City employees and family members urge council to hold medical costs steady in public comment
Loading...
Summary
City workers, union representatives and family members told Palo Alto City Council during public comment that proposed or expected increases in employee medical costs would create financial hardship, and urged the council to protect benefits during contract negotiations.
Speakers at Tuesday’s public comment period asked the City Council to preserve current medical coverage costs for city employees as the city negotiates contracts with unions.
Parents and city workers described specific household impacts if premiums rise. "The city owes its employees for their hard work and dedication enough that they should not have to worry about higher medical bills," said Jaya Yu, who said she spoke on behalf of her mother, a city employee. Jaya said higher medical costs would push her family to seek help from Jaya and her sister as they try to pay for college.
Longtime city employees and frontline workers described clinical and equipment needs that depend on insurer coverage. "Our medical plan is crucial for me because my daughter has Peter's anomaly and is blind in one eye," said Andrew Joyce, a Mitchell Park Community Center employee. Joyce said he must secure coverage that pays for specialized durable medical equipment — a scleral shell prosthetic his daughter uses — and that annual coverage changes can make that device unaffordable.
Several speakers who identified themselves as city workers or union representatives said pay and benefits affect the city’s ability to hire and retain staff who perform 24/7 emergency and maintenance work. "We work in emergencies day and night," said Jose Baraza of the tree department. "We all deserve a fair contract."
Numbers cited in public comment: A speaker who said she is on an HMO said her family premium doubled year over year and will “come to $5,464 this year.” Another speaker said a coworker will pay $9,750 for family HMO coverage in the coming year. Those figures were reported by several public commenters as part of personal accounts; the city has not released a consolidated premium schedule as part of this meeting record.
Why it matters: Council members will negotiate or provide direction on bargainable items as contracts come up for negotiation with SEIU and other represented groups. Speakers framed healthcare costs as a retention and equity issue that particularly affects lower-paid workers and families with dependents.
Council response: Council members acknowledged the comments during the public comment period and thanked speakers; no council action on benefits or bargaining was taken at this meeting. Several council members said they understood the immediacy of the issue and would consider employee concerns during upcoming negotiations and budget discussions.
Speakers quoted in this article spoke during general public comment and identified themselves as city employees, union representatives or family members.
