Is is really all doom and gloom?

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
then they freeze your wage for two years instead of your "guaranteed" step increase and ask you to pay 20% of your 17K family insurance plan. See it more clearly now?


Yeah, I think so. You're upset that you don't get automatic wage increases, and that your Cadillac medical coverage plan is only 80% paid for by someone else.



Well, if the employment setup was such that the entry was at a lower than standard wage, with the impression that a planned step/grade increase would bring him somewhere closer to parity, but then was withdrew, I'd say that is grounds for being upset. If it was a developmental type program, Id be very upset, public sector or not.

To lump everyone as a freeloader is just plain stupid.
BINGO! Thanks for understanding!

 

[Trav]

Quote:
Uneducated is my guess

No not really.

 

[Trav]

How many jobs were saved by this new law? I have to wonder how many jobs were saved because you have to contribute 20%.
People with a few bucks are always being accused of not paying their fair share; don't you think you should also pay your fair share so others can keep their jobs also?

Quote:
Still, this legislation represents progress. Public employees should have good benefits. They should not, however, enjoy benefits that are significantly costlier than those held by the public they serve.


http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/08/why_a_new_law_represents_progr.html

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Trav
How many jobs were saved by this new law? I have to wonder how many jobs were saved because you have to contribute 20%.
People with a few bucks are always being accused of not paying their fair share; don't you think you should also pay your fair share so others can keep their jobs also?

Quote:
Still, this legislation represents progress. Public employees should have good benefits. They should not, however, enjoy benefits that are significantly costlier than those held by the public they serve.


http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/08/why_a_new_law_represents_progr.html



Keep this from going political, please.

Everyone paying their fair share is something Im 110% for. But if based upon your comment about people with "a few bucks" you think/imply that it is the same for a public employee making $50k as for a CEO making $5M, youre crazy.

The "Cadillac" plan I cited earlier was around $2400/month, of which about $1600/month is paid for by the public employee. Hardly a minority stake in the cost of the plan.

Now if the $50k public employee is paying it, that's like $20k of $50k gross, or 40% of their gross pay. To the $5M CEO, its a drop in the bucket. And that "Cadillac" plan is just Aetna Open Access HMO, straight from the tables on the OPM website.

Similar? Hardly. Im all for everyone paying, but if you want to imply that it effects everyone the same to do so, youre just being silly.

 

[Trav]

Sorry i dont get the numbers. He said..
Quote:
and ask you to pay 20% of your 17K family insurance plan

Thats $3,400 a year or about $65 a week. IMHO thats not much for a 17K family health care plan.
Quote:
But if based upon your comment about people with "a few bucks" you think/imply that it is the same for a public employee making $50k as for a CEO making $5M, youre crazy.


Your right i would be crazy but i never said or implied that. I pay my own health insurance and a fair amount in taxes but have been accused of having to much in the pocket and i don't pay my fair share in tax, i certainly don't make millions a year either.

Quote:
Now if the $50k public employee is paying it, that's like $20k of $50k gross, or 40% of their gross pay. To the $5M CEO, its a drop in the bucket. And that "Cadillac" plan is just Aetna Open Access HMO, straight from the tables on the OPM website.

Similar? Hardly. Im all for everyone paying, but if you want to imply that it effects everyone the same to do so, youre just being silly.


Sorry like i said i don't get the numbers, again i didn't imply that.
My only point is simply that if budgets need to be cut or lay people off then its not unreasonable or a huge sacrifice to ask someone to contribute $65 a week for a family plan and a wage freeze until the economy improves.

 

[JHZR2]

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Sorry i dont get the numbers. He said..
Quote:
and ask you to pay 20% of your 17K family insurance plan

Thats $3,400 a year or about $65 a week. IMHO thats not much for a 17K family health care plan.
That is a boatload considering I am "froze" at $29K a year gross. I left a job making $41K annually. I was supposed to have a $2100 raise each year for 11 straight years. Now I am making peanuts for 3 years, also paying over $700 a year into a stupid union that did nothing but roll over when contract negotiations came about. That and being under the MEA, we are considered BAEA, we are basically forced into buying MESSA BCBS insurance. If it was right to work here, I'd be done in a heartbeat and negotiate for myself. Try supporting a family of 4 on less than $800 take home every two weeks...Now do you see better? What if I also had to kick in that $3400 out of my measly $29K???

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trav
No offence but you took the job, if you don't like they pay scale or the direction the job is going in do what the rest of us do and move on.
I see nothing wrong with paying 20% for your health care.

