I know there are certain guidlines...... wrote on May 31, 2007 4:42 PM:
" once money goes into a HRA. How about sharing the rest of the story since you report on an HRA? Like the vast majority of taxpayers know what a HRA consists of. "
Isn't this supposed to be about...... wrote on May 31, 2007 12:28 PM:
" making sure our School employees have health coverage between early retirement and Medicare? Didn't we just hand a private bag of cash up front in the form of an annuity? Isn't this going to be a sizeable lump of cash using the 10/7-7/10 formula? (way over $100k) Won't this untouchable cash revert to family members if someone might die early? Doesn't this cash still arrive if a systems spouse's health coverage extends to both during those years? Couldn't this benefit have been structured to be for provable insurance coverage or it reverts back to the system? This is about a lot more than post retirement health coverage isn't it? "
A question we can all ask ourselves wrote on May 31, 2007 11:58 AM:
" Why did the union allow the restructuring of the post retirement benefit. Even when they self admitted took less? There is a reason. It has to do with a private annuity that will be front loaded and untouchable. That is the trade off before the trains of unfunded benefits start falling off the tracks in our area and all around us, and they will!!! Wake up!!! "
"Discrepancies"? wrote on May 31, 2007 9:55 AM:
" My what a soft term for 'disparities'. Big wide, gaping disparities! I love you guys, 'just stay away from my benefits', but keep paying for them? "
TO: Nestor RE: the real problem wrote on May 31, 2007 9:52 AM:
" Yes I do. A taxpayer involvement, immersion, and subsequent revolt. Revert back to the originally intended employer/employee WRS contribution. These employees after this adjustment would still have 'much' more contributed for their retirement than the average private worker. Curtail post retirement helath coverage at 55. If you want to retire early at 55 , be prepared. Do not look at taxpayers to take up the disproportunate slack of the likes that all too many will never see themselves in the form of post retirement benefits. While we are at it, why don't you explain the newest benefit change in Onalaska Schools and the ramifications of 'front loading'. As long as we are having a "dialogue". "
Nestor RE: the real problem wrote on May 31, 2007 9:12 AM:
" once again you have no original solutions just complaint after complaint. I recommended universal health care for all Americans as a solution to government employee vs private sector benefit descrepencies. Your response "You have your head in the sand" does not promote open dialogue or offer any middle ground for negotiation. Nestor do you have any real solutions? Please enlighten me. "
Hey Everybody! wrote on May 30, 2007 3:58 PM:
" Remember everybody, It's all about the kids.
Ha! "
TO: Wondering wrote on May 30, 2007 2:46 PM:
" In fact, the government jobs as a whole have surpassed their private sector counter parts years ago. The benefits have as well. It is documentable, and long ago deemed fact. You do not know what you are talking about, period! "
TO: Wondering wrote on May 30, 2007 2:41 PM:
" The average percapita income in Lacrosse is around $32k. These people are busy everyday earning money to pay for these benefits that they will never see themselves during their career. They have every reason to be up in arms. Teachers with 15 graduate credits beyond a Master;s degree can earn $54,768 currently, $56,628 in 2007-08, and $57,166 in 2009-10. Lest we forget that our Onalaksa Superintendent was just reveling that wasn't it 80% of his faculty had a masters or more. Well, what about merit pay. They have a name for it. It is called, 'gaming the system'. Add their benefit packages and we are talking a tidy little package here. "
I have just read the change of the Onalaska Schools Internet Site wrote on May 30, 2007 2:03 PM:
" It seems to me that one of the changes is the funding is being 'front loaded'. Before the inevitable train wreck of funding happens even in our own special little area concerning funding shortages. It is all around us, it will happen, wake up taxpayers. "
Wondering wrote on May 30, 2007 12:53 PM:
" Does everyone in this town make nine dollars an hour with no benefits? Is $31,000 really a fantastic starting wage for a college graduate? Maybe the benefits are better than the private sector but the pay is nothing spectacular. Also there is no room for advancements. I know factory workers, truck drivers, sales people, and nurses who are payed better than teachers. They may not get the benefits but if the pay is better it equals out. "
Call it what you will wrote on May 30, 2007 9:16 AM:
" It still is a taxpayer contribution for post retirement health coverage after only 15 years on the job. This is a smokescreen for the remedial, uninformed, or for those that have just given up. BTW, What is the contribution rate for the annuity? "
TO: REAL PROBLEM wrote on May 30, 2007 9:13 AM:
" Your head is in the sand. Government employees receive benefits that are far and above more costly, and unreachable by private sector counterparts. The problem here is bloated, unaffordable benefits that we can no longer afford. Keep your eye on the ball. Your attempt to shake the right hand as not to notice the left is noted. We can no longer afford it. A "rising tide" does NOT raise all boats! It is a ruse. If you want to use 'comparables' compare the private sector employer workplace or employee benefits of those on the School Board for 'comparables'. "
Nestor III wrote on May 30, 2007 8:42 AM:
" We are supposed to read this as if it is acceptable, equitable to the private sector workers and taxpayers? "The current benefit allows a teacher with 15 years of district experience to retire at age 55", "That costs about $1,500 per month". I would dare any one of these School Board Members that work in the private sector as employees or employers to stand up and state that they are receiving or awarding this type of benefit package. So why with our money? Run the numbers, see how much it costs us. We could not afford these bloated benefits when they came into view and we can afford them less now. Missing something? What is the rate of contribution for the, 'annuity'? Abosolutely amazing! "
Nestor II wrote on May 30, 2007 8:32 AM:
" Now we are to jump up and down because they now have restructured our taxpayer expense and cut it by a fraction. An expense that almost all of us will not see in our lives? I do not get it. I am also not jumping up and down. "15 years of district experience to retire at age 55 or older and have 80 percent paid health and dental insurance", come on, where else does this transpire, at your house? "competitive with this part of state in comparable districts", comparable with private sector workers? This is a ruse. It is as much as a ruse as donating $10k plus to the Lacrosse Superintendent for an annuity on top of his normal benefit package. Hidden in his contract that is never shared with the taxpayers.
"
Nestor I wrote on May 30, 2007 8:31 AM:
" So, let's say your teaching, and staff are overpaid about $100? We are supposed to be glad that you cut the amount to $80.00? If that does not illustrate a bureaucrat mind-set? Now I want all of you out there to remember that these employees receive enough contribution to their retirement so that they may retire at 55 after 30 years at near or soon more than they made while working. While 50% of the private sector does not even have an employee retirement contribution program. Then we pay for their post retirement health care coverage. They are now all around us offering these benefits to heterosexual live-in-pals. With a hokey affidavit. Shouldn't we should at least ask these supposed in love, committed couples (Gay or Straight) to own all titled and deeded property joint in contract. "
REAL PROBLEM wrote on May 30, 2007 6:27 AM:
" The real problem is rising health care costs. A problem that will only be fixed by universal care and coverage for all Americans. "
Wow wrote on May 30, 2007 1:15 AM:
" They shouldn't get to retire until 65 or 70 like the rest of the working class. I suppose people got started on this because when they get old their skills are way out dated and we all know you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so they figured just put them out to pasture at an earlier age. They should just fire them and make them flip burgers for their last 10 or so years. "
Advertisement
