As chair of Staff Alliance I meet regularly with President Gamble and
last Friday, November 30 our discussion centered around concerns
regarding the impact of no longer allowing employees to opt out of the
health care benefit in FY14. I am pleased to announce that because of
the concerns we’ve raised, President Gamble intends to call for more
discussion and numbers on the issue. He indicated that yes, Donald Smith
will begin reviewing how to make this change to the health plan but
that the decision is NOT FINAL YET.
Thank you for your input! Please continue to make comments here or
email your governance leaders directly on the proposed changes to our
health care plan mentioned in previous posts.
The University of Alaska regents believe that “the opportunity for faculty, staff and students to participate in the governance of the university is important to its effective operation.” UAF Staff Council is your “opportunity” to participate in governance and contribute to the future of our university.
4 comments:
So its approved, but not? This is getting even more confusing. Also, there is the post at: http://uastaffalliance.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/clarifying/
That shows the JHCC has 16 members, only 2 of which represent non-union staff. That is 2 members to speak for 61% of the staff - with 14 members representing 39% of staff. Also, President Gamble is quoted as "point out that often the “cynical thinking on blogs” is a result of not having all the information" So now those of us staff who take the time to comment via one of the only methods we are given are "cynical" and and don't have all the information. Could that be because we are not given any information? And if we are "cynical" about the health plan could it be because we are not represented and our wishes are not considered? After all, I doubt our 2 representatives are able to have a voice when the other 14 members are a unit working for their 39% of staff.
I truly hope Donald Smith takes a hard look at this again and uses the numbers to justify any decisions. I feel the numbers already show removing the opt-out is a poor decision, for the employees and for the UA health plan.
I sincerely hope that Pres. Gamble is taking Staff Council's recommendations seriously. My fear is that the decision has already been made. I hope that I'm wrong.
Thought this might be of interest.
http://newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?blog-entry-University+replaces+human+resources+officer+Donald+Smith%20&id=21199858&instance=blogs_editors_desk
I am very glad that this is being reviewed. I still do not understand how anyone thinks that this will save the University money. There are a number of employees who "opted out" as their spouses are military (active duty or retired), many of whom are administrative support staff and at the lower end of the pay scale. If the University forces them to be covered they will (1) take a $2,000+ pay cut to pay for services for which they are already fully covered at 100%; (2) the University now picks up 80% of all their previously covered costs; (3) the employee takes another $750 pay cut to cover their deductab le; (4) their TriCare insurance now becomes the secondary insurance; and (5)what type of impact will this have on them getting their full benefits back upon leaving the University -- will they be in never-never land for some period?
Now add to this any other retired person that is now working for the University and we continue to multiply the protential problems. What happens when a retired state employee makes the state policy secondary -- again are their issues for them getting their benefit back?
Post a Comment