CC - while I understand where you are coming from, I do not think the JEA is asking for anything "back" - just not to put more in. More or less keep it the same and not give $5.oo per year COLA increases.

Benthinkin - YES that's exactly right. The only part of this I don't get is why the teachers are complaining now about a)contract terms they agreed to years ago and b) the basic principles of group health insurance. It's too us vs them when the rest of the world knows when it comes to insurance, you don't get back what you put in, period.

I know of at least one employer in town who is very happy to report insurance, vacation, etc as part of a total compensation package. Each of 400 employees get an annual statement: "You were paid $29,651 in wages. You received an additional $9,928 in insurance premiums, $2918 in vacation pay, etc etc right down to FICA and unemployment taxes paid by the employer to the government. So you actually cost us $52,000 this year! (Whether that's very classy is another story...) So again, we all get that insurance is part of the big picture. Everyone who has ever had a job gets that.

If the surplus was twice its size or being used to torture puppies or for those Corvettes you mentioned, we'd definitely have a problem. But at this point its only a little higher than needed for good financial sense AND has been touched only once, for a relatively good reason. The real saver-types probably don't want it touched anytime soon. So to complain that you can't get some of it back now, in spite of compensation packages you agreed to in past years, smells like poor sportsmanship. I don't consider that your money at all, just like American Family doesn't consider my auto insurance premiums my money even after no accidents in over 15 years! Did they overestimate the cost to insure me, or is all insurance just a big gamble?

With self funding of insurance, many different issues pop up when trying to decide on just how much is the pay package.
If your pay package is $5k per year for your families coverage and your family has a good year and only uses $2k in benefits then the excess goes to help the family that uses $8k in the year. That is group insurance.
If you truely want the excess returned just push for the total pay package to be dispursed in the pay check with no benefits. However, then you will be putting yourself at risk of the bigger swings.

benthinkin, good point. We all want to compare to somebody else. Now... do we compare teachers to teachers who live in communities with varying cost of living expenses, or do we compare teachers to shoe salesmen, doctors, plumbers, McDonalds cashiers, and lawyers. Let's compare apples to apples instead of apples to steak. Better yet, let's look at the JSD money practices and what the JEA wants to maintain for its membership and see what is needed versus what is wanted based on sound off comments.

Hey wait a minute... the cause I have to arguement is a comparison. That is the same that the teachers are doing when they bring out the stats on the other BIG 8 schools, administration etc.
There, now I said it so I guess I will turn my brain back up now....

I'm trying to reduce my thinking to "cuz i have to" and "if it's good enough for me" thinking like so many others have stated. It doesn't make me look very smart, reading the blog now. But neither does the two philosophies stated here. Look at the numbers. Look at the need. Your taxes are safe. The district is already raising as much money as it can off of taxes. Look at all the districts calling for referendums to cover yearly cost overruns of 500k, 750k. Don't compare these referendums to capital improvements like building additions. Because the district cannot raise anymore money, they continually threaten to cut more programs and teachers. Get off of the my taxes will go up bandwagon. They are going up as much as they can to begin with. If the revenue cap is at 10% increase, the district will raise 9.99%. Now the only question is if they cover our insurance or pay for a $112,000 daycare coordinator.

justsome1here,
You are right the JEA should focus on getting another Insurance provider. That would solve this entire deal. Then teachers would get a 3.8% raise every year and the district would not get what they have been skimming for years. What I have said this entire time is that if the teachers were paying a for-profit insurance company and they said we needed to pay more due to increased medical cost that would be fine. Our gripe is that we aren't paying an insurance company and the district already takes enough of our money to cover the increasing cost. I could explain this to you 10 more times and you still won't get it. You will just look for another analogy comparing our insurance to yours which is apples to oranges.

So what you are really saying is to give you a big enough raise so when they deduct your 17k health insurance premium (which, if true, the JEA should be focusing on getting better insurance coverage) you actually get paid what you want to get paid in the first place. If only the world actually worked that way what a wonderful place it would be!

I'm weary of saying this, but we'll see if it makes the "cuz I have to crowd" happy. If I make 30k a year, why don't they pay me 47k and just make a box on my check stub says "health care" and deduct 17k per year from that. Then I can say "cuz I have to" just like everyone else. Then we can get down to actual pay. What the board offers would say I make 31k and then they subtract from that anyways. It's a net loss. Why should we accept that. Maybe the extra box in the check stub would make some of the community happy, just as long as I don't make more than them.

