No One Steals Healthcare from Retirees. NO ONE.

Last week, on December 16, 2025, UFT President Michael Mulgrew hijacked the UFT Retired Teachers Chapter Meeting; where he made a litany of false statements about Intro 1096, a bill that would protect retiree health benefits.

The following is a response from our labor movement siblings in NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, who continue to fight tirelessly to protect the dignity and security of retired public servants. For their video response, CLICK HERE.

December 18, 2025

Response to UFT President Michael Mulgrew’s Comments about Intro 1096 at the UFT Retired Teachers Chapter Meeting December 16, 2025

Over the past four years, we have witnessed something unprecedented: unions selling off the healthcare benefits of their former members, whom they no longer represent, in order to enrich themselves. Specifically, the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) has worked to secure hundreds of millions of dollars a year for its members by kicking retirees off of their traditional Medicare and Medicare supplemental insurance and charging them copays. These elderly and disabled retirees have no ability to protect themselves through collective bargaining.

Our healthcare bill (Intro 1096) would protect these retirees by ensuring their access to traditional Medicare and Medicare supplemental insurance without burdensome out-of-pocket costs. These are the benefits all retirees had from the 1960s up until very recently.

Michael Mulgrew and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) are opposed to this bill for one simple reason: it would prevent them from selling off current retirees’ healthcare in order to fund benefits for active employees. To be clear, the bill would allow the UFT and other unions to negotiate away their own future retiree healthcare benefits; it would simply prohibit them from negotiating away the benefits of those who have already retired and no longer have a seat at the bargaining table. The bill would also allow unions to negotiate for more robust healthcare benefits. That is because it sets a floor, not a ceiling.

Because Mulgrew cannot come out and admit his real reason for opposing the bill, he is forced to manufacture a bogus one. He claims that the bill would somehow violate collective bargaining and set a bad precedent that might embolden the City Council to unilaterally diminish workers’ employment benefits. That is false.

First, the bill does not interfere with collective bargaining at all. It explicitly states that “Nothing in this [bill] shall be construed to impair the ability of any employee organization to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment for their employee members.” Thus, if unions wanted to negotiate away their members’ future healthcare rights in exchange for more immediate benefits (such as higher wages), they would be free to do so. The bill merely prevents them from bargaining away the rights of those who have already retired and never consented to a diminishment of their healthcare. That is perfectly consistent with collective bargaining law. Indeed, it is well settled that unions do not represent retirees. See, e.g., Kolbe v. Tibbetts, 22 N.Y.3d 344, 354 (2013). That is why collective bargaining law — known as the Taylor Law— does not even apply to those who have already retired. See, e.g., Town of Islip v. New York State. Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd., 23 N.Y.3d 482, 491 (2014) (explaining that the Taylor Law only applies to active employees, not retirees); Aeneas McDonald Police Benev. Ass/n. Inc. v. City of Geneva, 92 N.Y.2d 326, 331 (1998) (stating that collective bargaining law “does not extend to retirees”).

There is no question that the City Council can legislate healthcare rights for retirees. In 1968, just a few months after the Taylor Law was passed, the City Council enacted New York City Administrative Code § 12-126, which grants sweeping healthcare benefits to retired City workers. The City Council amended § 12-126 several times over the ensuing decades to mandate specific health insurance coverage (including HIP-HMO) and require the City to cover the ever-increasing cost of Medicare Part B. In all the previous instances of the City Council legislating on retiree healthcare, the UFT and other unions testified in support of such legislation. If Mulgrew truly believes that collective bargaining law prohibits the City Council from legislating on retiree healthcare, why did prior UFT leaders spend decades supporting such legislation? And why is Mulgrew currently supporting a bill that would guarantee certain employment benefits to paraprofessionals (who, unlike retirees, are actually covered by the Taylor Law)? Mulgrew is not acting based on legal principle — he just wants the ability to use current retirees’ healthcare as a bargaining tool.

Finally, it is absurd for Mulgrew to suggest that Intro 1096 paves the way for the City Council to unilaterally reduce workers’ healthcare benefits. Intro 1096 provides no such authority or precedent. It protects people by setting a baseline for healthcare benefits, which unions can negotiate away for their members if they wish. It does not allow the City Council to unilaterally reduce collectively bargained benefits. If the City Council were to do so, that would violate the Taylor Law.

The City Council should pass Intro 1096 (or successor bill number) and protect retirees’ healthcare. If the unions wish to challenge the law, let them. The threat of meritless litigation is no reason to refrain from enacting desperately needed legislation.

---

NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees www.nycretirees.org