GREENFIELD — After hearing from city employees about their desire to maintain bargaining rights in plans to switch insurance providers, City Council overwhelmingly voted this week to adopt Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 32B, Section 19.
Councilors voted, with Precinct 4 Councilor John Bottomley being the only dissenting vote, to adopt Section 19, which allows the city to switch insurance providers only after reaching an agreement with a public employee committee.
In tandem with this vote, the council rejected Chapter 32B, Sections 21-23. These sections also require bargaining with a public employee committee, but state that if an agreement is not reached after a month, the decision will be made by a three-person review committee that includes representation from employees, city administration and one person appointed by the state. Councilors could either adopt Section 19 or Sections 21-23, but not both.
Mayor Ginny Desorgher told City Council on Wednesday that the city is looking to switch its insurance provider from Health New England to the state-backed Group Insurance Commission to curb soaring premium prices. For fiscal year 2027, the city’s insurance is budgeted to increase by 19.3%, or approximately $2 million.
She said she is willing to work with the city’s unions and she has faith they will be able to reach an agreement in an expedient manner, but that the city needs to notify the GIC of its intention to switch providers by July 1. The change would go into effect in January 2027.
“Insurance costs are crippling budgets of towns and cities all over. Switching to the state’s Group Insurance Commission, or GIC, is a huge step toward getting Greenfield on a stable financial footing,” Desorgher said. “Making this switch is expected to save the city a substantial amount of money, but more importantly, it will save jobs. We need to keep our departments staffed.
“I am very happy to partner with our unions on this process and work toward an agreement under Section 19, but we do need to be clear-eyed about our odds. Our attorney, the GIC, the [Massachusetts Municipal Association], have all advised us to pass Sections 21 to 23 because historically the success rate with Section 19 is very low,” the mayor continued. “I am hopeful that we will be an exception to this statistic. Our great unions have committed to reaching an agreement by Tuesday, and I believe them, but we must have a Plan B ready.”
Jesse Cole, technical services coordinator at the Greenfield Public Library and a member of the city’s clerical union, said the unions understand the need to switch insurance providers and would support efforts to reduce insurance costs, but wish to maintain their right to bargain and have a say in employee health care coverage.
“Section 19 allows the city to find a more affordable insurance option while still ensuring those directly impacted have a voice in their future coverage. Section 21 through 23 restricts our ability to negotiate future health insurance,” Cole said. “And I hope that the council can see by the overwhelming concern across multiple city unions today that Sections 21 through 23 set a dangerous precedent.”
Bottomley said his decision to vote against Section 19 came from the recommendations that the process outlined in Sections 21 to 23 results in more efficient decision-making and has a higher success rate, and from fears that if union negotiations are unsuccessful, health insurance costs will continue to soar.
“The advice of all experts in the field is to adopt 21 through 23, including the Mass Municipal Association, our attorneys and representatives from the Group Insurance Commission. There’s a documented, proven success rate for cities that adopt 21 to 23 as a path to transfer to GIC,” he said. “Health care and retirement are some of the biggest drivers in our budget. If the course continues, our health care budget alone will have doubled from 2023 to 2028 from $7 million to over $14 million. It is not sustainable. We can’t fix this problem by simply raising taxes. The risk involved with failure is just too great.”
Other councilors said that while they understand the severity of the increasing health insurance costs, they would not vote against union involvement, and they believe an agreement between the administration and employees can be reached quickly. Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon added that while switching to the GIC will make a difference in the city’s budget, real change will come from changes to state funding and the health insurance industry as a whole.
“It shouldn’t be this way. We need single-payer health care. We need better state aid to our schools. We need better state aid to our municipalities,” Gordon said. “It is not OK that we are constantly pitted against each other this way.”
Tara Cloutier, president of the Greenfield Education Association, said the teachers union is grateful that the council agreed to maintain its bargaining rights through Section 19.
“As union leaders, we appreciate allowing us to retain our collective bargaining rights over our health insurance,” she said.
“This is an exercise in trust between the city government and the people who work here,” Precinct 9 Councilor Max Webbe said. “And Section 19 is an easy vote for trust and trusting that we can make it through this and work better in the future.”
