Retirement Benefits II
Last week, I commented on the treatment of already-accrued sick leave benefits in HB 213 (Unused Sick Leave at Retirement Amendments).
Regarding the going-forward portion of the bill (treatment of benefits accumulated after 1/1/06), a reader commented it isn't fair that this future sick leave will be traded out at the retiree's actual retirement wage. Whereas now all state employees trade 8 hours of accumulated sick leave for a month of insurance (an equal trade for all employees, regardless of their wage), the future trade of sick leave for money is not an equal trade (because high wage earners will trade for higher wages; low wage earners will trade for lower wages).
It might make some sense for the employees' association to focus some attention on that disparity issue. Unfortunately, though, the association has taken an all or nothing position on this one. Maybe that will work. Then again, maybe it won't.
With the IRS determination (explained below) and the rapid escalation of insurance costs, the State is in a position where it really should act. That being the case, on the going-forward part of HB 213, the lower wage earners might want to consider pushing for a higher wage trade. For example, rather than the actual wage, it might make some sense for all unused sick leave (again, just that accumulated after 1/1/06) to trade at the average or median wage for all state employees -- automatically adjusted each year to match the then-current state average or median wage.
No doubt, there are other ideas that could be explored to make things better for the low wage earners, but people have to sit down at the table and talk. Four of the five bills I'm running this year started with warring parties. Through a lot of difficult and at-times heated conversations, we worked out the problems and came up with legislation that all sides could feel good about. The process works, if people will let it.
Regarding the going-forward portion of the bill (treatment of benefits accumulated after 1/1/06), a reader commented it isn't fair that this future sick leave will be traded out at the retiree's actual retirement wage. Whereas now all state employees trade 8 hours of accumulated sick leave for a month of insurance (an equal trade for all employees, regardless of their wage), the future trade of sick leave for money is not an equal trade (because high wage earners will trade for higher wages; low wage earners will trade for lower wages).
It might make some sense for the employees' association to focus some attention on that disparity issue. Unfortunately, though, the association has taken an all or nothing position on this one. Maybe that will work. Then again, maybe it won't.
With the IRS determination (explained below) and the rapid escalation of insurance costs, the State is in a position where it really should act. That being the case, on the going-forward part of HB 213, the lower wage earners might want to consider pushing for a higher wage trade. For example, rather than the actual wage, it might make some sense for all unused sick leave (again, just that accumulated after 1/1/06) to trade at the average or median wage for all state employees -- automatically adjusted each year to match the then-current state average or median wage.
No doubt, there are other ideas that could be explored to make things better for the low wage earners, but people have to sit down at the table and talk. Four of the five bills I'm running this year started with warring parties. Through a lot of difficult and at-times heated conversations, we worked out the problems and came up with legislation that all sides could feel good about. The process works, if people will let it.
posted by steve u. at 2/08/2005
Subscribe
2 Comments:
I find your comments about UPEA interesting. I attended a district UPEA meeting yesterday and at that meeting the UPEA representative stated that UPEA is trying to meet with Representative Clark in an attempt to reach some compromises and ammend HB213 from it's original form. One of the suggested changes they propossed would be to guarantee the conversion, at retirement, of sick leave accrued post 1/1/06 at no less than the average salary for state employees, with those above the average getting the conversion at their retirement wage.
As a concerned State employee, I would appreciate it if Legislators and UPEA would stop attacking each other and sit down to achieve a compromise bill which is more win/win.
Dear Rep. Steve,
I just read the amendment added to HB213 to equalize the effect the bill has on the health care of retirees. I assume you had something to do with the change considering your posts on the topic here. This makes a big difference to anyone who has been in the system for twenty years but whose wage doesn't necessarily reflect that devotion. From one public servant to another....THANK YOU!
<< Home