Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heard a playback of the Governor on the 101.5 radio web site, and there is some school didtrict where a husband and wife work as teachers, and one has the health benefits, and the spouse collected $5K for waiving the health benefits.
What I don't get is why should the spouse be entitled to $5K if their family has health benefits from the school system?
I'm sure if it's happening in one school system it's happening in others, and it's a shame.
Collective bargaining is really costing the taxpayers! And that's why I don't believe public workers need it. Most of the federal government does not have collective bargaining and things seem to work out fine; Here's the job, here's the salary range, here's the benefits, take it or leave it.
Happens in many districts, but also more frequently in business. Benefits cost the employer huge amounts of money~in some cases a family plan with dental, optical and health/medical can add $15,000 to the actual cost of that employee over salary package. As an incentive for people to not carry double coverage (one spouse with one employer and the other with another; each claiming "family" plans) benefit packages are becoming the negotiating tool. DH was able to command 2 weeks of additional vacation because he didn't take benefits.
Happens in many districts, but also more frequently in business. Benefits cost the employer huge amounts of money~in some cases a family plan with dental, optical and health/medical can add $15,000 to the actual cost of that employee over salary package. As an incentive for people to not carry double coverage (one spouse with one employer and the other with another; each claiming "family" plans) benefit packages are becoming the negotiating tool. DH was able to command 2 weeks of additional vacation because he didn't take benefits.
I can understand different employers, as there is a definetely a cost savings if they have less employees covered.
However, why would any employer even consider allowing a husband and wife to carry double coverage under the same health plan; just doesn't make sense.
Heard a playback of the Governor on the 101.5 radio web site, and there is some school didtrict where a husband and wife work as teachers, and one has the health benefits, and the spouse collected $5K for waiving the health benefits.
What I don't get is why should the spouse be entitled to $5K if their family has health benefits from the school system?
I'm sure if it's happening in one school system it's happening in others, and it's a shame.
Collective bargaining is really costing the taxpayers! And that's why I don't believe public workers need it. Most of the federal government does not have collective bargaining and things seem to work out fine; Here's the job, here's the salary range, here's the benefits, take it or leave it.
Am I missing something here?
It's cheaper to pay out $5K than to have the person get benefits. I don't think it matters whether the other person already has benefits. I recently got married so my wife and I each have our own insurance from our employers. I asked the dentist whether we should cancel one and consolidate. She told me that before you do that, make sure your insurances don't 'stack'. I think that was the term. Basically if my insurance covers $50 towards something and hers covers $50 then if we are on each others, the insurance can stack to cover $100. That could be a reason why we both might want to keep it.
Also, in regards to collective bargaining...I think your comment makes sense in theory but it's a lot more complicated than that. Taxes already are going to go up for a number of reasons outside of salaries. Now imagine you are a mayor/governor etc. Taxes are already going up 1.5% for other reasons and now it's down to salary increase for employees. Do you give a decent raise but will increase taxes more? likewise, say everything stays in line with all other items and you have 0% tax increase when it comes to salary. As mayor/governor, would you try to give no salary increase at all in order to try to sell a 0% tax increase to the public and get re-elected or do you give a fair raise but will increase taxes?
Heard a playback of the Governor on the 101.5 radio web site, and there is some school didtrict where a husband and wife work as teachers, and one has the health benefits, and the spouse collected $5K for waiving the health benefits.
What I don't get is why should the spouse be entitled to $5K if their family has health benefits from the school system?
I'm sure if it's happening in one school system it's happening in others, and it's a shame.
Collective bargaining is really costing the taxpayers! And that's why I don't believe public workers need it. Most of the federal government does not have collective bargaining and things seem to work out fine; Here's the job, here's the salary range, here's the benefits, take it or leave it.
Am I missing something here?
Marc I don't get your point. How is this any different than if say for example I work for a company get my wife on my plan, she waives her benefits at school and gets the 5k anyway? Bottom line if someone waives benefits they collect no matter if the other person is a school employee or not.
Now if you have issue with people waiving benefits and collecting extra money than I agree. Benefits are benefits, if I don't use them I shouldn't get paid out. However that is not the case.
Sounds like it's a way to encourage the school employees to go on their spouse's insurance. Which is good. In this case, it seems kind of odd, but I guess that's how the contract was written.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,706,106 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann77
Sounds like it's a way to encourage the school employees to go on their spouse's insurance. Which is good. In this case, it seems kind of odd, but I guess that's how the contract was written.
Yup. That's it. My sister & brother-in-law work for the same district. The way that their contract has been written for many years it is very expensive to claim more than one dependant. For that reason, both took medical. My sister claimed herself & one child. My brother-in-law claimed himself & the other child.
yeah, as ann said, it's an incentive for school employee's to go on their spouse's insurance. in this case, both people work for the school, so it appears as though they both enjoy insurance, but one also gets the kickback for not taking the insurance.
except...they don't both have individual insurance for each person, which would be more costly to the school. they are both on one person's insurance. just like my insurance at work, it's not double the price to add my wife to my insurance. but if we both worked for my company, and both took individual insurance, we'd each, individually, have better coverage in some regards (we'd have higher limits on certain things).
this is a unique case, and really isn't a big deal.
As I noted above, I understand if the couple work for different employers; but one would think that there would be something in place that would not permit spouses working for the same same school district to even be able to select a plan, much less get compensated for not selecting one. If one picks a family plan, what benefit is there for each to select a plan?
I guess my biggest surprise was with the $5K incentive. In today's fiscal crisis, I would think the incentive would be considerably lower; but then again, it is a perceived entitlement that will not be give up without a fight.
I know the federal government does not offer incentives for not selecting a plan, but than again, federal employees have an incentive not to select a plan; they pay 30% of plan costs.
As I noted above, I understand if the couple work for different employers; but one would think that there would be something in place that would not permit spouses working for the same same school district to even be able to select a plan, much less get compensated for not selecting one. If one picks a family plan, what benefit is there for each to select a plan?
I guess my biggest surprise was with the $5K incentive. In today's fiscal crisis, I would think the incentive would be considerably lower; but then again, it is a perceived entitlement that will not be give up without a fight.
I know the federal government does not offer incentives for not selecting a plan, but than again, federal employees have an incentive not to select a plan; they pay 30% of plan costs.
Yeah. Sounds like something that was written into the contract. I guess technically you could say that if you giving people incentives to go on their spouse's insurance, then just because two spouses work in the same district they shouldn't be penalized. I dunno.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