I am so tired of hearing people say teachers don't pay for benefits. IT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE. A hefty part if my math is correct - around 40%?

It really does no good to compare a private sector employer, whose objective is profit, to a public domain, which is dictated by taxes and should be non profit.

justsome1here:
No. I believe that the teachers know full well what the world has gone through. However; the comparisons are not the same. People in general think that they are, otherwise we would not see some of their posts.

No, I don't think that the rest of the world has already gone through it. If they had, THEY may have some empathy, and you wouldn't see as many uninformed posts. If they had, some of those posts would say something like "I realize what you're going through but..." But you don't.

I don't think that the teachers are looking for empathy, I think that they wish that someone, anyone would give straight answers. Maybe they are hoping that the general public can be educated by some of this discussion. By reading some of the posts on this, or other discussion boards, that should be obvious. Don't you find it curious that the other viewpoint isn't well represented here? (other than rocksolid)

TheCourtJester - Are you saying that the teachers and the JEA do not get what the rest of the world has already gone through or are you saying that because the rest of the world has already gone through it that they longer can relate to what the teachers are going through? If teachers are looking for empathy, been there, done that, time to move on.

Really? Then why all of the posts from people that apparently don't?

Most people DO get it, because they have already gone through it many moons ago.

thecourtjester,

WOW!!! VERY WELL PUT!!! If some of you people don't get it now I don't know how anyone can help you understand.

CC88: Here's the part I don't think that you get. The teacher's healthcare package comes out of their compensation package. It's part of it. A portion of their increase goes in their pocket, a portion goes to the health plan. Let's try another angle. You pay for your healthcare in the form of a premium from your take home. Let's imagine that 80% of the time your employer overestimates the cost of that self funded coverage to you, the employee. Let's further imagine that the net difference over several years results in a big surplus. I would hope that your employer would use that money to keep future health care costs down, but let's suppose that they decide to go out an buy Corvettes for senior management at the same time saying that they're going to cut things- using that surplus that you have contributed to over the last several years to buy those cars. Let's further suppose that surplus wasn't enough for your management, that now they wanted to take half of your future increases in pay, in addition to the premiums you already pay,to further increase that surplus. Let's keep in mind that this salary/health package would be negotiable for you. Would you be willing to sit there and take it, because everyone else does? If that were to happen to you, how would that make you feel? It's the surplus coupled with the upcharge, that I think is disturbing. Now I am not saying that our district administration and board are buying Corvettes, but doesn't anyone find it the least bit curious that there always seems to be available money for pet programs, yet other basic programs, such as art and music are annually reviewed for the chopping block...? That you as a taxpayer, say no to a referendum, yet the district finds a way to come up with money anyway? Do you ever wonder where that money comes from? Finally, teacher's still have deductibles and co-pays, it's the premium payment that comes out of their compensation package that I don't think that you get.

JQPUBLIC: YES there are other self-funded insurance plans in this town. And guess what? We don't have any say in the details - we are offered a good and fair insurance plan and we are thankful for it. What my employer does with the 'rest' of the money is not my business - I choose to work FOR him rather than own my own business and call the shots.

FYI - ours is one of the best plans in town short of GM and the teachers', yet there are indeed co-pays and deductibles in addition to premiums. And it's still worth it, trust me!

Paying for healthcare is not a foreign concept to most of us, but I do heartily offer congratulations to you on being so fortunate thus far!

dlrider & sluggo,
Thanks.

I also applauded Rocksolid for responding - and I don't have privy to the administrators plans. I didn't want to assume that they are different so I put the word "hear" in there as to not make assumptions.

Currently the teachers' health care plan and the administrators' plans are different. The districts pre-mediation proposal does bring them more in line with each other, though there will still be some slight differences. I also would like to applaud Bill Sodemann for speaking out as a board member, though I do disagree with him at times, I believe that through discussion all differences can be amended to the satisfaction of the majority.

swordfish:
What I was trying to get across is that rocksolid answered the question. I do believe he answered it truthfully in that he said, "It is my understanding that the health plan proposed for JEA is the same as what the administrators now have. I do not know of any differences."
The tone of some of the posts insinuate that he is not being up front about the issue.
If someone has information that there are in fact differences in the two plans they should share that information. What are the differences?

