quote Originally posted by aceman: Right. So thank your boss for that pay raise you got via your company paying a majority of your increased health insurance.

lol - funny stuff.
getting the same service, getting less money, doing the same work - yet, it is seen by some as a raise.
yes, from the employers standpoint - that employee costs more. but - the employee lost income. this is NOT a raise.
this is an increase in the costs of doing business being laden upon the employee.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: we are dancing the gap between what an employee receives, and what an employer pays. well - try it this way: only one number matters to each concerned party. the employee is only concern with what is received - and the employer is only concerned with what it costs.

Dead on target!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - funny stuff. getting the same service, getting less money, doing the same work - yet, it is seen by some as a raise. yes, from the employers standpoint - that employee costs more. but - the employee lost income. this is NOT a raise. this is an increase in the costs of doing business being laden upon the employee.

AND upon the employer. In this day and age, he's lucky indeed, that the employer even pays that much of it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Oh, the reason the insurance is so high for our company is that there are apparently two employees who've had transplants of some sort; since we can't fire them for getting sick the insurance company doubled our rates instead. I wonder if there is a way to get rid of those workers, and if that would lower my insurance copay. JazzMan

Priceless!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - funny stuff. getting the same service, getting less money, doing the same work - yet, it is seen by some as a raise. yes, from the employers standpoint - that employee costs more. but - the employee lost income. this is NOT a raise. this is an increase in the costs of doing business being laden upon the employee.

Does the employee receive tangible benefits from the insurance? Should we pretend that insurance has no costs? If an employee wants the insurance, and has chosen to purchase it, that employee has made a decision on how to spend their money.

But if the cost of the insurance rises, and the employee is not paying for the entire cost of the increase, then yes in effect they are getting a pay raise.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - funny stuff. getting the same service, getting less money, doing the same work - yet, it is seen by some as a raise. yes, from the employers standpoint - that employee costs more. but - the employee lost income. this is NOT a raise. this is an increase in the costs of doing business being laden upon the employee.

Or, you can have the employee pay for all of his individual, private insurance (Which you even said that most would mismanage that) and the employeer could give their employees a say 5% wage increase every year. Then, the employee is going to complain that his private health insurance went up 20% and his 5% wage increase does not cover the increase in his private health insurance rate increase. I suppose he could go to his boss for a higher raise. His boss will probably tell him to pack sand.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: How much are they coughing up to honor their obligations and promises? Dunno, but I'm sure it's less than what they originally promised, and again, in less than 24 months it'll be a done deal. JazzMan

Not so fast. That's now on the bargaining table it seems. It is being reported, that GM will ask to defer some or all of those '09-2010 payments to a point further down the road, so we can continue to see the USA in our Chevrolet............as part of the plan for successful realignment they must present to congress next month.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ...snip... It basically boils down to the fact that the anti-union haters want to make it look like union workers make more than they actually do in order to stir up hatred toward union members. Simple as that. Fact of the matter is that GMs workers are paid competitive with their counterparts at Toyota, and in fact will be be paid less than their counterparts within two years, and will also be taking pay cuts in the form of increased copays for insurance, while at the same time they'll be taking pay cuts in the form of real wage erosion due to inflation with no compensating pay raises. The union-haters have achieved what they want, less workers working and more workers working for less. It's the American way, isn't it? JazzMan

I've tried to find in the thread where we've compared that the Toyota workers might be paid the same "hourly wage," but that they are paying their own benefits (retirement accounts and health care) whereas, due to union agreements, GM employees are making similar or higher hourly wages ON TOP of the benefits they don't appear to be paying for?

That's where the big difference occurs I think. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems anyway...

quote Originally posted by GT86: Does the employee receive tangible benefits from the insurance? Should we pretend that insurance has no costs? If an employee wants the insurance, and has chosen to purchase it, that employee has made a decision on how to spend their money. But if the cost of the insurance rises, and the employee is not paying for the entire cost of the increase, then yes in effect they are getting a pay raise.

actually, yes. insurance works on having large pools of people. so, by having a larger pool of people, the employers own personal insurance costs go down. which is exactly why the employer did NOT want people to opt out. because it makes it more costly to those who remain. or - even worse - if the shop is not large enough - they may not even have enough employees to get a decent package.

and - again - it is not a pay raise. it is a costs raise. the employee is receiving nothing more.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: actually, yes. insurance works on having large pools of people. so, by having a larger pool of people, the employers own personal insurance costs go down. which is exactly why the employer did NOT want people to opt out. because it makes it more costly to those who remain. or - even worse - if the shop is not large enough - they may not even have enough employees to get a decent package. and - again - it is not a pay raise. it is a costs raise. the employee is receiving nothing more.

