"Public employee unions on the defensive
June 13, 2010|By Peter Scheer
For public employee unions - those representing police, firefighters, teachers, prison guards and agency workers of all kinds at the state and local levels - these are the worst of times.
Despite record high membership and dues, and years of unparalleled clout in state capitols, public-sector unions find themselves on the defensive, desperately trying to hold onto past gains in the face of a skeptical press and angry voters....Public unions' traditional strength - the ability to finance their members' rising pay and benefits through tax increases - has become a liability. Although private-sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can't choose - they are, in effect, "captive consumers."
At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that:
-- They are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have.
-- Government services, from schools to the Department of Motor Vehicles, are not good enough - not for the citizen individually nor the public generally - to justify the high and escalating cost.
We are at that point....
The biggest blow to unions' public support has come from revelations about jaw-dropping compensation and pension benefits. Police have received unwelcome attention for budget-busting overtime and the manipulation of eligibility rules for "disability pensions," which provide higher benefits and tax advantages. Other government employees, particularly managers, have been called out for "pension spiking": using vacation time, sick pay and the like to boost income in the last years of employment, which are the basis for calculating retirement benefits.
--more--"And nowhere is that truer than in Massachusetts.
Related: The Massachusetts Model: Municipal Health Mess
Towns to Pay Health Tax For Public Servants
Legislating Your Own Looting
That is why they raised your taxes because we are still getting service cuts and budget deficits in the allegedly improving economy.
"Town’s health care bill triggers pain; In Framingham, deep split over rising costs" by Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff | May 6, 2010
FRAMINGHAM — Last year, this large, diverse suburb west of Boston eliminated a few dozen jobs, including police, firefighters, and clerks at Town Hall. This year, at least 50 teachers and staff are slated to be cut.
Everyone here seems to agree that a major factor is the rising cost of health care insurance for employees and retirees, which has jumped by $20 million in 10 years.
Related: Memory Hole: Why the Nation Doesn't Need Massachusetts Health Care
How does it feel to be gouged, taxpayers?
But there is a deep split in town over what to do about it, illustrating on the most local level a friction that exists statewide as cities and towns struggle with mounting health care costs.
Why would that be from OUR "PUBLIC SERVANTS?"
On one side are the roughly 3,700 Framingham employees and retirees who enjoy health care insurance benefits among the best anywhere: For most, the town pays 87 percent of their premiums, with $10 copayments for office visits....
On the other side are the town manager, chief financial officer, and, judging by interviews conducted here, many taxpayers in this town of about 66,000 people. They want public employees to shoulder more of the burden, as has happened in the private sector, and town officials have infuriated unions by trying unilaterally to shift costs to workers.
“This is dividing everyone in town,’’ said Rosemary Jebari, co-president of the local teachers’ union.
“It’s town employees against everyone else,’’ she said. “It’s driving a huge wedge down on us. It’s because people feel health care is breaking the bank.’’
Yup, YOUR GOVERNMENT SERVING YOU!!
Framingham is but one of scores of communities hampered by the burgeoning cost of health care....
Municipal managers in Framingham and elsewhere have tried in negotiations to shift more of the burden to employees and retirees. But they have been stymied by a state law that gives municipal unions an effective veto over changes in health care plans....
And since they have BOUGHT OFF the LOOTISLATURE with their CAMPAIGN KICKBACKS.... !!
Yeah, YOUR GOVERNMENT working for YOU, taxpayers!!!
Some Framingham taxpayers insisted in interviews that health care benefits must be rolled back for town employees and retirees.
Aaron Lewis, a 69-year-old retired office manager, said he worked for a company for 25 years, but unlike public-sector employees, he got no pension and no health care benefits in retirement. He and his wife get by on Social Security and Medicare, he said. It galls him that others are so much better off, at his expense.
“I’m paying the taxes for town employees to have it much better than I do,’’ he said. “Give me a break.’’
Sue Wallace taught physical education in the Framingham public schools for 37 years. She is now retired, but cochairs the committee representing public employee unions and retirees in negotiations with the town. She is adamant that public employees deserve what they get.
Then you won't mind the tar and feathers. will you?
“Do we have good plans? Yes, we have very, very good ones,’’ she said. “And why not? I am passionate that everyone deserves quality health care insurance. I feel badly that people are being laid off. But I really think there are some other changes that can be made.’’
Translation: As long as I GET MINE the hell with the rest of you!
Yup, YOUR "PUBLIC SERVANT," taxpayers!
Serving ONLY THEMSELVES!!!!
Wallace said the cost of medical care, not employee greed, is driving up premiums. “Everything has been so anti-union lately,’’ she said.
When the town tried to force new employees into less costly plans, Wallace said, she was stunned. She believes the move will not solve the overall problem confronting the town.
Usually what happens when a head is stuck in a pile of s***.
But the numbers are bleak. In 1991, health care costs represented 7 percent of the annual town budget. Health care costs are projected to eat up 25 percent of Framingham’s budget in 10 years unless changes are made.
And that is NOT INCLUDING the TAX and COST INCREASES in the Obombercare plan.
Back in the early 1990s, Framingham — like scores of other municipalities — agreed in collective bargaining with unions to cover 90 percent of employee health care costs. “That was when health care was relatively inexpensive and a town could afford it,’’ said Mary Ellen Kelley, town chief financial officer. “But not in this day and age.’’
The unions agreed last year to lower the town’s share of employee premiums from 90 percent to 87 percent.
Oh, HOW GENEROUS!
The unions also agreed to a mandate that all eligible retirees go on Medicare, lowering costs for taxpayers.
Still....
ILL!
Also see: A Healthy Insult For the American People
Globe is full of them everyday.
