You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 11:47 a.m.

$400M in healthcare savings at U-M: Good for university, a 'burden' for employees?

By Kellie Woodhouse

$94 Million— That's the amount per year the University of Michigan is saving due to changes in the health benefits offered to staff and faculty.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for University-of-Michigan-nurses-march-contract-dispute.jpg

University of Michigan Health System nurses protest during recent contract negotiations.

Since 2003 the total savings exceeds $400 million, according to university figures.

The savings are largely the result of "good, solid blocking and tackling" during union negotiations, according to U-M CFO and Executive Vice President Timothy Slottow.

New healthcare plans at U-M increase employee contributions, accounting for approximately 65 percent of the cost difference. That's the shifting of at least $260 million in healthcare costs to employees since 2003.

New plans also reduce third-party costs and, in the future, will cut back retirement benefits.

"We have been working hard... and we probably haven’t been receiving the credit we deserve," Slottow said of the school's thriftiness during a U-M Board of Regents meeting Thursday.


Timothy Slottow

Not everyone, however, is pleased with the changes.

Ken Chaves, president of the U-M Skilled Trades Union, called the cost-sharing changes "burdensome."

"A lot of the healthcare changes are a burden," he said. "It's unfortunate that they're shifting as much of the cost burdens as they are."

Katie Oppenheim, head of the U-M Professional Nurse Council, said that U-M holding the line on healthcare costs was "not good" after premiums significantly increased for nurses in November.

At the regents meeting, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman had a different view on how employees have responded to the new plans.

"They have accepted these changes and been really, amazingly good about recognizing our needs to cut costs," she said.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for Reach her at or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.



Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.

Jack said it perfectly: another article with no facts, virtually no research, no background information, no historical comparisons. Just a couple of quotes from opposing sides. And the poll is idiotic. Health care changes are 1) good 2)bad. How in the world would we know from this article?

Joe Kidd

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.

If I were Ms. Woodhouse's editor, I would have rejected this story. There is a significant piece of information missing: the percentage of HC benefits the UM is asking employees to pay. I expected to see that employees will be responsible for 20%, which is generous on the part of the employer, or 30% which is becoming more standard but still quite generous. That said I am not happy with the UM administration. One item mentioned here makes me think the U is skating on the wrong side of the ice, looking at cutting retirement benefits. The current retirement system at UM is great if your pay is very high, but if your pay is in the middle class range your retirement may be quite bleak, since there is no way to predict what the future will hold in terms of cost of living. I agree with JCJ and LisaM, the upper levels are stuffing their pockets at an insulting rate while cutting and slashing the folks at lower levels. If they are going to increase employee benefit costs they are going to have to increase pay. If I were there, facing this, I would be looking to unionize, since people form unions when they feel their employer is not taking care of them. Slottow has a severe lack of ethics to say he is not getting credit for his reverse Robin Hood efforts (take from the poor give to the rich) at his half million plus salary. The UM is just the institution is used to be.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 7:36 a.m.

The U of M is a public institution supported by tax dollars to benefit the community, in fact the whole state of Michigan. why the public employees think that they should enjoy any and all profits from this public institution is beyond me. Any and all profit this institution makes belongs to the taxpayers that support it, not the employees that provide a service.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.

I always wonder what people mean when they say 'supported by tax dollars'. About 8% of U of M revenue is from the state appropriations. It is a subsidy to the in-state students to reduce their cost of attendance. What is the bearing on this story?


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 6:53 a.m.

I heard an ER employee say that not matter what the only pays $25 co-pay, I was kind of mad about this because of how much money they made too., but now they have to pay their share.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 4:48 a.m. - You've done it again. You tell us there has been a change in benefits contributions. WHAT exactly were those changes? What are employees expected to pay? Your reporting is so generalized and disinterested that sometimes it just makes me want to spit. Then, to top it off, you actually put a survey at the end asking us to vote. On what? Phantom figures drawn up in our imaginations? I cannot imagine that the figure are hard to get. It's public information. Pick up the phone. Do lower paid employes at UM still get poorer benefits than higher paid employees? They used to. This is an utterly frustrating article.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 2:27 a.m.

I just started a job at UM. I make 26k a year. (I have no problem sharing this because it ultimately will be public information). I have no problem paying my premiums, the insurance is great. Vision is completely covered at little cost each month for my daughter and I. Same goes for dental. The medical that I pay is actually 1/4 of what I would have paid at the job I was working at before this one. They wanted around 300 for the two of us per paycheck. I pay around 60 per pay check with UM and I made sure all necessary services are covered...mostly her well--baby check ups since those are several times a year. The federal government takes more of my check in taxes than UM does for my insurance.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 11:56 p.m.