Look at the raise issue this way: Say I am choosing to purchase something for $50 a week, but the actual cost is $100 per week. My employer is paying the difference. I'm actually benefiting from $50 that was never paid to me in the form of wages. Now the cost to me is going to change to $75 a week, but the actual cost us $150 a week. I'm now benefiting from $75 that wasn't paid to me in the form of wages.

It is a cost increase, but if you are paying less of a percentage of the cost than you were before, you're still coming out ahead.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Look at the raise issue this way: Say I am choosing to purchase something for $50 a week, but the actual cost is $100 per week. My employer is paying the difference. I'm actually benefiting from $50 that was never paid to me in the form of wages. Now the cost to me is going to change to $75 a week, but the actual cost us $150 a week. I'm now benefiting from $75 that wasn't paid to me in the form of wages. It is a cost increase, but if you are paying less of a percentage of the cost than you were before, you're still coming out ahead.

yes - I get it - but it aint a raise.
a raise is getting more. a cost increase, while services remain the same - how is that getting more? are their any service increases in the insurance which now costs more? no. they just plain old cost more. so, now, employer costs go up and employee loses some income. there is no raise. I fully see the change in how much the employee costs the business. but, the employee is NOT receieving anything more. in fact - now receieves LESS. same insurance - less income.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes - I get it - but it aint a raise. a raise is getting more. a cost increase, while services remain the same - how is that getting more? are their any service increases in the insurance which now costs more? no. they just plain old cost more. so, now, employer costs go up and employee loses some income. there is no raise. I fully see the change in how much the employee costs the business. but, the employee is NOT receieving anything more. in fact - now receieves LESS. same insurance - less income.

It's a raise if you count what your employer is paying on your behalf as part of your compensation.

Example:
A person is paid $50,000 a year, and receives a health insurance policy that costs $5000/year. So the employee is really being paid $55,000. Say the person pays 50% of the premium ($2,500) and the total compensation drops to $52,500 a year.

Now, the cost of the policy is going to be $6000. Same base pay, same percentage paid by the employee, but now the total compensation is $53,000.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: It's a raise if you count what your employer is paying on your behalf as part of your compensation.

You are wasting your time with some one who thinks economics is all made up and any 'good house wife' can run a multinational conglomerate. Any time some one says they get it and in the next line shows that they in fact don't get it pretty much tells you to just walk away.

quote Originally posted by GT86: It's a raise if you count what your employer is paying on your behalf as part of your compensation. Example: A person is paid $50,000 a year, and receives a health insurance policy that costs $5000/year. So the employee is really being paid $55,000. Say the person pays 50% of the premium ($2,500) and the total compensation drops to $52,500 a year. Now, the cost of the policy is going to be $6000. Same base pay, same percentage paid by the employee, but now the total compensation is $53,000.

yes - we all get that it costs the employer more. but, in order to be a "raise" the employee must recieve more. which the employee does not. he recieves the same insurance package, and now, less actual pay. that is NOT a raise.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes - we all get that it costs the employer more. but, in order to be a "raise" the employee must recieve more. which the employee does not. he recieves the same insurance package, and now, less actual pay. that is NOT a raise.

But what you're not getting is that the employee is receiving more. It isn't the same insurance package, as it is now more expensive. Like everyhting else, health care costs are going up, and as a result the cost of health insurance packages are going up. The "actual pay", as you call it, may be going down, but the value of the provided benefits is going up. If the value of those benefits is going up at a higher rate than the dollar amount on the check is going down, then it is a raise.

Using your point of view, the only thing that is of value to the employee is the amount on the paycheck, and that the insurance has no value (or maybe you feel that insurance should be provided 100% by the company). You're only looking at one part, and you need to look at total compensation.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: Using your point of view, the only thing that is of value to the employee is the amount on the paycheck, and that the insurance has no value.

And that, too, is what he's trying to explain. I agree 100% with your point of view, GT86. However, Pyrthian is correct. Many employees only view their paycheck as to what they value. I get the impression that 84fiero123 only looks at the paycheck stub as to "how much he makes". (Steve, not trying to pick on you.) My assumption from posts from Steve is that the UAW Union Monkey EXPECTS the Big 3 to pay 100% for thier retirement pay. They EXPECT that the Big 3 foot the bill for health insurance. Then they cry out and say "I don't make $70/hr!" (They only count pay and leave off the COSTS OF BENEFITS)

quote Originally posted by GT86: But what you're not getting is that the employee is receiving more. It isn't the same insurance package, as it is now more expensive. The "actual pay", as you call it, may be going down, but the value of the provided benefits is going up. If the value of those benefits is going up at a higher rate than the dollar amount is going down, then it is a raise. Using your point of view, the only thing that is of value to the employee is the amount on the paycheck, and that the insurance has no value.

the insurance package is the same - it just costs more. it is the exact same as before what you are calling a raise. both the employer and the employee lose money. if you really want to call it a raise, I cannot stop you. we all get how the employee yearly compensation costs have gone up. but, the employee receives less cash, and the same insurance.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the insurance package is the same - it just costs more. it is the exact same as before what you are calling a raise. both the employer and the employee lose money. if you really want to call it a raise, I cannot stop you. we all get how the employee yearly compensation costs have gone up. but, the employee receives less cash, and the same insurance.

