|
Benefit Cuts and Salary Reductions to State Workers |
|
|
|
This is in response to the benefit cuts and salary reductions for Nevada State employees: 1) Eliminate retiree health subsidies for all employees who retire after July 1, 2009. It does not seem equitable to ask someone who has made a career out of a state position to go out at 50 years of age and find another job because the state is deciding to make major changes to one select group of people to make up the deficit.
It seems that employees who are vested in the state should be
grand-parented into the programs that the state had promised and
employees who are not vested should experience the changes. This would
be fair to both the employee and help the state by eliminating some of
the costs that they have not promised to vested employees. 2)
Eliminate subsidies to retirees who reach 65 years of age (will qualify
for Medicare). Same solution as stated in #1. 3) Reduce subsidies for
current retirees by 25 percent in 2009 and an additional 25 percent in
2010. Same solution as stated in #1 and 2. The Commission felt that
public benefits should mirror private sector benefits, comparing us to
the workforce of a large casino. The Commission should also produce a
study that shows how many of the workforce at a large casino stays
there for what length of time. Benefits are one of the reasons I
decided to leave a hirer paying job. If the Commission wants us to
mirror private sector benefits then they should take into account
dedicated employees who have made a career with the state. It is not
right to change benefits that we based our retirement on to make up a
deficit, however it is possible to restructure these benefits for
employees who have not dedicated the time to be vested yet; that way
they can make an educated decision as to whether or not they should
remain with the State of Nevada. The state is not only proposing to
increase the amount of our health insurance with higher premiums, by
tripling our deductible and by providing us less coverage (see dental
proposal), but they are also proposing not to give us any COLA. Those
whose salaries are topped out will not see anything to make up for
these additional costs. Also, by cutting our salaries by 6 percent how
are we expected to put anything away for retirement, pay our medical
and other costs? Plus will our workload be cut by 6 percent?
|
