This topic contains 101 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@Captain and Mate wrote:
• In 2013 the State will no longer pay anything towards State Employee’s Medical and Pension Fund, State Employee’s will be required to pay the entire cost of Medical and Pension. “Roughly about $1500 per month for each State Employee.Page 58 Section 62.623
Interesting, That means half of my wife’s (teacher) salary each month will be going away.
How long before the private sector catches on to this and gets a law passed where they don’t have to pay it either?
Sorry Captain and Mate. Here is 62.623. I see that is says pay half not all cost and it only applies to a 1st class city. The only first class city in the state is Milwaukee so it will not apply to everyone. The part that I bolded is saying that the employer can not pay for any of the employees half. I think I read this correctly.
62.623 Payment of contributions in an employee retirement system of
a 1st class city. Beginning on the effective date of this section …. [LRB inserts date],
in any employee retirement system of a 1st class city, except as otherwise provided
in a collective bargaining agreement entered into under subch. IV of ch. 111,
employees shall pay half of all actuarially required contributions for funding benefits
under the retirement system. The employer may not pay on behalf of an employee
any of the employee’s share of the actuarially required contributions.@Captain and Mate wrote:
• In 2013 the State will no longer pay anything towards State Employee’s Medical and Pension Fund, State Employee’s will be required to pay the entire cost of Medical and Pension. “Roughly about $1500 per month for each State Employee.Page 58 Section 62.623
I’m not quite sure this reads the same as what the document actually says.
62.623 Payment of contributions in an employee retirement system of
a 1st class city. Beginning on the effective date of this section …. [LRB inserts date],
in any employee retirement system of a 1st class city, except as otherwise provided
in a collective bargaining agreement entered into under subch. IV of ch. 111,
employees shall pay half of all actuarially required contributions for funding benefits
under the retirement system. The employer may not pay on behalf of an employee
any of the employee’s share of the actuarially required contributions.I’m not a lawyer and I’m not taking sides at this point, but I would interpret this to apply to “retirees” only. If this is correct, then it’s exactly the same as many of us private company employees that can extend our health care upon retirement, but we have to pay the full premium.
I wasn’t going to post on this thread at all, but I need to say you can not believe everything that the Union Folks or Republican Supporters are saying in their e-mail blasts. The most sensational bullet points are fraudulent scare tactics or rosy depictions of the future.
@Braid Beard’s Gang wrote:
I wasn’t going to post on this thread at all, but I need to say you can not believe everything that the Union Folks or Republican Supporters are saying in their e-mail blasts. The most sensational bullet points are fraudulent scare tactics or rosy depictions of the future.
Agreed!
We regret any errors in our post as we relied on a source that we trusted. Obviously, reading this bill can lead to a major headache pretty quickly. We reread P.125 Sec.9115 (the part about taking money from the pension trust fund) and this does state that the $28 million will go to pay health care costs, although we’re not seeing the part about the state not paying anything after 2013. However, again, the legalese is challenging for a layman to interpret. Other analyses we’ve read do mention full employee contributions after 2013, so that remains unclear to us.
Again, we apologize that our post contained inaccuracies. However, our main purpose was to call attention to the fact that this bill is pretty far-reaching and to get folks to look at it more closely, not to argue whether or not it’s a good idea. In that, we hope we succeeded.
@Captain and Mate wrote:
We regret any errors in our post as we relied on a source that we trusted. Obviously, reading this bill can lead to a major headache pretty quickly. We reread P.125 Sec.9115 (the part about taking money from the pension trust fund) and this does state that the $28 million will go to pay health care costs, although we’re not seeing the part about the state not paying anything after 2013. However, again, the legalese is challenging for a layman to interpret. Other analyses we’ve read do mention full employee contributions after 2013, so that remains unclear to us.
Again, we apologize that our post contained inaccuracies. However, our main purpose was to call attention to the fact that this bill is pretty far-reaching and to get folks to look at it more closely, not to argue whether or not it’s a good idea. In that, we hope we succeeded.
No need to apologize. This just makes BBG’s point more relivent. Thanks for checking back in.
“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.”
On the Left Side of the Road...I searched the whole thing for “Vaseline” and didn’t find it. Then I checked the Ammendments document and came up empty also. Somebody better call and have them fix this ASAP, unless of course we now all have to supply our own. 😆 😆 😆
@Captain and Mate wrote:
The legalese is challenging for a layman to interpret.
Challenging? I’d say dang near impossible. I read, reread, reread, and then threw up my hands on many pieces. I suppose if you had the inside scoop on Section x.y (and all the other references) it might make some sense, but not to me.
Well, we’re just wondering if the people who have to vote on this have read it and understand what it’s going to do. Trying to do so was an eye-opener for us. 😕
Personally I’m looking forward to reelecting all the folks who get recalled….Now that will be a fun election.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.