You have to give New Jersey politicians credit for doing something, but they still miss the point. State workers have no right to a compensation package far more generous than the people footing the bill.
The following is from the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s primary newspaper. It is talking about a proposal by a State senator.
“Under Sweeney’s proposal, all public employees would pay a percentage of their premium (toward health insurance) instead of the current system that requires them to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salary, according to officials.
The increases would be phased in over seven years and would be applied on a sliding scale depending on the employees’ salary.
For example, in the first year, public employees who make less than $30,000 would pay 2 percent of their premium, while those who earn more than $100,000 would pay 12 percent, according to a chart obtained by The Star-Ledger.
When fully implemented after the seventh year, the lowest income workers would pay 12 percent of their premiums, while top earners would pay 30 percent, according to the chart. The annual payments would range from $2,280 to $5,700 a year.”
Seven years to phase it in? Are you kidding?
Initially top earners to pay 12 percent? Hey guys, in the real world the average person pays at least 20% of the premium and has for many years. There are many workers who pay a lot more than 20 percent as well.
In addition, workers in the private sector have higher deductibles and co-pays than do State workers. For example, employees of one of the nations largest insurers have a $3,200 deductible. Employees of the States largest utility pay 20% of the premium for single coverage and 25% for family coverage and have since 1996. Contributions required of employees of other New Jersey employers are similar or higher.
Nice try, but no cigar. Too little and much too late. Let’s be fair with State workers and with taxpayers, it can be done.
New Jersey legislators got us into this mess. There were three commissions and task forces since 1993 that highlighted this problem (and those related to all other benefits) and made recommendations to resolve it, yet until very recently nothing was done. Waiting seven years to make even a dent in the problem is not acceptable.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
As an employee of the state, I would be happy to pay my fair share of health coverage. All I would like in return is for you to pay me the same salary that I would get in the public sector. People in private companies that do what I do make $70-$80K while I make $50K. Why do I do it? BECAUSE THE BENEFITS ARE GOOD! So to say that I am being given something that the people that pay for it are not is absolutely incorrect.
LikeLike
State workers in comparable jobs and length of service do receive comparable pay and more security and less in terms of performance requirements. But even if they didn’t, it would be far better to raise their pay and provide a benefits package that is comparable to the private sector. You actually made the case for change. You stay with the state because of the benefits. Sadly, they are not sustainable because unlike pay their cost escalates far faster and beyond the control of the employer.
LikeLike
I have no problem with paying the benefits if my pay will compensate the difference. But the state wants it both ways , us paying benefits and not giving in to raises at the bargaining table. I am aware the state is in a fiscal crisis but this will not directly correlate to tax pagers seeing any reduction in their taxes, the money saved will just fund some other corrupt legislation. The bottom line is state employees as took jobs for less pay due to the benefits package, so if the benefit package is taken away then the pay should be equal to the public sector. The issue is not paying the benefits it is the ability of the state to pass legislature requiring payment, when it is presently under collective bargaining, not to mention state, county and municipal government have different percentages they pay based on their contract, the way it should be done. And as for the underfunded pension, it would not be that way if the state did not borrow from it With no intentions of paying it back, then not make it’s responsible yearly payment. Something is wrong with this picture, in my book borrowing with no intention to pay back is robbery, so let’s prosecute all state politicians who had any evolvement in this. To conclude, we are public employees at the mercy of the politicians who run the state and voters who elect them, we are here to serve the people, protect the people, and educate the people, we give up holidays weekends, birthdays and family days to be out there doing so, some work in horrible conditions to do so. So you tell me without education and law enforcement where would our state be. We might as well live in a third world country. I believe most states are measured by those standards, and our state employees are second to none when it comes to fulfilling those duties.
LikeLike