-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Someone Else Gets It
- Thread starter WCTA
- Start date
Douglas the Intrepid
Beach Fanatic
Its only paying for 5 people right? In my opinion there are far bigger issues to worry about! ;-)
WCTA
Beach Lover
No it is 6 people. The total cost annually to the taxpayer is $24,048.
The issue is how they received the benefit and the "lack of leadership" that it shows by accepting it and never disclosing that they were "different" from their employee's.
During the budget workshop the budget proposed charging each employee $10.00 per month for "employee coverage". Does it show leadership to begin charging your employee's for a portion of their coverage while still providing yourself "free" Family coverage?
Will it solve the revenue shortfall ? No
Removing the "special benefit" would definitely show that they "get it". It is called LEADERSHIP. They need to just do "the Right thing".
A journey is made up of many small steps !
What are the bigger issues that you talk about ? - we will gladly pursue them.
Last edited:
Andy A
Beach Fanatic
I am glad to see you differentiate between the cost of the health insurance and how it was implemented.
I am for paying a part of their health insurance. As an Oklahoma state employee, a portion of my health insurance plan was paid for as part of our compensation. There is nothing wrong with that. Benefits are a part of most compensation packages. How it was handled in the first place is another matter. On that score, you are exactly correct, WCTA. It is a LEADERSHIP thing.
Douglas the Intrepid
Beach Fanatic
Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion.
I have pretty decent insurance for myself and daughter through the company I work for. I have worked for them for 13 years and they are a fortune 500 company. I still pay 120 a month for my insurance, which is a drop in the bucket compared to what my company pays towards it. I can't imagine anyone in our day and age complaining about paying only 10 dollars a month for good insurance... I gather the issue is really that the compensation packages for the 6 in question weren't disclosed properly? In the private sector, its the opposite. I was informed by my corporate that I am not to divulge my pay structure or bonuses to the other employees. When I receive stock options every year, I am required in the fine print not to divulge how many I get. The six employee's who receive this additional compensation are higher up the totem pole and should get better compensation in my opinion.
Last edited:
Andy A
Beach Fanatic
While I understand your point, they are elected county commissioners, not private enterprise big wigs.Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion.
Douglas the Intrepid
Beach Fanatic
Is this getting alot of public attention then? If it is, I am very surprised the 6 in question don't just wave this privilege. It would only cost them 10 dollars a month to do so! Regardless, I don't think a ten dollar a month perk that is only being given to 6 employees is worth getting upset about...
Last edited:
Bob Wells
Beach Fanatic
WOW, that will attract some attention. Would you consider that government operate like a business with bonuses for performance and the like?Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion.
Douglas the Intrepid
Beach Fanatic
Not at all. My point was that compensation packages can vary. Apparently someone decided commissioners didn't have to pay the 10 dollars a month for insurance. I assume that is a higher up position in local government. I see no problem with them getting additional compensation.
Interested Girl
Beach Fanatic
Not at all. My point was that compensation packages can vary. Apparently someone decided commissioners didn't have to pay the 10 dollars a month for insurance. I assume that is a higher up position in local government. I see no problem with them getting additional compensation.
It is not the 10.00 per month that is being questioned, it is the 334.00 per month that they don't pay for family coverage that everyone else must pay. I dont have a problem paying for their individual coverage that is customary.
Posted via Mobile Device