities include chemical plants, refineries and pipelines. There are also members from other Unions such as the IBEW (electricians) and IAM (machinists). Information is shared and strategies developed which would through solidarity strengthen our efforts to deal with a multinational corporation the size of ExxonMobil. The main topic on the agenda was our HSM dilemma. We provided to the Council all the necessary information to enable them to understand exactly what position the company has put us in here at Baytown. We sought advice and help in our pursuit to resolve this issue with the company. Without a dissenting voice there was universal condemnation of the company’s actions. The Council members are well aware that it may be them tomorrow.
Our thanks and gratitude goes out to our fellow Union brothers and sisters for their support. Billings, Beaumont, Torrance, and Chalmette are currently in “oil bargaining” and have committed to informing the company of getting off to a rocky start in the negotiating process given our treatment here in Baytown. Beaumont and Torrence have already called in their HR Representatives and Managers to inform them of this support. In addition to this, they are starting to wear Baytown stickers on our behalf and to show some solidarity. We will also be obtaining some stickers to wear to highlight our continuing plight. As Unions go this is where we derive our strength, from numbers and through solidarity.
While “oil bargaining” is taking place, there is the usual posturing on behalf of the company. Some of us have already noticed some supervisors being sent to Beaumont, Billings or elsewhere to sustain a strike breaking effort should it occur. Let me say that at this time the information we are getting suggests that there is no location where a strike is imminent. This activity is part of the process and nothing out of the ordinary. We have been notified by Baton Rouge that there are some “sliders” being asked to support these efforts also. It is this Union’s firm expectation that our “sliders” not allow themselves to become “scabs” a tool the company uses in order to suppress the efforts that could only benefit us all. We would also expect that in the event a supervisor travel to another ExxonMobil location to aid in a strikebreaking effort at another site, our “sliders” not backfill and refuse the resulting overtime. Our brothers and sisters at our fellow ExxonMobil locations are stepping up to the plate for us, it is only right for us to stand with them when needed. That is what Unionism is all about.
RUDY ESPINOSA ON THE MEND
As many of you know Rudy Espinosa, our assistant Business Agent has been out for medical reasons since early December. We talked to him today and it looks like he’s doing much, much better and we will see him back at the Union Hall beginning the week of January 28. He has been sorely missed and we are delighted he’s coming back!
SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATIONS
Its Scholarship time and applications are ready to be picked up or mailed out. All children of DUES paying members are eligible for a Union Scholarship. Applications must be COMPLETE and turned in by April 12, 2002 before 4:00 p.m.
In addition to our scholarships that are awarded every year, your graduating high school senior is eligible to receive a scholarship from the PACE International. These forms are also available here at the Union Hall. However, this form has to be returned to the Union Hall to be signed by the Union Secretary and stamped with the Union Seal. So pay close attention to the March 15, 2002 deadline on this form, which is the date that the form has to be postmarked.
If you need any help in filling out either of these forms, please do not hesitate to call Pamela at the Union Hall.
