The single largest driver of district expense is our employees. Salaries and benefits cost money. So the plan examines our workforce needs and has recommendations in that regard. The plan would LIKE to offer raises, but points out that they aren’t feasible without changes. This means that as the district negotiates with its unions, there’s probably going to be more give and take than you’d normally see. What form that would take, I don’t know, but I’ve pushed a few ideas that might help.
The plan points out that health care is the largest driver of these expenses. Bidding it out and guaranteeing equal coverage for the unions makes sense. I’m hoping the unions will allow this, as it’ll benefit both them and the district.
The plan does a few things:
- Offer raises only if they are affordable. This makes sense. And it’s too bad in that the unions can certainly strike if they don’t have a contract or don’t get an offer they like. But there isn’t money, and until there is, there won’t be raises.
- Make sure retirement incentives make sense. I know that past retirement incentives cost the district more than they saved, so this is basically saying, “Don’t do that.”
- Reduce overtime costs. When the district adds time-clocks, I’m sure we’ll see savings here. This also points out that teachers get a lot of money for extra duties. I’m guessing the plan will call for negotiating changes to that. The plan blatantly says money saved here can be used for raises.
- Reduce health care costs. Evidently, we pay more in health care than comparable entities. There is a nice list of ways we can change this and save money: rebid contracts, change pharmacy benefits managers, audit retiree benefits, and mandate generic drugs be used before name brand where applicable. These are on the administrative side. But since this is so complex, it’s time for sub-bullets!
- The next thing is exploring different types of plan offerings. This mentions a model called “Reference-based repricing” and I will simplify it as best I can by saying that it would pay the cheapest negotiated insurer price. As in, if Highmark pays $50 for something and Geisinger pays $60 for something, we pay the Highmark rate. The union rejected this a few years back, but since the district is self-insured, it would pay no matter what. I hope this works out.
- Limit spousal coverage. I don’t see the union agreeing and don’t blame them.
- Increase deductibles based on dependents. This also sucks for employees.
- Raise co-pays. Again, no fun.
- Raise out of network benefit costs. While this makes sense in terms of encouraging people to remain in-network, what if somebody needs medical care while vacationing in Florida?
- Increase prescription co-pays. Notice a trend? Make employees pay lots more.
- Increase premium costs.
- Charge smokers more. I’m completely fine with this.
- Health management with financial incentives. A lot of companies do this. Basically, if you engage in wellness programs, you get money. So if you’re overweight and hit a target weight, here’s some money! This is good. Healthier people mean savings for the the district. Everybody wins here.
- Sixth Period. I have mixed feelings here. I’m an English teacher who has taught 6 periods before. It is BRUTAL. Imagine assigning a 3-5 page paper, but adding another 30 kids. That said, a gym teacher teaching 6 health/phys ed classes seems more reasonable. But then you’re creating separate groups of teachers. And maybe that’s fair. Honestly, I don’t know what the solution is. I know a ton of teachers who already stay late and bring work home. Adding another 30 kids to that could easily drive teachers out. But this is framed as a way to save money and pass it on to teachers in the form of raises. As a teacher, I’m just not for it.
I’ve mentioned to the negotiating team a few ideas that I think are fair. I can’t negotiate in public, so I’ll not post them. Working without a contract is just plain awful and I feel bad for all the SSD employees who are going to be hit by the fact that we are basically insolvent.