Union leaders met again with the company Monday about next year’s health care coverage and asked a number of questions after getting data we sought.

The company’s proposal would raise year over year costs for Guild members by more than 30 percent. The company’s costs would rise less than 13 percent.

Depending on the plan selected, it could raise weekly costs for members by between $12.69 and $13.94. Some $10 of that would be the result of paying part of the reimbursement for the company’s share of the deductible, which we’ve never been asked to cover before.

At issue is an attempt by the company to say the unions have not been paying all of the “total costs” for the plan. The Guild is seeking legal advice from its International on the company’s position.

A number of issues arose in today’s meeting.

Data given to the Guild showed members are to be reimbursed about $230,000 this year by the company for its portion of the deductible. Last year, when 14 more people were in the plan, that number was $261,680.16.

The company is seeking to make the union pay 23 percent of $600,000, which it says is the total cost of reimbursing employees. The Guild learned Monday that number includes exempt employees, members of other unions, and people paying COBRA. The Guild said our members and the members of other unions should not be made to reimburse people who are not in the bargaining unit.

The company replied that since we are all in one plan, that affects how the rates are set and the costs should be divided equally.

The company is also contending the unions should share in the cost of the insurance broker who negotiates and administers the program. The Guild said since the unions did not decide to hire the broker, did not pick the broker and the broker does not work for the unions, we should not pay any portion of the firm’s pay.

The company (and the broker) insisted that legally the broker’s fee could be counted as part of the “total cost.”

The union also pointed out that if our members are going to have to pay a percentage of the company’s share of the deductible, then the company should pay its percentage of the up to $750 our members pay at the start of every year. Again, the company balked and argued that the $750 was not part of the health insurance plan but the company’s share of the reimbursement is.

All of these arguments raised legal questions. After the meeting, the Guild turned to its International to ask for advice.

The Guild, mailers and pressmen agreed to meet with the company again at 4 p.m. Wednesday. The unions also said that they intended to put a proposal forth by Friday.

We’ve asked our International for answers as quickly as possible to help guide us in our decision-making. We will keep members updated and will schedule a membership meeting once we have some more clarity on the legal issues.

Guild President Tim O’Brien told the company it is difficult to ask our members to pay a third more for health care when members have not had a raise in more than five years. Publisher George Hearst insisted those were separate issues.

“We will continue to do the research needed to get the fairest deal we can for our members,” O’Brien said. “We believe the proposal as it is is unacceptable, but we are glad to work with the other unions to try to find a solution.”

Leaders from the three unions at the newspaper continued their discussion Tuesday about next year’s health insurance.

No conclusions were reached, and the parties agreed to meet again Monday.

The main issue is the company’s attempt to make employees start paying the same percentage of the deductible reimbursement that we pay of the insurance premium. For Guild members under the imposed conditions, that number is frozen at 23 percent.

During previous years, the parties agreed the union members would pay the first $750 of medical expenses and the company would pay the rest up to $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Now the company wants Guild members to pay 23 percent of that reimbursement, which the company estimated at $600,000 next year.

(In an earlier bulletin, we incorrectly said the company wanted us to pay the full $600,000. We apologize for the error.)

The result — which we reported accurately — would be Guild members seeing health care costs rise more than 30 percent, while the company’s would rise less than 13 percent.

The unions learned Tuesday that the $600,000 figure is higher than what the company actually spent to reimburse workers. Two years ago, the company spent about $495,000 toward its share of the deductible. Last year, the company spent $514,000. This year, the TU expects to spend $525,000.

The union leaders from the Guild, mailroom and press room asked for several pieces of information. They include the exact figures for the reimbursements and data for each union on how many members reached the top of the deductible.

All of the unions said they were not yet in a position to make a proposal. The leaders are meeting among themselves Monday before meeting with the company.

Guild President Tim O’Brien also asked a question many members have raised: Could employees be given an option where they pay more upfront in return for not having to face the potential pact of the 90/10 split?

The company and its brokers said that would drive up costs for everyone and it is less expensive to have all employees covered under one plan.

The meeting began with Publisher George Hearst objecting to a handful of Guild members being present to observe the health care discussion. O’Brien replied members had attended in the past without objection. Leaders of the other unions had no objection to our members observing.

In the interest of moving the discussion along, the members left as the Guild promised to keep them informed.

The Guild just got notice that we will be meeting with the company and the other union leaders Tuesday to continue discussing next year’s health insurance.

The meeting will be at 2:30 p.m. in Executive Conference Room No. 1. Members who are interested can stop in on their lunch hour or breaks.

The Guild joined with other unions this week to show we all believe raising health care costs more than 30 percent as the company proposed is too much.

This week, the Guild asked the company at members’ request to consider an option that would offer a higher weekly cost but would eliminate the uncertainty the 90/10 split causes many members.

The Guild is also planning to put together a Q&A on health care for members. Please send your questions to office@albanyguild.org.

Leaders of the Guild, mailroom and pressmen’s unions united Tuesday in their opposition to the Company’s proposal to raise health care costs by more than 30 percent.

All four union leaders told the company they are willing to have their members pay the same percentage year over year increase that the company would pay, about 12.5 percent.

We will keep you posted when we receive a response.

The company’s proposal on health care would raise costs for Guild members by more than a third, while the company’s costs would rise only 10 percent or less.

A review of the data presented Friday shows that the company is trying a back-door method to make employees responsible for all of the deductible not just the first $750.

While employees would still be reimbursed when passing that number, the company is now trying to take that cost and charge it back to the members each week.

For a renewal of the plan without the vision benefit, for example, the company would add $600,000 for “estimated reimbursement” to the annual cost. That’s the amount he company estimates it reimburses members each year when they pass the $750. Previously the company has always covered that cost and not sought to pass it back onto the members.

“The company knew that raising the deductible to $2,000 for a single person or $4,000 for a family would be unacceptable,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “So instead it is trying a back-door method that would charge all members for that cost even those who don’t reach the $750.”

Publisher George Hearst told the health insurance brokers a 25 percent increase in health care costs was unacceptable to the company, but he apparently had no such qualms about trying to force an even bigger increase on his employees.

If the members’ increase was at the same rate at the company’s, Guild members would pay an extra $3.96 a week for the same plan minus the vision benefit only one person used, rather than $13.94.

Another option raised the deductible to $1,000 but lowered the maximum payment under the 90/10 split to $1,500 rather than $2,000. (The Guild has sent the company an email asking whether that would also drop the threshold for paying the 10 percent to $1,500 too, which would mean more members having to pay.)

Under that option, the company says the cost to our members would go up $13.46 a week. But if Guild members paid the same rate of increase as the company, it would go up only $3.38.

“Our members have not had raises in more than 5 years,” O’Brien said. “For the company to propose raising their health care costs by more than a third is unconscionable. By trying to impose this back-door ending of its share of the deductible, the company is trying to impose a $10 a week pay cut on members that has nothing to do with the year over year increase in the cost of health care.”

Fortunately, the imposed conditions require any health care plan to be offered to be comparable to the existing one. The shifting of the “estimated reimbursement” onto the backs of employees renders this plan not comparable.

The Guild’s Executive Board will meet at 12:30 p.m. Monday in the cafeteria to decide on its official response. O’Brien has also reached out to the leaders of the other unions to share his findings.