Wisconsinheat:
The administrator's and teacher's health plans are not the same.

sluggo:
I first want to make it clear that I hope I am not sounding "condescending and supercilious" or sarcastic in this post. That is not my intent.
But it seems to me that rocksolid (aka: school board commissioner Bill Sodeman) is making a valiant attempt to honestly and openly answer the questions presented in this forum. I certaintly appreciate this. He is undeserving of the slams he is receiving in these posts.
But if I may offer a bit of constructive criticism of my own. The posters' here seem to expect him to research the questions before he gives the answer. Conversely, shouldn't you research your very question instead of just saying "maybe you should know the differences between the administrator's and teacher's health plan. I HEAR it is not the same."
This post sounds very "condescending and supercilious" to me.
Did you take the time to investigate this allegation for yourself instead of relying on what you "heard"? Because if past posts in these blogs are any indication, you don't trust the school board anyway, and therefore wouldn't necessarily believe his answer.
If you do in fact know the answer to this statement then say so.
.
Don't take this the wrong way, but these posts have seemed to deteriorate into mostly allegations and insuations instead of meaningful discussions. And that is unfortunate.
.

Rocksolid - maybe you should know the differences between the administrator's and teacher's health plan. I hear it is not the same.

Bill,

Are you also using the blogs to win your next election on the school board? Is this your campaign? I feel this is wrong!

Bill,

3.7% of $90,000 to more than $100,000 that administrators make compared to an average teacher at $45,000 and 3.87% is a big differance in the increase. If you want them to pay because everyone else than make the increase equal to atleast double. Maybe 7.7%?

Swordfish - To answer your questions. It is my understanding that the health plan proposed for JEA is the same as what the administrators now have. I do not know of any differences. The administrators received a total package increase (factoring in all of the insurance changes) of 3.7%. The total package offer to the JEA (after factoring in all of the insurance changes etc.) is 3.87% for the 1st year and 4.64% for the second year.
Thanks for the inquiry.
Bill Sodemann

wahoo: If you would love to have what they have,go and make your dreams come true. Get your teaching degree and it's all yours! Gee, if you have a bachelor's degree in anything, get a taste of the pie first and fill out the paperwork to be a substitute teacher. See what they deal with each day. God forbid you have any children in the class with attitudes similar to yours. You just might last a week.

The teachers need to quit crying. The article I read in the paper on Sunday, they admitted their is competitive, they recieve rasies and have great insurance. I don't see what more they could want. I hope the school board stays strong and put these spoiled kids in their place. I would love to have what they have.

Some of the comments refer to self insured...
My employer is self insured and in the past 2 1/2 years I have gone from $10 co-pay office visit in an HMO to paying out of my pocket about $3050 per year with a $25 co-pay and with lower coverage. All from a "self insured" company.
The $3050 comes from trying to maintain coverage at the extent of my wages like the teachers are discussing.
I understand your frustrations with this...many people in various walks of life are or have gone through the same. Unfortunately your dealing are very public for people to comment on.

Thanks for your support, I would not call yourself a dumb hick farmer as I have spent years on a farm and know some of you are the most self sufficient, realistic and intelligent people around.

I'm just a dumb hick farmer who leans towards the teachers side in this debate.

tjncj, Thank you for the correction, but don't correct others if you can't correct yourself "The teachers don't have to pay for there insurance, but if there spouse has the ability to get insurance at their place of work they need to do so."

Why I teach-RIDICULOUS.

WISCONSINHEAT-Then they choose which insurance they want and pay the $100-$150 extra per month. We didn't have to drop the insurance for the spouse, just pay extra for it if they can get coverage at their employer.

tjncj
The school district will never do this because they have a cash cow right now and are fighting to not only get the cash out of the cow but to drain the blood out of it as well. Teachers would be willing to pay an insurance company that asked us to pay more in insurance, but when it is the district that has this surplus it is rediculous.