And the next thing you'll debate is: "My employer didn't really give me a 5% raise when the cost of living index went up 10%."

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the insurance package is the same - it just costs more. it is the exact same as before what you are calling a raise. both the employer and the employee lose money. if you really want to call it a raise, I cannot stop you. we all get how the employee yearly compensation costs have gone up. but, the employee receives less cash, and the same insurance.

So, as an employee you don't feel that insurance should count as part of your compensation, even if the employer is paying a substantial portion of the cost?

quote Originally posted by aceman: And that, too, is what he's trying to explain. I agree 100% with your point of view, GT86. However, Pyrthian is correct. Many employees only view their paycheck as to what they value. I get the impression that 84fiero123 only looks at the paycheck stub as to "how much he makes". (Steve, not trying to pick on you.) My assumption from posts from Steve is that the UAW Union Monkey EXPECTS the Big 3 to pay 100% for thier retirement pay. They EXPECT that the Big 3 foot the bill for health insurance. Then they cry out and say "I don't make $70/hr!" (They only count pay and leave off the COSTS OF BENEFITS)

Oh, I understand the point he's trying to make. It's just that I don't agree with it. If a person doesn't think the insurance has value, they should opt out and then it won't affect the number on their paycheck.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: And the next thing you'll debate is: "My employer didn't really give me a 5% raise when the cost of living index went up 10%."

part of what makes this place so much fun

I am sure everyone sees the point of "the employers pays more for your services". and, from that side - it sure looks a raise. the employee still gets the SAME insurance - even tho it now costs more. and, has to co-pay as well. so, the same thing is receieved, and less money is taken home. that is NOT a raise. you have less now than prior the "raise". yes, we all get that insurance costs more. and, most of us are thankful for the coverage we get. but it aint no raise. but - I guess thats all in defination anyways - and - since I'm no stickler on exact definitions - fine - call it what you like - but it is very misleading. most people who earn their living think a raise is an increase not a decrease in wages and benifits. and, with this - the wage goes down, and the benifit remains constant. yes, the benifit costs more - but the benifit itself is the same. which means again - BOTH the employer and the employee lose money. I see no raise in that.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: part of what makes this place so much fun most people who earn their living think a raise is an increase not a decrease in wages and benifits. and, with this - the wage goes down, and the benifit remains constant. yes, the benifit costs more - but the benifit itself is the same. which means again - BOTH the employer and the employee lose money. I see no raise in that.

Actually, if the cost of the health insurance went up $200 and the employee has to pay $50 more a month....You say it is not a raise as it is not an increase in health benefits. Fine. Let's keep the cost of health insurance at last year's rates. I bet the insurance company will do that....AND DECREASE THE BENEFITS COVERAGE. So, therefore, you are technically getting more health insurance benefits because you decided to pay the increase.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Actually, if the cost of the health insurance went up $200 and the employee has to pay $50 more a month....You say it is not a raise as it is not an increase in health benefits. Fine. Let's keep the cost of health insurance at last year's rates. I bet the insurance company will do that....AND DECREASE THE BENEFITS COVERAGE. So, therefore, you are technically getting more health insurance benefits because you decided to pay the increase.

right - now your getting it - the insurance company is the only one getting a raise in this deal. and, both the employer & the employee are paying for that raise.
the employer pays more in employee overhead, and the employee pays more in paycheck deductions. I guess part of the problem is being this is a union thread, and most of y'all only see there being 2 people in existance - employers and employees. see that one little narrow "that person costs more" and somehow that = raise. just is not so. a 3rd party is who is getting the raise.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: right - now your getting it - the insurance company is the only one getting a raise in this deal. and, both the employer & the employee are paying for that raise. the employer pays more in employee overhead, and the employee pays more in paycheck deductions. I guess part of the problem is being this is a union thread, and most of y'all only see there being 2 people in existance - employers and employees. see that one little narrow "that person costs more" and somehow that = raise. just is not so. a 3rd party is who is getting the raise.

No, I had it before.

