Bain-Blog

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Healthy Wisconsin forum

On Wednesday, August 29 at 5:30 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn, there will be an open forum on Healthy Wisconsin, the health care plan introduced by Senate Democrats.

Health care is one of the most important issues, and this forum is a way for citizens to learn more about one of the existing proposals in our state. I hope to see you there.

-Bryan

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 8/21/2007 08:02:00 PM

15 Comments:

  • The Hilton Garden Inn? The same place that had the 'exemption' from the smoking ban, using their own version of smoke and mirrors that went beneath the radar of the council? Wouldn't you think they could have picked a more appropriate gathering place?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 22, 2007 12:36 PM  

  • Regarding Healthcare in Wisconsin. Bryan, thank you and the rest of the council for challenging our current employee negotiations. Taking the offer to arbitration was a decisive move towards getting the costs of employee healthcare under control.

    As healthcare is focused on throughout the nation, it is becoming more difficult for the average working family to afford coverage. Families are unable to afford their own healthcare premiums, and yet our city contracts expect these same taxpayers for fund 95% of city employee healthcare costs.

    For the most part, our Oshkosh city employees are doing a wonderful job. This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

    Thanks for doing your part to help the Oshkosh taxpayer!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 04, 2007 10:36 AM  

  • Quid Pro Quo!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 04, 2007 3:40 PM  

  • State of Wisconsin employees took a 0% increase this year and have to pay a larger percentage for health insurance; in other words they took a pay cut in terms of take home. Bryan is such an employee so he knows.

    I do believe that all but one of the current Council received endorsements from AFSME. I'm not sure if there was any financing that went with that but typically that's the "deal". Any pay etc. increase should be consistent and a 2.25-2.75% nowadays is nothing to sneeze at! These arbitration proceedings will be costly and take up time, both of which could be used for pressing matters.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 05, 2007 10:13 AM  

  • And what are the changes the city is proposing for the current unions? Maybe it's more than the money issue. Maybe healthcare changes the city has offered are behind this....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 05, 2007 9:37 PM  

  • Think it's what the unions are proposing and/or "demanding" of the City. It's up to the City to get tough and not give in. What's agreed for some should go for all if not less. Police and Fire are the risk takers so what's good enough for them, well need I say more. Somehow I'm reminded of 6 people putting in a block of sidewalk; 2 works, 4 watch! For those of you who've tried to get action from several City Depts. only to be put off...somehow no raise and hike up their portion of ins. comes to mind! In essence at least keep it consistent.

    Anybody out there old enough to remember 1976 when the State went on strike? State offered 7% and Union was out for 7.5%! Entire ins. premiums were paid by State! The settlement was 7% and the strikers lost a lot in that foolishness.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 06, 2007 8:26 AM  

  • 8:26, We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.

    The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

    Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 06, 2007 12:28 PM  

  • The Northwestern’s Editorial this morning stated:

    “Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”

    http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
    apps/pbcs.dll/articleID=/
    20070907/OSH06/709070414/1189

    This is exactly what needs to be fought for. AFFORDABILITY.

    This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.

    We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.

    The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

    Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?

    What will become of the arbitration now in progress?

    We need to take back control of negotiations. Property taxpayers are not an endless trough of money to be tapped into at each and every contract renewal period.

    I personally thank the Oshkosh Common Council for not simply rubber stamping contract approval and taking this issue to arbitration. We need to send a clear signal to the city employees that the residents, property taxpayers, renters and voters in Oshkosh have a finite tolerance for the cost of labor to provide city services.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 8:34 AM  

  • Here's what you do:

    Cut the services you don't want to pay for. You're not going to be able to have an effect on the money/benefits the city employees make. It's time to make the tough choices. Which services can you afford to cut? Your cost savings is going to be realized by cutting city employees in the service areas you are willing to do without. That is how you are going to control your costs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 9:42 AM  

  • Maybe, maybe not.

    The dialog is gaining momentum.

    Can Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered?

    I would be willing to bet that a new City Manager might be able to find some fat in the system. So job elimination might be a real option to hold the line in labor costs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 10:54 AM  

  • The dialog is not gaining any momentum. The same 5 or 6 people who posted a year ago have shown up again and are posting the same things they did back then. The NW ran an editorial as a follow up to one they ran several days ago. It's not the big news you want it to be.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 12:15 PM  

  • In the Northwestern-
    "Can the city of Oshkosh truly afford the 3 percent annual hikes those five labor unions seek?

    Doesn't really matter, according to current mediation and arbitration rules. The arbitrator will decide. Budget freezes and affordability really aren't factors.

    That has to change."

    I couldn't agree more. That has to change!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 12:21 PM  

  • Personally I'm not so much against the 3%, what bothers me is the health insurance costs. If it is really what I've read and we pay 95% well thats just outragious.
    I think a 3% wage bump is pretty fair and average but having us pay 95% of heath insurance thats just crazy!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 12:35 PM  

  • 12:35- Yup you are totally correct.

    Heres and interesting statistic for you:
    According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.

    That's JUST HEALTH INSURANCE!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 07, 2007 3:21 PM  

  • Many of these comments are good re. "cutting the fat", having employees pay a higher portion of health insurance. If the State can do it, certainly the City can. I think it's fair to say many people, not just City, are working at jobs because of benefits offered. With the proposed State plan employers will have to provide some health care benefits. These are typically low paying jobs as is.

    Something that truly irritates me is the enormous amount the City, County, State and Federal Gov't. are paying for health care for perfectly able bodied people who don't work. Of course with so many handouts what incentive is there to work? Daily I observe City nurses deliver and watch someone take his medication for a mental illness. This is twice a day, 7 days a week. There are job programs such as work adjustment that this individual could be doing. The maintenance of the residence itself is not done. I would guess he smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day and does drink. Let's see, that would be at least $300.00 pr/mo. Health care problems? Where's the money coming from? This is but one example and I'm sure there's many more. I would be far more concerned about the City expenses here vs. those employed. The City and County here simply make it too easy to live off the taxpayers. As a prison community our demographics have changed and as a result we are paying more and more for this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 19, 2007 4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home