" if there spouse has the ability to get insurance at their place of work they need to do so."
What if the spouses' company is saying the same thing?

sbm_citizen,
I don't know where you have been but if you would have read one blog on this issue in the past three months you would have read about a thousand times that teachers keeping there benefits isn't going to cost taxpayers anything and the money is already there. We are taxpayers too and as a taxpayer you should be irate that the school district is keeping extra money that is budgeted for insurance and put in a 30 million dollar rainy day fund. I am not going to go into this again but rather refer you to the bottom of this page and the other three articles on the site currently, dealing with this issue. By the way is your husbands employer running a self funded insurance system or paying a company? Also is this company for profit or a non-for profit?

Maybe the JSD should enact a new policy going through corporate America. The teachers don't have to pay for there insurance, but if there spouse has the ability to get insurance at their place of work they need to do so. If they decide to keep the school districts as a couple or a family, only then do they need to pay premiums. $100 - $150 per month are the rates I have seen.

sbm_citizen: Is you or your husband's insurance company self funded by the company in which you work for? Do they have a surplus regarding health insurance? Are they one of the wealthiest companies in the state with the highest surplus of cash? Teachers would understand paying premiums if the district was in the red regarding health insurance. This is not the case! Look for a valid reason by the JSD in any of these articles. I will save you the time, their are none!

It's interesting to see comparisons of teachers to other higher education fields. I have a degree and working on a masters I regularly take other educational opportunities for additional CPE and while all of this serves me and my employer I do not automatically get a raise or change in job description because of them and I certainly have no say in insurance options or premiums - like most workers I get to choose between the couple options the company had decided to fund. My husband is in a union and their last 2 contracts (and likely the next) have had very minimal raises and for a while this was offset by inusrance premiums that were next to nothing for good coverage however the last contract increased the premiums over 600% and rather than hold steady, they now increase every year. With the latest contract offer, even though premiums just went up in January they are going to go up again and the raise offer......2.5%. This is what is happening in Rock county, no one is asking teachers to take anything that the taxpayers aren't taking as well.

Budgets are tight in schools, look at all the programming that is being cut for students and societies view on public servants benifits is not the same as it was years ago. Wisconsin is one of the mostly highly taxed states and most of us are not making top income, the taxpayers simply do not have the ability to continue funding these programs. When teachers could count on high end benifits most workers, particularly at the professional level, could expect a pension when they retired and companies weren't closing up and moving to Mexico leaving the employees with nothing. That is not something teachers have to worry about, I have nothing to tell me that my company will still be here in ten years and I certainly won't retire with a pension - I'll have the money I save in a 401k and a small amount put in by the company. No one is disputing the work and dedication that teachers offer to our children but there comes a point when there just isn't anymore to give.

rock: Maybe we'll do Blizzards one of these days. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

To Frank Schultz: This roasted crow ain't half bad with the orange glaze. Thank you.

Here, here!

From my other post: Here's a thought: Many of us have Student Teachers and Field Study Students in our classrooms from surrounding universities who are inches away from entering the teaching profession. How would you folks want us to advertise Janesville as a wonderful place to be a teacher? We do not need to say much. I think one wonderful advertising agent would be to require them to read the attitudes posted on these blogs. I understand that these blogs represent a minority of Janesville, but the school board seems to want the JEA to pay insurance premiums based on Sound Off comments. Granted, there will always be rookie teachers who are just happy to get that first job. However, any wonder why almost 50% of beginning teachers quit the profession within 5 years? Why would a beginning teacher quit this easy, part-time, over-paid, Summers-off job?

Dear Bill
With the offer that the JSD put on the table does that have the teachers on the administrators health plan? Does the public know that there are different insurance plans for teachers and administrators, and that adminstrators have a cheaper deductible to meet every year despite how many are in their family? I know they'll read that the administrators got a percentage to cover their premuims, why can't the teachers have the same deal?

Is the Qeo 3.8 per year?

rock: Obviously, if the JSD has to pay insurance premiums to an insurance company, the premiums would be higher. Insurance companies operate to make a PROFIT. The JSD should not operate at a profit by skimming money off of the top of the JEA Total Package. If the JEA was over spending the insurance pot, then every knucklehead in the county would understand that the JEA needs to kick in more dough. However; that is not the case right now. The JSD has no risk in this insurance game. If we overspend it, then you will just take it out of our salaries in the next contract. If we under spend it, then that money could have gone into salaries. We’ve settled for lower salaries through the years in order to keep our insurance. That also works in JSD’s favor because the per cent salary increase is lower as well.

