State officials are still working overtime to shield government unions from the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME. This week, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office has issued new guidelines effectively giving the unions the first say on efforts by employees to opt out of union dues payments.
For New Yorkers wondering whether a statewide single-payer plan would be feasible and affordable, the RAND Corporation’s just-published report provides only partial answers.
Desperate to minimize a potential loss of dues under a recent Supreme Court ruling, one of New York State’s largest public employee unions is telling public employers to disregard the union’s own previously stated conditions for letting workers stop paying dues.
The tactic employed by the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) in response to the Janus v. AFSCME decision will put local governments in a bind—which is likely to end up generating added legal bills for taxpayers.
New York's unfunded liability for state government retiree health coverage has reached $90.5 billion—an increase of $3 billion over last year's estimate, and nearly $13 billion in just two years, according to the just-released First Quarterly Update to the state's FY 2019 Financial Plan.
The liability for other post-employment benefits, or OPEB, reflects the net present value of continuing state health insurance coverage available to all employees who retire directly from a state government payroll after at least 10 years of service.
This is only the latest instance in which politics seem to be taking precedence over public interest at a consumer-focused regulatory agency.
As the state awaits the RAND Corp.’s analysis of a proposed single-payer health plan for New York, the organization’s study of a similar plan in Oregon offers a potentially instructive preview.
Congressional Republicans today unveiled a summary of their plans for permanently extending last year's federal income tax cuts—presumably (but not explicitly) subsidized by a permanent $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions.
As the state prepares to collect $2 billion in proceeds from the sale of Fidelis Care, the Cuomo administration has quietly revised its statement on how it will use the money, shifting to an emphasis on service for the needy rather than support for providers.
The New York-led multi-state lawsuit challenging the new federal tax law is not as weak as you might have heard.
If anything, it's even worse—a 141-page mashup of half-baked numbers, dubious factual assertions and (largely well-founded) political arguments masquerading as constitutional jurisprudence.
Governor Andrew Cuomo hit a new extreme in his bid to prop up government unions, telling public employers to ignore parts of both state law and the Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.
The newly enacted federal income law provision limiting state and local tax (SALT) deductions "is likely to substantially decrease home values" in New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey.
That's a key claim of the lawsuit filed by the four states against the Trump administration today with the goal of having the $10,000 SALT deduction cap declared unconstitutional.
The state’s employer-sponsored health insurance premiums spiked by more than 10 percent in 2017, leaving New Yorkers with the some of the highest coverage costs in the contiguous United States.