« Merry Christmas! | Main | Umberg Pulls Papers »

December 26, 2006


Elroy El

I have to agree with Greenhut on this one.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are going to this fund. I see nothing wrong with county officials ensuring it is going to its intended uses.

Anon. Deputy

FYI. The money although is "Taxpayer Funded" It is a part of MY Salary. Do you want to go into my PRIVATE retirement account too?? The Union's Medical Benefit Fund is managed better than the county manages their's. There are safegaurds in place so that the money can not be used for anything other than it's intended purpose. Once the county "pays" my benefits via my Union the money is MINE or OURS. Period. If the County wanted to keep tabs on the money they should not have relinquished the responsibilty to the Union. Former Asst. Storm made false accusations about the fund a few years ago and that got Norby(anit-cop)hot and bothered.

Private vs. Public

I agree with the previous poster. If the county wants to control the fund then they should manage it. My guess is that the deputies union gets a bigger bang for their buck than the other county employess get for the one managed by the county.

If the deputies can do more with their fund than the county can with theirs, then maybe the answer isn't for the county to manage the other county employees, maybe they should just provide a dollar amount and let the chips fall where they may. That way the unions are responsible for their medical benefits and the county/union can simply negotiate any future reductions/raises to the fund as part of a contract negotiation.

Private management tends to do the job better anyway.

Elroy El

Anon. That is sort of true. However, the funds are given to your union with a specific purpose in mind. To claim the funds are akin to your salary is a specious argument. The county determines your salary and pays you accordingly. That is where the trail ends. If the county was claiming it was paying you (and all other employees) a certain wage, but was actually paying a different (and lower or higher) number I would argue to investigate/audit the county's use of the funds committed to employee's salaries. The county pays your union a certain level of funding to ensure a proper level of health care is being provided. The taxpayer (that's me) doesn't owe any employee group a windfall if that group can negotiate a better rate.

The comments to this entry are closed.