Caddy - I love Blizzards at the DQ but I am getting tired of this weather! I do not believe that JSD intentionally over budgets the insurance fund. If you compare our monthly premium charges with that of districts that use a separate company, you will see that ours is much lower. If ours were higher, then I think you would have a case. Our surplus is the result of fewer claims and from lower administrative costs due to expertise of people like Angel Tullar.

I have actually proposed an insurance plan that returns any surpluses (after a comfort level is reached) to the taxpayers and to all of the participants.

I thought that I answered your question about the original offer. If I did not, I will again.
When we were hoping that the insurance change would take place this year, we front loaded the increase in the 1st year to 4.7% per cell and the second year was 1.% per cell for a 5.7% total cell offer (we won't rehash the cell movement again). The offer in January (3.31% per cell each year or 6.62% total) was an increase from the earlier offer and we did not front load it because insurance would not kick in until year two.

I do sincerely thank you for keeping your comments professional.

P.S. If you are buying the Blizzard, I would be more than happy to talk with you about this or any other school board issue.

Bill Sodemann

You know my husband is one of the many Janesville residents that have to commute to Madison each day, so we should make all public employees (especially teachers) drive atleast to Milton and back before reporting to work.

The school board's reasons for wanting teachers to pay more for premiums are absolutely ridiculous! Many Janesville residents have to pay premiums for their health insurance and want public employees to do the same? Come on!

It's hard to stomach that the School Board has the budget, but just doesn't want to provide the best insurance it can for teachers. This is a non-profit organization so if the money is there what better thing is there to spend it on besides the health of 800 Janesville residents and their families.

Bill Sodeman,
First of all the board is scared to go to QEO because then the books will be opened and the real truth will come out about how much money the board has made off the teachers. When teachers ask to see the open records, they get the run around. Why are you telling the public one thing and then the opposite to the teachers? The teachers have no respect for you due to the comments you have made about how they are living in a fantasy world or dream world. Go answer the phones at Phones Plus and complain about how bad you have it to your customers. Tell more lies to the public to get their support and make it look like the board cares about teachers. The teachers know the truth.

rock: For the most experienced teachers, MA+30 credits + 18 years, I calculate raises of $2019 and $2085 based on your 3.31%. Not bad, and after all of the fighting, just about what we settle for every contract. Now, in year 2, subtract $900 insurance premiums, and my raise becomes $1185. Still, I guess, better than what some other occupations will see. The part that really bugs me is that the JSD, being fiscally prudent, over budgets the insurance aspect of "The Total Package, Salary and Benefits". The $80 Million + taxpayers pay for "Total Package, Salary and Benefits" in my eyes is really more like $78 Million + because JSD knows you will come out ahead after all the insurance bills are paid. You know that. You plan that. Being self-insured, JSD really has no “premiums” to pay. It’s like a college Spring Break trip: we all put money into the gasoline fund. We put a little extra per person so that we make sure we’ve got enough money to get home. When we get home, we look in the gas fund; there are a few bucks left, so we all go to the bar, or Dairy Queen, and blow the rest of the money. Now we’re even again, and everybody’s happy. Well, the JSD is over-charging us for gas, so now I want you to buy me a few drinks and a Blizzard. Also, I can’t resist: What was your original salary offer for Year 2 of the contract? And I should not take offense to that?

rocksolid: I would like an answer as to why you believe teachers should begin paying premiums? Is it also because others in Janesville pay premiums so we should have to? Or is it because "Paying premiums would increase awareness of the cost of insurance and encourage responsible use of benefits." Quote Angel Tullar. Is their not a surplus, so does this not already mean we have been using our healthcare benefits responsibly?

Greetings on a day designed to stay inside. For those of you who wish to know what the offer to the JEA has been (for over a month now), I will summarize. (Note: All of this information was publicized in the Gazette, so I am not disclosing any confidential information.)

