Tag: health insurance

September 17, 2025

Negotiating Union Contracts in a High-Inflation Economy

Although inflation has cooled from its 2022–23 peak, it remains a defining factor at the bargaining table. Workers feel the cumulative effects of rising prices over the past several years. At the same time, employers face higher labor costs, escalating healthcare expenses, and demands for greater flexibility around where and how employees work. For employers with unionized workforces, these challenges are amplified. Negotiating union contracts is no longer just about splitting the difference on wage percentages—it is about balancing long-term financial stability with short-term employee expectations, preserving operational control while accommodating workplace changes, and finding creative ways to deliver value without locking in commitments that may become unsustainable if the economy shifts again.

This article offers employers practical strategies for negotiating union contracts in a high-inflation environment, focusing on three of the most contentious issues: wages, healthcare costs, and remote-work arrangements.

Inflation and Collective Bargaining

Inflation directly drives bargaining pressure. When the cost of groceries, housing, and transportation goes up, employees expect their wages to rise at least enough to maintain their standard of living. Unions will highlight members’ real-wage erosion and push for agreements that provide protection against continued volatility.

Employers have been here before. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, when inflation often hit double digits, cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) clauses became widespread in union contracts. As inflation moderated in the 1990s and 2000s, most employers phased out automatic COLAs, viewing them as too unpredictable and costly to maintain. Now, with inflation stabilizing but still running above the Federal Reserve’s 2-percent target, unions are again pressing for some form of inflation protection.

When preparing economic proposals, employers should:

Model affordability over the life of the agreement: Do not just budget year-to-year; understand what a multi-year wage pattern will cost when layered with healthcare, overtime, pensions, and roll-up effects.
Benchmark against industry peers: Unions will bring comparables to the table. Employers should know where they stand and avoid commitments that dramatically exceed local or industry norms.
Avoid long-term overcommitments: Be cautious with front-loaded increases or open-ended COLA clauses. What feels manageable today can become a liability if the economy slows and competitors are not living with similar terms.

Structuring Wage Increases

There is no one “right” way to build wage proposals, but employers should consider the following tools when negotiating union contracts:

Multi-year structures: Contracts can front-load or back-load increases. Front-loading provides workers with immediate relief but may leave employers paying above-market wages if inflation falls. Back-loading defers costs but risks resentment if inflation stays elevated. Many employers blend the two approaches, offering a strong first-year increase followed by smaller annual raises.
COLA triggers with caps: Rather than reinstating open-ended COLA provisions, employers can negotiate limited formulas. For example, wages could increase by a fraction of CPI, subject to a maximum percentage each year. This acknowledges inflation without handing over full control of wage growth to external forces.
Lump-sum bonuses: One-time payments can provide meaningful cash to employees without permanently raising base wages or compounding overtime, pension, and other benefit costs. Employers should, however, expect pushback from unions that prefer base-building increases for long-term earnings stability.
Tiered or differentiated increases: Wage increases can depend on seniority, skill level, or job classification. This can be a way to reward critical skills or long-service employees while moderating costs elsewhere. But employers should watch for morale issues and potential legal risks if disparities are too wide.

In every case, employers must ensure compliance with wage-and-hour rules, including minimum wage and overtime requirements under federal and state law. A wage package that looks good on paper can create compliance problems if it doesn’t account for legal requirements.

Managing Healthcare Costs When Negotiating Union Contracts

Healthcare costs are a perennial concern, and they are often one of the toughest issues in negotiating union contracts, especially in today’s environment of rising claims and specialty drug expenses. Employers are projecting annual cost increases well above general inflation. Unions know this and will often resist cost-shifting measures, framing them as benefit reductions rather than necessary adjustments.

Practical approaches include:

Employee cost sharing: Adjusting premium contributions, deductibles, or copays spreads costs more evenly. Employers should pair these adjustments with clear messaging that changes are designed to preserve overall benefit levels, not cut them.
Plan design changes: Options such as high-deductible plans, spousal surcharges, or dependent eligibility audits can provide meaningful savings. These changes, however, must be bargained carefully and communicated clearly to avoid perceptions of unilateral takeaways.
Wellness and preventive programs: Initiatives that encourage healthier lifestyles can reduce utilization over time. Framed correctly, these programs can be seen as joint investments in employee well-being.
Reserve funds or cost-sharing formulas: Some employers negotiate contract language that sets aside reserves or defines how future spikes will be shared. This can reduce conflict down the road when costs inevitably rise.

Employers should remember that health benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Unilateral changes—even well-intended—can lead to grievances or unfair labor practice charges.

Remote Work and Flexibility

Remote work has emerged as one of the most complex bargaining issues since the pandemic. For many employees in relevant positions, the ability to work from home is now viewed as a standard benefit, not a temporary privilege. Unions may seek to embed remote-work guarantees in contracts.

Employers, however, must think carefully before committing. Remote work implicates productivity, supervision, safety, and even cybersecurity. Once written into a CBA, these arrangements can be hard to adjust.

