top of page
Search

New year, same council, and the same behavior? Only time will tell...

The calendar may have turned, but Methuen has not yet turned the page. The new/next City Council has not been sworn in. That ceremony happens Friday at the Music Hall. And yet, before the new term even formally begins, the same patterns from the last council are already resurfacing.


According to very reliable insiders at City Hall, the City Council is considering a resolution that would bar part-time employees from receiving health insurance.


This is not idle chatter.


This is not Facebook rumor-mill nonsense.


This information is coming from people who are in the building, who know how these resolutions are drafted, and who knew how Stranger Things was going to end before it even dropped.


The context matters. Certain councilors failed to secure health insurance for themselves and they aren't happy about it.


Now instead of accepting that outcome, they appear prepared to be redirecting that frustration toward city employees who already have coverage and they consider "part time"... paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers who keep Methuen’s schools running every single day.


We have part time employees with health insurance? Yes... But it's not as simple as you may think.


Let's start with Unit C paraprofessionals.... Their collective bargaining agreement is explicit. Article 15 of the contract states that the Methuen Education Association “has ratified their health insurance agreement through the Methuen Public Employee Committee with the City of Methuen under M.G.L. c. 32B §19.”


*This is the prior contract. The new one is not posted yet but the insurance did not change from this language at all.


That sentence is not fluff. It establishes that health insurance is a bargained benefit, ratified through the statutory process required by Massachusetts law, and governed by Chapter 32B — not by City Council preference.


The cafeteria workers in Unit A and Unit B are in the same position. Their contracts also include negotiated insurance provisions, adopted through collective bargaining and in force for the full term of the agreements. The City did not inherit these obligations by accident. It negotiated them, approved them, and signed them.


Once that happens, the law is unambiguous. Under M.G.L. c. 150E, health insurance is a mandatory subject of bargaining. A public employer cannot unilaterally change, restrict, or eliminate bargained benefits while a contract is in effect. Massachusetts courts have reinforced this principle repeatedly. In School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Judicial Court held that employers may not alter terms and conditions of employment without bargaining. In City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Commission, the Appeals Court rejected the idea that fiscal or policy concerns justify unilateral changes. In Commonwealth v. Labor Relations Commission, the court made clear that even well-intentioned actions violate the law if they bypass collective bargaining.


A City Council resolution does not override any of that. It does not amend collective bargaining agreements. It does not nullify contracts. And it does not give the City a legal escape hatch from obligations it already accepted.


The fallback argument that these employees are “only part-time” is equally hollow.


Municipal health insurance eligibility is governed by Chapter 32B, which ties eligibility to employees working at least half of a standard workweek. That threshold is commonly twenty hours.


Paraprofessionals working thirty hours per week exceed it comfortably. More importantly, their eligibility is already locked in by contract.


There is another reality the Council seems eager to ignore.... Likely because it suits them.


The federal “big, beautiful bill” that reshaped tax policy and federal spending has already begun to squeeze households that rely on the open health insurance market. Subsidy cliffs, premium volatility, and reduced affordability have made private coverage less stable and more expensive for working families.


For many municipal employees, employer-provided health insurance is not a luxury, it is the only reliable way to maintain coverage without financial harm. Threatening that coverage is not a neutral policy choice. It has real, immediate consequences for families even with six-figure salaries like some of our councilors.


Remember, the income Council and School Committee will have several self employed and/or 1099 members. This means they have to buy their insurance on the open market if they don't get it from a spouse. The expense associated with this is growing so quickly and the Big Beautiful Bill (which is the reason I bring it up) will undoubtedly cause costs to take double digit increases this year.


Anyways ...


Even if such a resolution could not legally touch existing contracts — and it cannot — the damage would not stop there. Passing it would signal to current and future employees that contracts in Methuen are conditional, temporary, and subject to political retaliation. It would poison future negotiations, undermine good-faith bargaining obligations, and invite labor complaints that the City would lose ... at taxpayer expense.


And that is the heart of this issue.


This is not about fiscal responsibility. It is not about defining employment status. It is not about what is best for the City of Methuen.



It is retaliation.


A temper tantrum, if you will.


When elected officials fail to secure a benefit for themselves and then turn around and threaten paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers... employees who earn modest wages and provide essential services... that is not leadership. It is vindictiveness.


It shows a total disregard for city employees, for the residents who rely on them, and for the legally binding contracts the City willingly signed.


Keep in mind, much of this being driven by Councilor Pesce. She is 6 year veteran of the School Committee and "should" know full well how both as a former member and attorney both how collective bargaining works and how these contracts are structured since she was on the committee for at least 2 rounds of negotiations.


Citizens should not stand for this.


Because if Methuen is willing to treat labor agreements as optional when political egos are bruised, then no contract is safe and no promise made by the City means anything at all.


Let's hope they read this article and rethink this childish and petty retaliatory attack.


If not, let's hope incoming Councilors Simard, Drew, R. DiZoglio, McLaren, and Santos are more mature and focused on the residents than the rest of the group floating this proposal.




Links to other CBAs...




Written by: Dan Shibilia insidemethuen@gmail.com


Comments

bottom of page