The offer was a 3.31% increase in each cell for the 1st year with no insurance changes (because we are already 2/3rds into the budget year). Most teachers (those who have taught for less than 17 years) move down a cell, which means that their total increase will range from about 5.5% to 6.5%. Those who do not change cells would get the 3.31%. Those who move over a cell (usually by obtaining 6 more credits of education) would get an additional increase in pay.

The second year offer also was for a 3.31% increase per cell. In the second year however, there would be premium sharing that would cost a teacher $75.00 per month for a family plan (as long as they participate in the "wellness plan" - double if they do not).

This means that a teacher earning $40,000.00 per year would see an increase of $1200.00 to $2400.00 each year (depending upon their cell movement - not counting additional credits) but also be required to pay $900.00 towards their health insurance starting in the second year (July of 2008).

Each reader can determine what is "fair", but I think that there are many people, including teachers, who do not know what the offer is.

If the board was to enact a QEO using the numbers that are most favorable to the JEA, the total cost would be more than $600,000.00 LESS (over the 2 year period) than the offer that I summarized above.

As most of you know, I do not like anonymous comments, so I always sign mine.

Sincerely,
Bill Sodemann

P.S. I will post this on the other related blogs as well.

jq - Individuals that have a higher education MAY be offered a higher salary (whether it is a better job is debatable) but that does not necessarily translate to better health care benefits.

billnewbie,
Don't worry I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong. What "mistake" are you talking about. I hope you are not refering to when I said "Look Janesville, they have zero justification. All they want is more money to pad their pockets" because that is exactly what the school district is doing. Padding a already huge surplus. (aka pockets).

Why_Teach_in_Janesville:
How is challenging a contradiction in your argument twisting your words? At least have the grace to acknowledge your mistake.

billnewbie,
Obviously I don't think they are stealing money and buying themselves something nice. You are correct, part of their job is to collect and spend money, not create a surplus that is the largest in the state while still cutting programs every year. And there job is to attract and retain good teachers to provide a quality education for this community. There job is not to be one of the lowest paying schools of comparable size and take away one of the few reasons teachers are staying here. Good benefits all while "saving" an extrodinary amount of cash. Please don't try to twist my words into something they are not.

Why_Teach_in_Janesville:
In one line you say the school system in non-profit, in another line you state that they line their pockets, as if they are greedy. In fact, they are a government body. All they exist to do is collect and spend money. It's one thing to argue about how that money is spent, but it's something else to accuse them of greed. Do you think the school board is stealing money for themselves?

justsome1here: I agree it should not matter what your education level is. Everyone deserves equal healthcare! However the reality is that people with higher education are offered better jobs, in return they receive better benefits.

Also your comment regarding the superintendent, he does have better benefits! He also makes a $140,000 a year plus
a huge fringe benefits package!

Check out the chart.

If those numbers are accurate, It appears as though the district is using the teachers compensation to help keep the costs down of the remaining 560 employees. The teachers have accumulated a 7 million dollar surplus, yet the district has only a 1 million dollar surplus. So did the six million dollar difference come out of the teacher surplus to cover the remaining 560 employees? If that is true, then the teachers have a legitimate gripe. Why should our teacher's be responsible for the non-teachers? Why shouldn't their health insurance go up? Why shouldn't those other 560 employees be expected to pay even more?

It appears as though it is true that SDJ's administration pays part of their premiums. But words on the wind say that the administration also received a bonus that covered that cost? If that is true, where did THAT money come from?

Rather than continually bashing teachers in this town, why don't the people of this town demand some answers to these questions? After all, it IS the taxpayers money, therefore it is OUR money.

It just doesn't make sense that the district is asking the teachers to pay more, to increase an already large surplus. Unless, of course they are using that money to fund other things.

jq-You may be surprised at some of the benefits - especially people that work in health care. In your example, do you realize for nurses that there are ADRN's (associate degree nurses) and BSN (Bachelor of Science Nurses)? Individuals who hold those different degrees and work side by side, probably receive the same benefits. Also, according to your theory, the Superintendent of our school district should have better benefits, based on education and responsibilties. My point is, education is irrelevant when deciding on who "deserves" better benefits.