Strategies for handling remote-work demands while negotiating union contracts include:

Pilots with sunset clauses: Agree to trial programs with defined end dates. This allows both sides to evaluate productivity and employee satisfaction without permanent commitments.
Clear management-rights language: Preserve employer discretion over work locations. Where possible, limit contract language to procedures (such as how requests will be considered) rather than entitlements.
Distinguish accommodations from entitlements: ADA or state law may require remote work as a disability accommodation in some cases. Those obligations should be addressed separately, not written into the collective agreement as universal rights.

Handled carefully, remote-work provisions can be structured in a way that provides employees with flexibility while ensuring employers retain control over core operational decisions.

Leaving Room to Adapt

In high-inflation environments, union proposals tend to be more ambitious. Employers need mechanisms that provide flexibility over time:

Side letters or MOUs: Use these for experimental provisions. They provide flexibility to test new ideas without locking them into the core agreement.
Reopener clauses: Tie reopeners to inflation thresholds, healthcare cost increases, or legislative changes. This ensures that both sides can revisit the contract if conditions change dramatically.
Strong management-rights clauses: Explicitly protect employer discretion on operations, staffing, technology, and scheduling. These clauses become especially valuable when economic conditions shift mid-contract.
Non-economic benefits: Consider creative alternatives—training, scheduling input, vacation flexibility—that can be highly valued by employees without carrying heavy ongoing costs.

Employers should also pay close attention to past practice and industry comparables. Arbitrators frequently rely on these benchmarks when interpreting disputed contract terms.

Practical Approaches to Negotiating Union Contracts at the Table

The bargaining process itself can shape outcomes as much as the proposals on the table. Employers should:

Be transparent but strategic: Share enough financial context to build credibility, but avoid “opening the books” in ways that limit flexibility later.
Prepare detailed costing models: Understand the true cost of each proposal, including wage roll-ups, overtime, and pension implications. A one-percent wage increase often costs far more than one percent once these effects are included.
Use interest-based bargaining where appropriate: Focusing on mutual interests—such as stability, recruitment, and sustainability—can sometimes open the door to creative solutions that meet both parties’ needs.
Stay consistent and credible: Bargaining is as much about trust as economics. If management develops a reputation for following through on commitments and maintaining consistent positions, unions are more likely to engage constructively.

For employers, negotiating union contracts during high inflation requires not only careful costing but also a clear communication strategy that builds credibility with both union leaders and employees.

Conclusion

High inflation creates challenges for both sides of the bargaining table when negotiating union contracts. Unions want to protect members’ purchasing power; employers must guard against unsustainable cost growth. But with careful planning, creativity, and a willingness to use flexible tools, employers can negotiate agreements that provide meaningful improvements without jeopardizing financial stability.

The most effective strategies combine structured wage proposals, proactive healthcare cost management, cautious approaches to remote work (where applicable), and adaptive bargaining mechanisms such as side letters and reopeners. Employers who enter negotiations prepared, consistent, and transparent are best positioned not only to reach agreements in this inflationary environment, but also to build stronger long-term labor relationships.

For more employment law updates, sign up for the Horton Management Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

October 19, 2017

5 Big Legal Questions for New York Employers in October 2017

In July, I discussed 5 Big Legal Questions for New York Employers. Three months later, we’re still dealing with the same issues. Let’s update where we are.

Question 1: Healthcare???

July Prediction: Obamacare reigns for the foreseeable future, probably into 2018. Republicans will need to slow down and construct a fully workable alternative before repealing and replacing . . . before the mid-term elections next November. Wild card: This is Congress’ lead issue, and one that affects tens of millions of Americans. Republican leadership may make significant concessions in any other area to get something through.

October 2017 Update: Multiple Senate attempts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act have come up short. Most recently, on October 17, 2017, Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced a bi-partisan healthcare plan. The deal would extend subsidies to health insurance companies for two years. President Trump eliminated the subsidies by Executive Order a week earlier. Initial reports suggest that Trump may not support the stop-gap measure. It’s not yet clear when or whether the Senate would vote on the plan. Or whether the House of Representatives would also accept the approach.

Scorecard: So far, the prediction was sound. Senate Republicans didn’t quite “slow down” as forecast. Rather, Senator John McCain (R-Arz.) cast a deciding vote against repeal in late July. He also helped prevent later repeal efforts. To date, the Affordable Care Act is still in place, albeit eroding slowly through the President’s actions. The powers that be don’t all agree on what to do, but everyone knows something has to be done. We’re still in wait-and-see mode, as predicted in July.

Question 2: FLSA Salary Threshold???

July prediction: The DOL will come out of litigation later this year or early next year with the preserved right to set a salary level for the exemptions. Over the next year or so, they will propose a new rule with a salary requirement somewhere between $455 and $913. The new threshold will probably be close to the midpoint of those two numbers. Wild card: Congress could amend the FLSA to fundamentally alter the related exemptions. Any such amendments would likely make more employees exempt and/or simplify the classification of employees as exempt/non-exempt. For example, a salary only test for non-manual workers would presumably reduce administrative burden on employers and reduce the risk of costly litigation.

