state politics: Idaho
Idaho State Employees May Lose Money Under Otter Plan
By Sharon Fisher, 1-11-08
Despite Governor Butch Otter’s recommendation in Monday’s State of the State address for a 5% employee salary increase, some state employees may actually end up making less starting in July, the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee learned Wednesday.
That’s for two reasons. First, such increases are doled out by merit – while the overall effect is a 5% increase, some employees may receive more – or less – than that number. Second, state employees may have to pay on the order of $400 more annually for their medical insurance.
“There are going to be people who net out less than they did before,” conceded Mike Gwartney, director of the Department of Administration.
The state surveyed a number of Idaho companies – Albertsons, Blue Cross, Boise Company, Idaho Power, Micron, Regence Blue Shield, Simplot, and WGI – to find out what their policies were on health insurance. The survey found that it boiled down to the private employer paying 70% of premiums and 30% of covered charges. In comparison, the state of Idaho is paying 92% of premiums and 78% of covered charges, Gwartney said.
Gwartney also noted that the survey had chosen only Idaho’s big employers because the state wanted to be in the top quartile or so of benefits. For example, a Department of Labor survey found that only 63% of 1100 Idaho employers offered medical benefits at all.
If the Legislature approves the Governor’s recommendations to change the medical benefit structure, the result is that, of the pay increase – assuming it is applied evenly – 42% of it for lowest-paid employees and 11% of it for higher-paid employees will go to paying for the increase in plan contributions, Gwartney said.
That’s assuming, of course, that they also fund the pay increase. It could happen that the increase in medical benefits will pass and the salary increase won’t.
At the same time, changing demographics means that Idaho state government has to consider salary increases as well to continue to attract new employees, said Neville Kenning of the Hay Group, who consulted with the state on salary and how it compared to the private sector.
“When unemployment is high, people move [jobs] for benefits,” Kenning said. “When unemployment is low, people move for salary.” Idaho’s current unemployment level is less than the national average, and state government salaries are, on average, 15% behind the market, while at the same time “competitive salary” has moved to the top of the list of what makes people feel satisfied with their jobs, he said.
This becomes a problem when the mass of baby boomers in Idaho’s state government start retiring, Kenning said. The average age of state employees is 47, and the average age of new hires is 36. Moreover, younger people these days are not afraid to change jobs, with people now having nine jobs before they’re 40, he said.
“We are not attracting the young,” Kenning said, adding that it is critical to have the compensation to replace state employees who are retiring.
JFAC co-chair Representative Maxine Bell (R-Jerome) pointed out that state employees enjoyed more job security, and Kenning reminded her that state government had also had layoffs in recent years.
[End of article]
Public employee health benefits, namely health insurance, are the financial core around which medical centers are built. That pool of money is what allows hospitals to exist at the level you would expect. Cut health insurance for public employees, and you diminish the health care for all. It is how the system works.
To have the level of care Americans want, demand, expect, government has to be a part of funding. The full wally public employee health benefit in place of top of the market wages, plus a grand retirement plan that allows retired public servants to have good insurance, is the indirect tax subsidy hospitals depend on and need. No matter how you do it, the money has to come from somewhere.
Wow bearbait I didn't expect that response from you. Interesting take.
Great post Sharon. News of this needs to be dissementated and I appreciate your efforts in doing so.
Another issue is what will this do to part time employees. Idaho has scads of quality part time employees who are often spouses of full time employees in the private sector who lack benefits at all. They're often the child care spouse after the kids enter the school system. These part timers are not there for the money so much but for access to benefits for themselves and their family. There will be a brain drain if this carrot is diminished I predict.
But this proposal from the Governor's office seems to dovetail into the goals of the Idaho Family Task Force on how to keep moms at home. It also seems to be a benefit to those big employers who overwork their salaried employers eventually losing them to the 9 to 5 world of the public domain.
Oh, thanks, sisyphus. Yes, part-timers are definitely a part of it; this story could have been four or five times as long if I'd covered all the ramifications, so I just picked what seemed to me the most significant one.
It was mentioned, incidentally, that some corporations in Idaho pay employees $1000 if they *don't* go on the company insurance and go on their spouse's insurance instead, and apparently there is the belief that state employees are carrying a larger share of insurance.
There was a lot of talk about demographics but moms didn't figure into it at all. It was all about age and the different wants and needs of younger vs. older workers.
I strongly recommend a series of posts then Sharon. The papers aren't really delving in and you seem to be all over it. I think it would be a great benefit to parse this, particularly since public debate appears to be curtailed this year because of the cramped quarters. Did you see, you were probably there, that Margaret Henbest commented to the Spokesman Review that this would cause the system to implode. I'd love to hear her rationale as well.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 1-15-08I'm actually not 'there' at all; I'm doing all this through the great IdahoPTV links. But that does make it difficult to follow some of the nuances, especially a number-heavy presentation. I did do a piece o the demographic aspects.
I didn't actually understand very well what Representative Henbest was getting at so I didn't go into that.
I'll follow up on any new discussion about insurance and CEC but I'm probably not going to go back to last week's hearings. It's interesting enough keeping up with what's going on this week. :)
Here's a link to the CEC committee, including all the presentations they got. http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/CECCommittee.htm
Thanks Sharon. I'll have a look.
Comment By thedirtydemocrat, 1-16-08If state employees were all put on a part time basis the health insurance savings would be enough to cover the raises. Isn't that the way of many other businesses?
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/state_employees_may_lose_money_under_otter_plan/C108/L108/