|
Dear
Mona,
I want to respond to your Chaparral
article on our health care plan. As a member of the Guild's negotiating
team, I recognize that changes in our health care plan will be recommended
by management for our upcoming contract. However, I think that the your
article's overall message is wrong.
You base your case on the special nature of health care benefits. I
disagree.
- You
argue that GCC benefits are top-notch. Yes, in comparison to the
population as a whole. But surely we should argue in favor of similar
benefits for everyone, not reducing our own. And, as a side issue, our
package is not unusual for the public sector, and contrary to your
bullet #2, the District indeed has proposed that we pay a large part
of our own premiums.
- You
want to show good "faith" to the district. I believe we do
so by upholding the contract and by upholding performance by our
peers.
- You
maintain that the public sector is different because dollars not spent
on health care could be used to serve more students. Obviously, this
is a very slippery slope that plays into the hands of those who argue
that we would have a better educational system if only educators would
accept less. Our health care plan is no more outlandish than our pay
levels. We should not be expected to sacrifice either one because the
state government refuses to fund education at needed levels.
- You
argue that health care spending can be altered by our habits. Here I
agree that creative changes in our health plan can create win/win
outcomes. But such changes must be looked at carefully so that we
support preventive care while giving incentives for judicious use of
services. In any case, these are not the dollar-saving changes
proposed by the District.
Overall, I'm disappointed by your message that we should reduce our
health coverage or pay more for it because we are fortunate beneficiaries
of reasonable health care and because we have jobs in which we help
others. Neither argument is sound.
&
In
solidarity,
Mark Maier
[back
to the top]
|
|
|