October 2017 Update: On August 31, 2017, a U.S. District Court in Texas issued its final ruling that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority when it implemented the 2016 rules increasing the exemption salary level requirements. The decision permanently invalidates the rule, and DOL, which now agrees with the court, is not appealing. On July 26, 2017, the the DOL issued a Request for Information on Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees under the FLSA. The comment period ended in September.

Scorecard: Still on track. The court decision invalidating the Obama-era rule did not prohibit the DOL from setting a new salary level. For now, the pre-existing $455 weekly salary requirement remains in place. The DOL’s Request for Information foreshadows new rules. It’s still reasonable to assume they will increase the salary level. But the court’s decision almost guarantees that the new threshold will be below $913 per week.

Question 3: Federal Paid Family Leave???

July Prediction: Nothing meaningful happens in 2017 at least. It’s hard to fathom this Congress touching paid family leave with Obamacare still on the books. It’s also hard to imagine them tackling paid family leave in connection with healthcare, which is already complicated enough in its own right. Wild card: If the Democrats make significant inroads in the 2018 elections, this could be an issue where the White House reaches across the aisle beginning in 2019.

October 2017 Update: Republicans in Congress haven’t taken up this issue. With significant tax cuts on the table, funding new federal leave mandates for workers probably isn’t.

Scorecard: As predicted. There is growing popular support on this issue. And President Trump is, if unwittingly, on board. But it’s still not a Republican priority, even among labor and employment issues.

Question 4: New York State Paid Family Leave???

July 2017 Prediction: Many employers will not make deductions until they better understand the program. For some, this will be after final regulations are issued. For others, it will be very late in 2017 when they finally realize they have to pay for this additional component of their disability insurance policy. There will be frustration by both employees and employers when the deductions start, not to mention when employees become eligible for leave. Because the leave is administered as an insurance benefit, employers will not have full control, yet still may have to simultaneously adhere to FMLA requirements and maintain adequate staff to get the work done. Wild card: If/when some form of federal paid family leave takes effect, New York employers may have a nightmare scenario of trying to simultaneously understand and live with both sets of laws.

October 2017 Update: The New York Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) issued final regulations on the Paid Family Leave Program on July 19th. (That was the same day I published the original post addressing this question. I was not yet aware of the final rules when it went up. I was at the time attending a conference where the General Counsel of the WCB later spoke about Paid Family Leave!) The final regulations appear to require employers to notify employees who are eligible to waive participation in the Paid Family Leave Program. Earlier this month, the WCB finally issued an opt-out form for employers to present to employees for this purpose.

Scorecard: Looking good. Employers who haven’t spoken to their disability insurance carrier about their Paid Family Leave premiums should do so immediately. Depending on the anticipated costs and payment due dates, employers may want to begin making deductions. Before doing so, they should allow eligible employees to opt out.

Question 5: NLRB???

July 2017 Prediction: Employers who have changed policies and procedures to satisfy the Obama Board won’t rush to change them back. But they may be less conservative in other areas, such as dealing with unions regarding current/potential bargaining units. It will take several years for a Republican majority to decide cases in all areas touched by the Obama NLRB. But the NLRB could act relatively quickly to change the “quickie” union election rules issued by the Obama Board. That could perhaps occur by early 2018. Wild card: The Republican Congress may try to amend the National Labor Relations Act to more swiftly, comprehensively, and dramatically undue the Obama Board’s actions. Although there have already been bills proposed to do this (which is not unusual of Republican lawmakers), it’s too soon to tell whether any such efforts will take priority and gain enough support before the 2018 elections.

October 2017 Update: The Senate has confirmed Republican attorneys Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel as Members of the National Labor Relations Board. This gives Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Board. Peter Robb, President Trump’s nominee to become the NLRB’s General Counsel, is now waiting for a vote by the Senate and for Richard Griffin’s term to end at the beginning of November. The only potential wrinkle in the equation towards more employer-friendly decisions is that Chairman Miscimarra’s term will end in December. He will not continue for another term. So Trump must nominate another Board member to fill his spot. Any gap between expiration of Miscimarra’s term and confirmation of a new Board member would leave the NLRB with a temporary 2-2 Republican-Democrat deadlock.

Scorecard: Too early to tell. Everything is still trending towards a reversal of key Obama-Board decisions. But it remains to be seen how quickly the new Republican members can change course. There is even some speculation that the Board will become more aggressive than ever in setting policy by rulemaking. This way, they wouldn’t have to wait for new cases to bring critical issue back before the NLRB for adjudication. Opponents would likely challenge the Board’s authority to proceed in that fashion.

Looking Ahead

These won’t be the only legal questions for New York Employers in the coming months. I’ll check back in with updates on these issues and others.

Keep following the blog and sign up for my email newsletter so you don’t miss anything!