sobo Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 That sucks, bro. Tell me about it. And since I've already signed up for 2012 benefits, I now know what my increased annual premiums will be beginning in 2012: Medical: Up another $300/year from last year (~12% increase) Dental: Up another $48/year from last year (8% increase) My family vision coverage has remained constant since 2009 at ~$220/year (no employer participation in that plan), so if I assume that it remains constant for 2012 at the current rate, then my out of pocket costs for benefits coverage in 2012 has increased 11% over 2011's costs. Like I said before, cry me a fuq'n river... I'm so pissed off over the whole thing that I don't even feel like claiming my third in this thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 OK, I drug out the books on this one to see just how much of my benefits I am paying for vs. what my employer is paying... In 2009, the annual cost to provide my family with benefits was... Medical: total = $14,124, of which I paid $2,207 or 15.63% of total Dental: total = $1,188, of which I paid $520 or 44% of total Vision: total = $217, of which I paid $217 or 100% of total Percent of total benefit package for which I pay: ~19.0% 2010: Medical: total = $15,518, of which I paid $2,424 or 15.62% of total Dental: total = $1,279, of which I paid $564 or 44% of total Vision: total = $217, of which I paid $217 or 100% of total Percent of total benefit package for which I pay: ~18.8% 2011: Medical: total = $16,657, of which I paid $2,556 or 15.34% of total Dental: total = $1,308, of which I paid $600 or 46% of total Vision: total = $217, of which I paid $217 or 100% of total Percent of total benefit package for which I pay: ~18.6% In 2012, the annual costs will be... Medical: total = $17,774, of which I will pay $2,856 or 16.07% of total Dental: total = $1,379, of which I will pay $648 or 47% of total Vision: total = $217, of which I will pay $217 or 100% of total Percent of total benefit package for which I will pay: ~19.2% So what does it all mean, you ask? I pay for about 16% of my medical coverage, almost half of my dental coverage, and ALL of my vision coverage, for an aggregate of about 19% of my total benefit package's cost. When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington State Labor Federation rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... What they are being asked to do is give up on part of the benefits that they have been promised... in other words to allow their employer to renege on part of their compensation package. I don't blame these folks for saying "no, thanks". Typically, these folks have to fight for salary increases which lag the market/rate of inflation. And I wonder, which benefits in particular is Gov. Gregoire forgoing... as a sign of good faith and soldarity with the state employees that she is is asking to make sacrifices and the people of the state of Washington? Maybe she is taking a 10% cut in her >150K salary? Or perhaps she is paying all her medical premiums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 What they are being asked to do is give up on part of the benefits that they have been promised... in other words to allow their employer to renege on part of their compensation package.OK, I understand that, sure. I don't blame these folks for saying "no, thanks". Typically, these folks have to fight for salary increases which lag the market/rate of inflation.So what happens to these folks when they start losing their jobs as a result of Draconian budget cuts? Would it not be better to pay an additional $516/year now towards your own benefit package so that everyone has a chair to sit in when the music stops? Or, on principle, insist upon their current course of action and leave more than a few people standing when the music quits playing? Which is the lesser evil here...?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Maybe she is taking a 10% cut in her >150K salary? Or perhaps she is paying all her medical premiums? $167,000 for WA Governor? Shit, that just ain't worth it for what you'd have to put up with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Maybe she is taking a 10% cut in her >150K salary? Or perhaps she is paying all her medical premiums? $167,000 for WA Governor? Shit, that just ain't worth it for what you'd have to put up with... That's just salary - total comp is gonna include all kinds of goodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Oh, I'm sure she's got some goodies on top of that. Her benefit package, to say the least. And a vehicle allowance. And free travel for State business (with which she can pair it up for personal use on the same trip). And free parking. Prob'ly a slush fund, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Your benefit costs mirror mine (also private sector) pretty closely. What's sad is that the only thing Prole (whom I assume is a public employee) can come up with is "bummer dude." I think it's their lacking grasp of the big picture (not to mention sense of entitlement) that is the most irksome. For the most part, they really have no clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) And I wonder, which benefits in particular is Gov. Gregoire forgoing... as a sign of good faith and soldarity with the state employees that she is is asking to make sacrifices and the people of the state of Washington? Maybe she is taking a 10% cut in her >150K salary? Or perhaps she is paying all her medical premiums? Don't forget the governor's mansion. And staff. Edited November 29, 2011 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The bummer is that leveling down ("my benefits, wage, and pension package sucks and is getting suckier by the year, we should make everybody else's suck as bad as mine") has become the conditioned response in the current social climate rather than seeing public sector workers' struggles, strategies, and their ability to maintain the gains they've made in the workplace as something that all workers can learn from and emulate. But hey, keep your nose up the bosses ass, keep listening to the same radio station, vote for his initiatives and his politicians. Sounds like it's working out great for ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Prole (whom I assume is a public employee) Don't bother assuming anything about me. You don't even know how fucking clueless you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Sorry, I meant "ward of the state." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... On average, public employees earn less than comparable employees in the private sector. Why should they willingly concede the benefits that make up for the difference in salary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... On average, public employees earn less than comparable employees in the private sector. Why should they willingly concede the benefits that make up for the difference in salary? Um, because they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... On average, public employees earn less than comparable employees in the private sector. Why should they willingly concede the benefits that make up for the difference in salary? Um, because there's not enough money to pay them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... On average, public employees earn less than comparable employees in the private sector. Why should they willingly concede the benefits that make up for the difference in salary? Um, because the person next to them is going to lose his/her job if they don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 When I read that the Washington Federation of State Employees union rejected out-of-hand a request to renegotiate its workers' benefit package with the Governor, which would have asked for State workers to pick up $43/month of their benefits, I find this irksome to say the least... On average, public employees earn less than comparable employees in the private sector. Why should they willingly concede the benefits that make up for the difference in salary? Um, because they care more about the needs of the people they serve and the social programs they promote more than they care about AFSCME/WEA/WSFFA/Etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Hey FW, if you're so unwilling to see anyone else's point, how can you expect them to try and see yours? Do you think it's possible that maybe public employees AREN'T merely lazy freeloaders and that maybe this is a complicated problem with lots of viewpoints? When you disagree with someone you should try to see things from their perspective, because it's possible to disagree with your opponent without deciding they must simply be a lazy freeloader who doesn't care about anyone else, you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 For instance, I believe it was wrong to invade Iraq, but I also believe Bush thought he was doing the right thing. Isn't is possible to disagree with someone without assigning a completely disrespectful interpretation to their motives? I bet j_b isn't trying to destroy the country, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2011/11/28/washington-state-budget-woes-wheres-the-beef/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The bummer is that leveling down ("my benefits, wage, and pension package sucks and is getting suckier by the year, we should make everybody else's suck as bad as mine") has become the conditioned response...Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The bummer is that leveling down ("my benefits, wage, and pension package sucks and is getting suckier by the year, we should make everybody else's suck as bad as mine") has become the conditioned response...Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... I think it is less of wanting to drag folks down to a common level than shared sacrafice during hard times. Working folks see what happens in their business - folks taking pay cuts to keep a team together, for instance. And they expect something similar with taxpayers money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It would be nice to see congress take a pay cut, too. Or does only the proletariat have to make concessions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 The bummer is that leveling down ("my benefits, wage, and pension package sucks and is getting suckier by the year, we should make everybody else's suck as bad as mine") has become the conditioned response...Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... From actor Michael Caine's autobiography, "What's It All About?" (1992): [P]olitics entered into my life [in my late teens] in an unusual and exciting way. Coming out of the club one evening [in the early 1950s] I was surprised to find myself surrounded by a bevy of very attractive . . . older women, about twenty or twenty-two years old. They were offering leaflets. I took one and one of the girls said mysteriously: "Read it and let us know if you're interested. We'll be back tomorrow night." What exciting proposition could this be, I thought as I walked home reading the leaflet. From what I could make out I was being asked to join something called Young Communists. I knew it was a political party, I also knew that they were very keen on it in Russia and that it had been invented by someone called Marx. I knew the Marx Brothers from the movies so at least, I thought, it might be amusing. The leaflet went on to something really interesting: there was going to be a redistribution of wealth. I could not believe my luck! If they were going to do that, my family and I would have to come out ahead. The clincher for me, was that Communists believed in free love. I couldn't credit that I'd found a political party that offered wealth and love: my two absorbing passions. I couldn't wait to get out of the club the next evening to meet the group of girls. I had a good look at them and picked the one that I wanted to have free love with the most. "I want to join," I said. "Wonderful," she replied and dragged me off to a small dingy office a couple of streets away. "He wants to join," she announced and then she disappeared. I was left standing in a room with four men, all doing smile impersonations. I was instantly suspicious. Remembering what my father had told me about spotting untrustworthy men, I had hit the jackpot here. Two of them had beards, one was wearing sandals and another one had a bow tie. The only thing missing were the two-toned shoes. The object of my free love had disappeared and here I was with a group of guys who obviously so far had not done very well in the redistribution of wealth by the look of them. One of them put a form on the desk in front of me and told me to sign it and pay over my subscription of five shillings. I saw at once what a mistake I had made: the distribution of wealth was to be mine to them, not the other way around. I fled—and a lingering suspicion of Communism has remained planted in my mind forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 The bummer is that leveling down ("my benefits, wage, and pension package sucks and is getting suckier by the year, we should make everybody else's suck as bad as mine") has become the conditioned response...Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... This redistribution of wealth? The one that's actually happening rather than the rhetorical one that's dragged out any time improving the lives of regular people is mentioned? This relates to the issue of "shared sacrifice" as well. Why are we even discussing squeezing what are really just marginally better off workers when American finance, corporations and wealthy individuals whose incomes grew by leaps and bounds during the great redistribution, are sitting on a cash hoard in the trillions, and are positively thriving in the midst of austerity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.