If the company and the employee didn't pay the increase, the employee would get a lowering of the value of his benefits. It's actually the opposite of a raise. The value of thier health insurance went up, therefore...The employee GOT A RAISE in the valuation of the health insurance.

quote Originally posted by aceman: No, I had it before. If the company and the employee didn't pay the increase, the employee would get a lowering of the value of his benefits. It's actually the opposite of a raise. The value of thier health insurance went up, therefore...The employee GOT A RAISE in the valuation of the health insurance.

no - its the SAME coverage. the insurance company got the raise. the employee AND the employer LOSE money.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Fact is after benefits are added up they make about $71 dollars an hour. Whether they are working or in a job bank.

and there you are ........ benefits you dont pay for ARE pay. Even IRS considers benefits you get from anyone as INCOME. Things like employer feeding you, supplying quarters, trans, etc.

I OWN my own company and have now over 30 years and I get $25 @ hour and I have to pay for ANY benefits I give myself...medical, retirement, etc...comes OUT of my $25.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: no - its the SAME coverage. the insurance company got the raise. the employee AND the employer LOSE money.

But, if the employer/employee didn't pay the increase, they would have had a benefits decrease.

No matter how you slice it, the employee and the employer have a higher valuation of that benefit.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: But, if the employer/employee didn't pay the increase, they would have had a benefits decrease. No matter how you slice it, the employee and the employer have a higher valuation of that benefit.

right. the employer & the employee have higher costs now. both lose money. I dont see how that counts as a "raise". I fully understand the employer now has higher costs per employee. but them same employees now also have lower actual wages. the insurance company is the ONLY winner. that is the ONLY people "getting a raise".

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

Sure and if they don't pay the increase the employee gets less of a benefit because his health insurance will be trimmed back.

So the Employer wins, the Health Insurance Company breaks even and the Employee loses.

By paying the raise in premiums the Employer loses, the Insurance Company wins and the Employee wins with keeping the same coverage instead of a lesser coverage.

Government mandates are the reasons they health insurance cost skyrocketed.


Don't work for a union shop, your employment days are numbered.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Sure and if they don't pay the increase the employee gets less of a benefit because his health insurance will be trimmed back. So the Employer wins, the Health Insurance Company breaks even and the Employee loses. By paying the raise in premiums the Employer loses, the Insurance Company wins and the Employee wins with keeping the same coverage instead of a lesser coverage.

if the employer eats the whole thing. but - thats not what happened, is it? the employee must now put up as well. so - employer loses - employee loses - insurance company wins. employee gets the same coverage - and less pay. not a raise.

And wins when like I just told Mr Bitter II, when the insurance pays more of the bill than what they would have if the employee didn't pay that exta $40 and the employer didn't pay the extra $160.

quote Originally posted by aceman: And wins when like I just told Mr Bitter II, when the insurance pays more of the bill than what they would have if the employee didn't pay that exta $40 and the employer didn't pay the extra $160.

well, maybe I am a little confused on what a raise is.
I was always under the impression it was a good thing.
less money & everything else is the same - just dont seem like a raise.
and, it is mighty funny that an insurance company can give me a raise by increasing their rates...?
but, I guess that is the power of BS, eh?

It will be viewed as a good thing when the health insurance your company decided that you'll pay an extra $480/yr for pays out that extra $1000 of that hospital bill instead of making you pay that extra $1000 because you were too cheap to pay for the health coverage and wanted to use that $480 to pay for expanded cable.

So, just for figures sake, Do you want

Plan A:
Costs $2500 more a year (Employer= $2000/year and Employee $500/year) Covers 90% of a $10,000 medical bill or $9000)

Plan B:
Costs the same as last year, but will only cover 80% of a $10,000 medical bill or $8,000

PLEASE LET ME PAY $500 MORE A YEAR FOR A MEDICAL PLAN WITH BETTER VALUE!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: It will be viewed as a good thing when the health insurance your company decided that you'll pay an extra $480/yr for pays out that extra $1000 of that hospital bill instead of making you pay that extra $1000 because you were too cheap to pay for the health coverage and wanted to use that $480 to pay for expanded cable. So, just for figures sake, Do you want Plan A: Costs $2500 more a year (Employer= $2000/year and Employee $500/year) Covers 90% of a $10,000 medical bill or $9000) Plan B: Costs the same as last year, but will only cover 80% of a $10,000 medical bill or $8,000 PLEASE LET ME PAY $500 MORE A YEAR FOR A MEDICAL PLAN WITH BETTER VALUE!!!!!!

um, that is all nice and everything - but we are talking here about raising insurance rates & employee co-pay somehow = employees getting a raise.
the employee ends up with the same coverage - and less money in pocket.
yes, we all see the fact that there is more employee overhead. that by itself does NOT = raise for anyone. there are many things which can increase employee overhead.
a raise is when you have more than before. the same coverage and less money. not a raise.