Post by redstone14 on Oct 23, 2011 10:30:52 GMT -5
Ok, I see the 'Retiree Healthcare Moratorium" statute of 1994. which statutorily precludes any dimunition of a retiree's health insurance benefits "unless a corresponding dimunition of benefits" is applied to the corresponding group of active employees.
Then I see Emerling v. Village of Hamburg, 680 N.Y.S.2d 37 (New York App. 1998); Della Rocco v. Schenectady, 683 N.Y.S.2d 622 (1998), appeal dismissed, 717 N.E.2d 1082 (1999)(held that retired firefighters and police were entitled under collective bargaining agreements to the same or equivalent health insurance coverage during their retirement as the coverage in effect at retirement).
The 1994 statute simply says that you can't take something from a retiree's benefits unless you do the same to active members.
Then we have a 1998 court decision that says retired members are entitled under collective bargaining agreements to the same or equivalent health insurance coverage during their retirement as the coverage in effect at retirement.
That seems pretty clear. So they can try to reduce healthcare benefits of active members but those reductions would not affect retirees. They would have to go to court and get the 1998 decision reversed. I can see a bunch of retirements coming if the benefits of current members are in peril.
Then I see Emerling v. Village of Hamburg, 680 N.Y.S.2d 37 (New York App. 1998); Della Rocco v. Schenectady, 683 N.Y.S.2d 622 (1998), appeal dismissed, 717 N.E.2d 1082 (1999)(held that retired firefighters and police were entitled under collective bargaining agreements to the same or equivalent health insurance coverage during their retirement as the coverage in effect at retirement).
The 1994 statute simply says that you can't take something from a retiree's benefits unless you do the same to active members.
Then we have a 1998 court decision that says retired members are entitled under collective bargaining agreements to the same or equivalent health insurance coverage during their retirement as the coverage in effect at retirement.
That seems pretty clear. So they can try to reduce healthcare benefits of active members but those reductions would not affect retirees. They would have to go to court and get the 1998 decision reversed. I can see a bunch of retirements coming if the benefits of current members are in peril.
