On Friday, our district released new numbers for the monthly employee “contributions” [read: pay cuts] of the 2023-2024 school year. They are just as disastrous and discriminatory as I predicted when we were first [mis]informed about it by our union leadership as part of our last set of contract negotiations. I specifically outlined its problems in a blog post (titled “Healthcare Rant”) nearly a year ago (September 23, 2022), pointing out then that “contributions” of staff members with both a spouse and child(ren) on the plan would be at a significant increase over the previous school year’s “contributions” [I have linked the blog for reference]. When I posted the blog to Facebook, proponents of the tiered system questioned my numbers and reasoning. In a sense, I was wrong: it is even worse than I predicted.
Now, as I predicted, monthly pay cuts increased for everyone. Tier I (employee alone) went up $28.15, Tier II (employee + spouse) went up $61.94, Tier III (employee + child(ren)) went up $53.49, and Tier IV (employee + spouse + child(ren)) went up $90.09 (and increase of $810.81 for our nine month pay period). Just so that we are clear, for people in Tier IV, their
“healthcare” cost increased by OVER 48% since the 2021-2022 school year. This unfair prejudice against employees with a spouse and child(ren) is unconscionable in any organization, but especially in a school district. As I wrote on Facebook last Friday when the numbers were initially released:
The short of it is that people have a higher paycheck for being single with no children at KPBSD by as much of a difference as over $490 a month and thus over $4,400 a year (due to the 9 months of pay).
In a business that depends on having children in a community, it is almost criminal [and certainly unethical] that its employees are penalized for having them—even more so if they [include] a stay-at-home parent.
For any short-sighted responder who wants to make the claim that people should have to pay more having more family members on an insurance plan, I want to point out that:
(1) some of our employees who individually cost our district the most are paying at the lowest Tier(s),
(2) the Tiers are not aligned that way (note that Tier III pays less than Tier II even though it could include more people),
(3) the Tiers do not line up (the amount for a spouse is more than the amount for an individual, and the amount for a family is more than the amounts added for a spouse in Tier II and children in Tier III by a significant amount [see my linked blog from last year for the breakdown then—it’s a greater difference now, but the original point stands]),
(4) the high deductible already penalizes families more than people in Tier I, and
(5) we should NOT be taking these pay cuts (disguised under the cute moniker “employee contributions”) in the first place!
Now, as I predicted, monthly pay cuts increased for everyone. Tier I (employee alone) went up $28.15, Tier II (employee + spouse) went up $61.94, Tier III (employee + child(ren)) went up $53.49, and Tier IV (employee + spouse + child(ren)) went up $90.09 (and increase of $810.81 for our nine month pay period). Just so that we are clear, for people in Tier IV, their
“healthcare” cost increased by OVER 48% since the 2021-2022 school year. This unfair prejudice against employees with a spouse and child(ren) is unconscionable in any organization, but especially in a school district. As I wrote on Facebook last Friday when the numbers were initially released:
The short of it is that people have a higher paycheck for being single with no children at KPBSD by as much of a difference as over $490 a month and thus over $4,400 a year (due to the 9 months of pay).
In a business that depends on having children in a community, it is almost criminal [and certainly unethical] that its employees are penalized for having them—even more so if they [include] a stay-at-home parent.
For any short-sighted responder who wants to make the claim that people should have to pay more having more family members on an insurance plan, I want to point out that:
(1) some of our employees who individually cost our district the most are paying at the lowest Tier(s),
(2) the Tiers are not aligned that way (note that Tier III pays less than Tier II even though it could include more people),
(3) the Tiers do not line up (the amount for a spouse is more than the amount for an individual, and the amount for a family is more than the amounts added for a spouse in Tier II and children in Tier III by a significant amount [see my linked blog from last year for the breakdown then—it’s a greater difference now, but the original point stands]),
(4) the high deductible already penalizes families more than people in Tier I, and
(5) we should NOT be taking these pay cuts (disguised under the cute moniker “employee contributions”) in the first place!
RSS Feed