This article completely justifies what the teachers have been saying since this fiasco started months ago. Scroll up and look at why they want us to pay more. Because other people are doing it, to increase awareness, "-- Most new district employees drop other coverage and use the district’s to pay claims for their entire family", this is because married or single you don't have a choice to opt out of the insurance program. Why would they give you that choice? That would mean thousands of dollars a year they would not make off each teacher that opted out. Not one of these "reasons" for screwing over their employess are justified or have any merit. Look Janesville, they have zero justification. All they want is more money to pad their pockets. Look at the charts. Sure there are discreptencies between the numbers but either one you look at doesn't justify us paying more. Even if you hate every single teacher you have ever had, this isn't rocket science here, you have to agree they have not a single good (sorry Moral), reason for us to pay more. Remember this is a non-for profit institution.

justsome1here: I am assuming you are addressing your comment towards me. If you read in my post I said people with more education typically have better healthcare benefits. Do people at McDonald's or Pick-N-Save have comparable benefits to Doctors,Nurses,Lawyers and Yes Teachers? The answer is no! What is one of the reasons why this is the case? Education!

SDJ claims a surplus of only $1 million over past 10 years, then how does the district explain a reserve fund of nearly $30 million dollars (one of the largest in the state), that has nearly doubled since 2002, and is nearly twice the state average?

History and reliable information matter.

It is simplistic logic to just look at other employees and conclude it should just be the same. JEA history matters--donating act 11 money, 5 straight years savings ($8 million), high co-pays. The school district just does not have a position this round of negotiations. In falsley claiming crisis, the board is creating a crisis.
More graphs..details: www.supportjea.com

I am constantly amazed that some of the teachers that post regard themselves as the only "highly educated" professionals in the city of Janesville. Education level is irrelevant to the amount of benefits that a company (or business - for profit or non profit) is willing (or is able financially) to offer.

Eventually the board and the teachers will agree on a total package slightly above the QEO. It seems most schools are settling for total packages (Salary and Benefits) of 4.1%+. Why does the board care where the dollars are spent? Why not just worry about the total payout? Common sense says it is more effective to have the dollars put toward the untaxed benefit (insurance) versus getting a salary increase, paying taxes and then paying the premium. Quite frankly, if the teachers were not fighting the board on this issue I would question their decision making abilities.

shocky52: What did you do for the city? Education level? Teachers as well as other professions go into their profession knowing that the pay will not always be great. However the benefits will make up the difference. Typically the more education you have the better the benefits are. Yes I understand their are exceptions to this rule. Your comment is a classic for Janesville, If I have to pay, then why should'nt they?

First of all, I'm a retired city employee, and & I had to pay a monthly fee for insurance and then we still had 200.00 deductibles on major med, our Dr. visits wasn't even covered until you met any and all deductibles per our family coverage. So suck it up and join the rest of the workers in Janesville,,.....

Sluggo: Yes, we do not have a choice to opt out of the insurance. The school district requires couples to only use their family plan. Their are 50 couples in the JSD. This means they are not paying a benefit for 50 people. Other school districts offer cash. Whitewater is 6000 a year and Clinton is 5000 a year. Janesville flat out just does not offer anything! If both my wife and I are employed by the district, we both should have the option to have our own family plan!

Teachers:
1. Co-Pay vs Premium share must be compared equally, ie: do the other districts that have lower co-pays pay any premium?
If the 20% co-pay is for all medical bills (not just office visits) and has no maximum limit, then that in itself should justify JEA not paying premium co-pays.
2. This part is mostly irrelevant. Comparisons should be made to comparable districts, not statewide.
3. Extremely relevant and if JSD reduces any insurance benefit, the past sacrificed wages should be re-instated.
4. I would leave that up to an arbitrator to decide.
.
School board:
1. See number 4 above.
2. There are better ways to "teach" awareness.
3. Using that logic, many Janesville residents don't make as much as the school administrators so the administrators should give some of their salary back to us.
4. Irrelevant. Benefits should not be based on what someone may or may not use. The employee should "choose the policy most appropriate for their family" regardless.
5. Open to negotiation.
6. Has merit if properly set up and administered. Incentive could be reduction or elimination of co-pays.

Wait a minute - I was under the understanding that "Most new district employees drop other coverage and use the district’s to pay claims for their entire family." because the district will not allow teachers to opt out of having insurance through the district. Couples who both work for JSD both have to take the insurance.