Tribune Co. 'Smoker' Fee -- and Spousal Surcharge -- Draw Union Fire

By: Joe Strupp A Tribune Company plan to assess a $100 per month health benefit fee on smokers, and a $75 fee for some spousal coverage, is drawing angry reaction among newspaper workers, including at least two Teamster locals that have filed grievances over the cost.

Tribune Company spokesman Gary Weitman confirmed that the company plans to assess the new fees in 2008, claiming they are needed to offset higher costs and promote worker health.

Specifically, the assessment would require Tribune employees who smoke or have a family member covered under their policy who smokes to pay an additional $100 per month. In addition, Tribune employees who place a spouse under Tribune coverage who could be covered under their own employment plan elsewhere will be assessed another $75 per month fee.

Gannett Co. Inc. has had such fees in place for more than a year, according to Tara Connell, a Gannett spokeswoman. Scripps Newspapers has a spousal surcharge as well, but no smokers fee.

"We pay the lion's share of medical expenses and we have a responsibility to contain those costs," said the Tribune's Weitman. "We are and have been doing everything we can, it is a shared responsibility between employees and the company." Weitman said the company will spend about $96 million in 2008 on employee health care benefits.

But at least two Teamster locals at The Sun of Baltimore, who represent mailers and pressmen, have filed grievances against the fee with the company, claiming it violates current contract language limiting health care cost increases each year.

"The sad thing about it all is it is not the insurance company, it is Tribune," declared Lawrence E. Geho, president of the Baltimore Mailers Union Local 888, which represents 200 Sun employees. "It is just a hidden premium." Geho said the fee also violates a contract provision limiting health care premium increases to 4% per year. "These fees are going beyond that."

Geho said the union met with Sun officials on Wednesday, but added that the meeting "did not go well. We did not come to an agreement and I told them of our intention to proceed to arbitration." He said the Teamsters local 31N, representing Sun pressmen, also filed a grievance.

Bill Salganik, president of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild and a Sun reporter, said his local will likely wait until the fee is imposed to file a grievance, but is prepared to fight.

"There is a contract requirement that limits how much they can raise premiums, this looks like premium to us," he said. "What strikes me is that [other] employers try to encourage healthy living, but they do it in a constructive way by developing programs for weight management and smoking cessation. But Tribune immediately went negative."

Weitman said the fees are aimed at promoting good health. "We will in December offer tobacco cessation programs to employees at company expense," he said. "We're not alone in implementing these kinds of fees."

Connell, the Gannett spokeswoman, said the media giant charges a $60 monthly smokers fee and a $150 spousal surcharge, similar to the Tribune plan. "The smoking was done as part of a wellness initiative," Connell said. "It is bad for their health and the health of people around the smoker. The spousal surcharge we considered fair."

Still, the plan continues to draw Tribune employee protests, including from members of Teamster Local 7N in Chicago, which represents 180 pressmen at the Chicago Tribune. "It is not right, there are many things wrong with it," said Local President John Giannone. "It is more money and it is telling us how to live our life."

Michael Mayo, a staffer at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, took his opposition to the paper's Web site, blogging against the parent company's move in a recent posted item.

"Will there be fees for alcohol use? Eating fast food? Having high cholesterol? Not adhering to proper weight/body mass guidelines?" he wrote, in part. "The other thing that gets me is that there?s no reward for not being a smoker. If the company imposed a surcharge on smokers and then gave a proportionate break to all the non-smokers I could maybe be a little more positive about the whole thing. Instead, everyone?s premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums are going up next year...Yikes. I?ve seen the future, and it?s damn expensive."