Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So now you have employees who cant afford to go to the Dr?
I guess even your employees benifited from the health care bill huh?
Do you hate them having that benifit?
I am not aware of any employee who cannot go to a Dr. They don't pay my premium and I don't pay theirs.
I believe all of my employees have private coverage, so I doubt they have seen any benefit from the Law. I am not aware of any employee who supports the Law, and I have several dozen employees. They are paid fairly, and well.
My business would not be where it is without my employees. My employees would not be where they are without my business. We're all fine with that arrangement, even if you aren't.
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente
Would you let them keep their own pensions then?
Guess what they already do.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages as pensions when they retire rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
Good for you .
why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?
we have only your word for that one.
Your employees are not here to tell us how wonderful you think you are.
Now some of these benifit credits were created by the new healthcare law.
Why do you want to now strip your employees of the benfits you are incapable of providing them in compensation for their contributions to your household income level?
Firing people for not liking you must be great for business.
You have still never said why you wish to strip your employees fo the benifits of the healthcare law?
I find that hard to believe TM. You might want to check your Premise here. Most States either contribute a portion to Employee Retirement Funds. Maybe you could focus on a legitimate source. Just a thought.
The New York Times editorial board has decided, reluctantly, it is time to rein in the compensation that government union employees get:
That huge increase is largely because of Albanys outsized generosity to the states powerful employees unions in the early years of the last decade, made worse when the recession pushed down pension fund earnings, forcing the state to make up the difference.
Although taxpayers are on the hook for the recessions costs, most state employees pay only 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions, half the level of most state employees elsewhere. Their health insurance payments are about half those in the private sector.
In all, the salaries and benefits of state employees add up to $18.5 billion, or a fifth of New Yorks operating budget. Unless those costs are reined in, New York will find itself unable to provide even essential services.
So to review government unions conspired to elect union friendly Democrats to the state legislature who in turn then granted, via outsized generosity [with other peoples money], incredibly expensive benefits that cost those union members next to nothing.
Uh, yeah, I think thats what has been said about Wisconsin as well. But in its very next paragraph, the NYT says, presumably so as not to seem too anti-union or anti-worker, that pointing this out isnt either of those things, but that darn GOP is both:
To point out these alarming facts is not to be anti- union, or anti-worker. In recent weeks, Republican politicians in the Midwest have distorted what should be a serious discussion about state employees benefits, cynically using it as a pretext to crush unions.
The NYT provides one of the perverse joys I look forward too each day trying to figure out how the editorial board will torture both the language and logic to come up with the positions it assumes. This is another example. What is happening in Wisconsin almost precisely the same scenario is anti-worker and anti-union because good old Governor Walker is one of them a Republican.
But Governor Cuomo? Why the model of what it means to be a union friendly Democratic governor:
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pursued a reasonable course, making it clear that he expects public unions to make sacrifices, starting with a salary freeze. He wants to require greater employee contributions to pensions and health benefits, with a goal of saving $450 million.
Negotiations begin this month, but so far union leaders have publicly resisted Mr. Cuomos proposals. If they dont budge, Mr. Cuomo says he will have to lay off up to 9,800 workers.
New York Times: New York is not like Wisconsin « The Greenroom
Why does being a public sector worker make you a second class citizen with fewer working rights?
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente
Would you let them keep their own pensions then?
Guess what they already do.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages as pensions when they retire rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
Individual health insurance policies are easy to get and not that expensive if you're 25 years old with no history of health problems. But add 25 years, ulcers and high blood pressure, a wife recovering from breast cancer and two kids. It's a whole different story.This is going to make TM's head explode:
When I made the decision to cancel our group policy, my insurance premiums went down. WAY down. Under our corporate policy, I had lesser benefits, and a higher premium than I do as an individual holding a private, family policy. My benefits are actually slightly better now, even though I am personally paying LESS money.
Ironically, when it became cost ineffective to carry a corporate policy, my only option was to indirectly increase my personal income.
Only in America!!!!
benefits are not a mandate. they are, as the name implies, a benefit. Not every company offers benefits, not all companies offer the same benefits.Good for you .
why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?
exactly, they are not a mandate. they are a matter of choiceGood for you .
why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?
The simple answer is because i own the business and I decide what benefits to give and what to discontinue.
When your employer gives the money for your 401k to one of his suppliers in the form of a discount because he likes them is that fair? Should he have any contractural right to keep paying your benifits and 401 K matching he promised you?
Or can should he by law have the right to just strip you of those parts of your agreed upon compensation?
Good for you .
why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?