Lots of people make $15 an hour these days and pay 800-1000 in health insurance, how do you think they feel.


+1 I wish someone would pay 80% of my medical [censored] I'd take someone paying 10% of it.

 

[Mr Nice]

Maybe its time to start looking for a better paying job if you feel you are not making enough ?

20 years ago I was making $20 an hour (single, no kids) but with the cost of living today it would be very hard to make ends meet with that kind of salary if you have a family. Just use the ER for all your needs and check in under a fake name, there is nothing they can do but offer medical assistance.

Unions are not always sunshine and roses. Some are good... some are bad.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trav
No offence but you took the job, if you don't like they pay scale or the direction the job is going in do what the rest of us do and move on.
I see nothing wrong with paying 20% for your health care.

Lots of people make $15 an hour these days and pay 800-1000 in health insurance, how do you think they feel.


+1 I wish someone would pay 80% of my medical [censored] I'd take someone paying 10% of it.


Are you only making 29k/yr with the terms of employment changing from what was proposed to you?

Self employment doesn't count - different animal and if you control the overhead, you control the benefits.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
You want someone who doesn't give a bleep providing therapy services to your kids in school???


I don't want the public schools offering these services at all.

I want them to spend their budgets on teaching children math, science, history, english, geography, etc., so that our kids will receive as good an education as kids in Asia get.

I think it is wrong to take tax money from the private sector, and use that money to offer services that compete with the taxpayers.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
You want someone who doesn't give a bleep providing therapy services to your kids in school???


I don't want the public schools offering these services at all.

I want them to spend their budgets on teaching children math, science, history, english, geography, etc., so that our kids will receive as good an education as kids in Asia get.

I think it is wrong to take tax money from the private sector, and use that money to offer services that compete with the taxpayers.


You really need to know what you are talking about, because it is clear that you do not understand the functional therapy processes that exist within the schools solely for obtaining functional parity on the spectrum to the children's peers.

Integrated OT/PT/Speech/etc. are given only in as minimalist a fashion as possible to get kids that are classified and have an IDP as well as medical diagnoses (not just disease but other aspects) onto the functional spectrum to operate within the schools. The approach is to catch things as early as possible to fix when kids are the most receptive and it can be done with as little interaction as possible. Integrated therapy is very expensive to districts, and they want to keep it as little as possible.

My wife has a doctorate and treats in schools and on her own (private sector as well as her own business). They really don't compete if that's what you're worried about, and she does FAR better on her own because she controls and owns her own overhead. Heaven forbid she pay 100% of her insurance if she can charge an hourly rate that includes overhead to cover that stuff.

Some of the claims are just so laughable. Seems there is little understanding of business accounting, burdened hourly rates and public school therapy.

 

[dwcopple]

Public schools don't provide the services. Intermediate School Districts do. (ISD's) The student may (most times) or may not be special education certified but they must have a hard diagnosis from a doctor and require OT/PT/SLP/Social work/Psych services to get service from us. We try to get the kid off caseload as a goal, make them functional so they don't need direct service. The ISD I work for is funded federally and through local millage. Not sure if they all are that way though.

Do you propose that we just boot these kids out of school or make them fall so far behind without our services that they repeat classes or drop out altogether? Isn't it better to get a kid through our program which can run up to 24 years of age and find them work with a company such as Do-All, Special Olympics, or even become semi-independent?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
Public schools don't provide the services. Intermediate School Districts do. (ISD's)


Depends. Here in NJ, the districts provide services per the mandates in the IEP.

 

[Trav]

Yes i see it clearer now. Its rough when things like this happen and your correct its not justifiable in your case.
I hope things improve for you soon, i cant imagine trying to get by on what they leave you with.

I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas and better luck next year.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Win
I think it is wrong to take tax money from the private sector, and use that money to offer services that compete with the taxpayers.


Everything competes with the private sector, including military (war lords), international relation (trade war casualty), unemployment benefit (driving up wages), food stamps (demand for foods distributions), and education (increase labor cost).

It is a matter of whether you want to optimize the system for more access at break even point (government, if done efficiently and without corruption), or for lowest cost (3rd world countries with huge poverty).

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: Trav

I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas and better luck next year.
Thank you. Same to you and yours!!!

 

[91344George]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear


It is a matter of whether you want to optimize the system for more access at break even point (government, if done efficiently and without corruption), or for lowest cost (3rd world countries with huge poverty).



It seems to be the case that the USA is gradually shifting towards the latter situation, doesn't it?