Here is another observation from last night that I can not wrap my head around logically: They kept talking about how they saved money in regard to medical insurance. In fact, the following is in their handout:
"Saved $1.03 million, also Saved $1.27 million on teacher new plan"
The projected increase for 2008/09 was 18.68%. The actual increase was 10.2% in some cases and 0% increase in other cases. However, there was a net increase.
Wording is interesting here. Since we expected to pay 18.68% more, then there is a savings, when really we are paying more overall -- it appears to be that we beat our own expectation and therefore have a savings (but don't forget that we are paying more). (I'm confused.)
Bottom line: Benefits have gone up steadily over the last 5 years and are projected to continue to grow. I do think they have done a reasonable job keeping the cost of benefits in check. However, continuing to talk about savings when you pay more seems a bit odd to me.
Also, if we saved what appears to be around $2 million dollars, then are we buying more teachers or buildings for that? Or is the savings actually to the participants (teachers/staff/administration) because at the top of the same page outlining medical benefits, it indicates "Addl. District Cost Over Last Year: $10,000".
None of these questions were asked last night and potentially it is just known by those that have been attending longer than I. The handout simply made little sense to me at all.
By the way - do not construe this as being anti-health-insurance-for-teachers. I definitely believe in health insurance for teachers. I just have a hard time discussing it as saving when we are actually paying more and then understanding where that savings is going.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Derek, you need to understand government speak. It is a hard concept for us in the private sector to understand. Generally when you hear the state talking about cutting the budget, they mean not expanding the budget. They budget for a 5% increase or whatever and when they settle for a 3% increase that is considered a cut. If you look at various government agency budgets there are rarely actual year over year reductions. The prior year is always a baseline to expand from.
Post a Comment