IL unions get offered 14.5% raise, go on strike

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois.



No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…


Does your health insurance cost more? Then you're screwed.


The union deal is with the county and not the state.


And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.

Woa? Does that sound strange…I'll bet it does.

-spence

"No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat."

Using your assumptions, let's say one makes $30,000 a year. Health insurance costs $10,000 a year. And the county is asking that your share of paying for that, increases from 5% to 10% of the cost.

Today, your share of healthcare costs is 5% x $10,000 = $500 a year.

Going forward, your share is 10% x $10,000 = $1,000 a year. So your net pay is reduced by $500 a year, since your out-of-pocket expenses have increased by $500 a year.

Now, at some point (article didn't say how long it would take) your $30,000 salary increases by $14.5%. That is an annual raise of $4,350. That raise is offset by the $500 more a year you pay for healthcare, so the net annual increase is $4,350 - $500 = $3,850.

To someone making $30,000 a year, that increase is certainly not "squat'".

What did I miss, Spence?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat."

Using your assumptions, let's say one makes $30,000 a year. Health insurance costs $10,000 a year. And the county is asking that your share of paying for that, increases from 5% to 10% of the cost.

Today, your share of healthcare costs is 5% x $10,000 = $500 a year.

Going forward, your share is 10% x $10,000 = $1,000 a year. So your net pay is reduced by $500 a year, since your out-of-pocket expenses have increased by $500 a year.

Now, at some point (article didn't say how long it would take) your $30,000 salary increases by $14.5%. That is an annual raise of $4,350. That raise is offset by the $500 more a year you pay for healthcare, so the net annual increase is $4,350 - $500 = $3,850.

To someone making $30,000 a year, that increase is certainly not "squat'".

What did I miss, Spence?

You didn't do your homework. The 10% number is an average of all Will County employees. The county uses a progressive scale so the lower earners pay less and the higher earners pay more, but the proposal had the lower earners paying a higher ratio of their salary to health care.

Not every county employee is part of the union and I think we'd both agree it's a safe wager that the union represents the bulk of the lower earners.

So in effect the deal appears to have been disproportionately impacting the lower wage unionized employees and as such they didn't like it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't do your homework. The 10% number is an average of all Will County employees. The county uses a progressive scale so the lower earners pay less and the higher earners pay more, but the proposal had the lower earners paying a higher ratio of their salary to health care.

Not every county employee is part of the union and I think we'd both agree it's a safe wager that the union represents the bulk of the lower earners.

So in effect the deal appears to have been disproportionately impacting the lower wage unionized employees and as such they didn't like it.

-spence

Oh, I see.

So when you said they wouldn't get "squat", I'm sure you did a similar calculation using the accurate specifics for the lowewr wage earners. Can you send me a link that has the assumptions that you used for the lower workers? I want to make sure that I understand.

"they didn't like it."

They don't have to like it. They have to either accept it, or find another job with pay they like more. Average wages are down bigtime since Obama took control. No one likes that. But rational people realize that the economy stinks, and wages go down in a stinky economy (unless you are in a union, I oresume, in which case it's never acceptable to get anything other than a blank check).

Spence, show me a proposal that makes those people "happy" that doesn't bankrupt the citizenry. If you can't do that, then I wish you and your union bretheren would accept what everyone else accepts...that none of us makes as much as we would like.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, I see.

So when you said they wouldn't get "squat", I'm sure you did a similar calculation using the accurate specifics for the lowewr wage earners. Can you send me a link that has the assumptions that you used for the lower workers? I want to make sure that I understand.

"they didn't like it."

They don't have to like it. They have to either accept it, or find another job with pay they like more. Average wages are down bigtime since Obama took control. No one likes that. But rational people realize that the economy stinks, and wages go down in a stinky economy (unless you are in a union, I oresume, in which case it's never acceptable to get anything other than a blank check).

Spence, show me a proposal that makes those people "happy" that doesn't bankrupt the citizenry. If you can't do that, then I wish you and your union bretheren would accept what everyone else accepts...that none of us makes as much as we would like.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

Yea, those greedy nursing home workers that get to change the bed pans of those who can't afford to be at club med. Will County should be outsourcing the jobs to the lowest bidder. Perhaps they could save a dollar an hour.

-spence