Showing posts with label union contracts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union contracts. Show all posts

Friday, December 21, 2007

Soaring Health Care Costs & Middleboro

The impact of escalating health care costs on Education Reform were partially addressed in the Boston Herald article (below), but Middleboro voters should be aware that the town currently pays 90% of employees' health care premiums and provides a $5 co-pay and prescription drug coverage.
.
Others municipalities have placed their retirees on Medicare.
.
No other municipality provides 90% payment of premiums.
.
If you find one of 351 cities and towns, please forward the information.
.
If you find a private employer that provides those benefits, please forward the information.
.

If you believe that Middleboro can't successfully live within its revenues, how much could the town save by amending ONLY health care ?
.
If YOU don't approve contracts at Town Meeting, it's back to the drawing board.
.

Soaring health costs sicken school reform
By Edward Moscovitch Friday, December 21, 2007
Runaway inflation in health-care costs poses a severe threat to school reform in Massachusetts.
Yes, you read that right.
A recent analysis by the Department of Education (DoE) shows that spending on health care for school employees rose a stunning 12.3 percent per year from 2002 through 2006. At that rate, spending on health insurance doubles every six years. It thus outstrips the increase in other costs (3.4 percent per year over the same period) and the national price index used to adjust the state’s foundation education budget (2.9 percent).
It should come as no surprise then that a preliminary DoE study of actual school spending shows spending on health care alone exceeds the foundation budget health insurance allotment (on which current aid payments are based) by something like $850 million statewide.
BostonHerald

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Let's stop perpetuating ignorance and misinformation #1

The following was posted, apparently by several people who don't seem to want to waste their time understanding issues or researching the facts (emphasis mine):


YesRegistered: 10/13/07Posts: 310
Today at 12:50 PM

The town is not voting to accept a retroactive pay raise.
If a pay raise has been voted on by the BOS or School Committee it is binding. WRONG!!!
The town has to pay for it.


WRONG!!

The Town my [sic] choose not to fund it, in which case there would be the layoffs.



Town Meeting voters approve CONTRACTS.

Town Meeting voters approve UNION CONTRACTS.


At the combined Spring Special Town Meeting and Annual Town Meeting, there were TWO PAY RAISES that Town Counsel FAILED miserably to explain clearly.
The first had to do with the Selectmen's Secretary.
The Selectmen removed their Secretary from the Collective Bargaining group and provided a separate 3 year contract that included a clause (much like the one posted for the Town Accountant) providing for a pay increase equivalent to any received by ANY other town bargaining group.
When the GMEG group received their long overdo wage increases. it was in the SECOND YEAR of the Secretary's THREE YEAR contract.
In other words, Town Meeting voters had already APPROVED her three year contract by their vote, they just didn't realize it.
The second had to do with the salary increases of the Fire Chief -- a contract that the Selectmen deliberately neglected for 3 years and negotiated to enable to Fire Chief to retire.
Town Meeting voters DID NOT APPROVE THAT CONTRACT.
The Selectmen subsequently voted to pay that amount from 'found' money within the Fire Department prior to the end of the fiscal year. The motion, made by Chairman Brunelle was improperly worded and illegal, but one must wonder if anyone noticed.