"We have been working hard... and we probably haven't been receiving the credit we deserve," Slottow said of the school's thriftiness during a U-M Board of Regents meeting Thursday." Sounds like Mr. Slottow is asking for another pay raise! He takes the credit for shifting $94 million in benefit costs from the University on to the backs of every employee. For most employees, the added costs means less money to spend buying food and other essentials. In exchange, Mr. Slottow has seen his salary increased to over $500,000 per year. I seriously doubt he felt the increase at all...if he pays it. Who knows what's included in his benefit package? Sweet deals abound anymore. I wonder if his kids got free or reduced tuition to the UM? Must be nice to be the king! And he's just one of the 1%ers at the UM keeping the other 99% in their place. There's so much elitism at UM anymore it's hard to stomach.

Hot Sam

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

Joe..."pays for parking"...that's a joke right?

Joe Kidd

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.

$535k in 2010 per the Michigan Daily salary supplement. What irks me is that he pays the same for a parking permit and benefits that an employee pays who makes $26k if he pays for parking at all. It would not surprise me if he gets a free permit along with a parking space. UM likes to trumpet itself as "diversity U" but if you look at the disparities in pay, it seems to be quite discriminatory.

Monica R-W

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 6:26 a.m.

Wow!! Really, $500K a year. Can we ALL have HIS job?


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.

"That's the shifting of at least $260 million in healthcare costs to employees since 2003." That says it all. UM is no different than any other large corporation: fat cats at the top get fat raises, new positions are created by the fat cats at will, worker bees take the hits and get pathetic raises (1-2%), and "workers" keep paying more for benefits. I'll bet the "executives'" benefit packages look a lot different from the "workers'" benefit packages. No different than corporate America.

Hot Sam

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

"Big Ed" IS corporate America...

Joe Kidd

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.

Right. It wasn't always this way. And not that long ago.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.

As of June 2011 the University had a 7.8 BILLION DOLLAR endowment fund which, according to the University: " essential to sustaining academic quality because it provides a guaranteed, never-ending source of income to support professorships, student scholarships, innovative programs and learning opportunities. " Obviously the University isn't suffering for funds. Increasing the salaries of administrators and deans while cutting back funds for graduate student research assistants and staff benefits in general is not only unfair, it is immoral and unjust.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.

"That's the shifting of at least $260 million in healthcare costs to employees since 2003" While I don't know the details of these contracts, remember that shifting benefit costs back to employees is usually harder on low-paid employees than on the higher pay personnel. If you are making a large salary, paying higher co-pay or deductible of a few $1000 more isn't fun, but isn't awful. But when your take home pay is under $30000, that extra few thousand makes a huge difference. Saving money on the backs of the lower paid employees while continuing to give raises to the highly paid top administrators is mean-spirited at best. Sound familiar.....AAPS?


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.

That seems to be the new American standard now- just be grateful you have a job. Is this the future we have to look forward to? Because if it is, pretty soon Mexico will be building a wall to keep us out. And of course, those that cheer the supposed "savings" to the University will be crying next year when their employer uses compensation cuts at other public and private employers to trim a little more off their own bottom line. Whether such a tunnel-vision mentality will pan out financially in the long run remains to be seen; University salaries are typically less than the private sector pays, and have been flat for years as the state slashes funding, so the benefits package was the one thing that kept them competitive with other universities and the private sector; the higher recruiting and training costs resulting from decreased competitiveness and higher turnover will likely offset a large chunk of these "savings", just as ithe new state mandates will make it harder for local school districts to attract and retain experienced teachers, and of course student performance is sure to suffer as our schools become the training ground for other states. And in the end it all just means there's less to go around for everyone, and further erosion of the state's wealth- less money to spend at the local grocer, less to spend on a new car, and less to spend on college tuition- less, that is, for everyone except those at the top who already have more money than they can spend, so they'll invest it in oil futures and venture capitalism funds- because the "job creators" sure aren't going to invest it in things that create jobs making things that no one can afford to buy.

Elizabeth Jahn

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.

As a University of Michigan employee of over 15 years, I can honestly say that the benefits package continues to be extremely generous. With the escalating costs of health care, most employers are shifting to a cost-sharing model. The University has done a good job communicating those changes and phasing them in gradually. They also subsidize many wellness programs to address health risks and improve the health management of those with chronic conditions.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.

Katie Oppenheim, head of the U-M Professional Nurse Council, said that U-M holding the line on healthcare costs was "not good" Where does all of this health care money come from? President Obama's stash? No, from you and me!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.

Isn't there now a state law that public/state employees must contribute 20% to their Health Care benefits?? I would think this would settle this argument for UM as well as other state employees (and should include retirees as well).


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

I know I'll get creamed over this...but... If we had a national health insurance plan/program, this wouldn't be a topic. We would have health insurance. We could change jobs and have health insurance. It wouldn't be an employment negotiated issue.

Joe Kidd

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.

I wouldn't cream you Dextermom, but national health insurance in all likelihood will never be instituted in the US. Health care is a very complex issue and our system, like systems in countries with national insurance dates back several decades. There are changes that would have to be made (example: physician pay) that would be extremely difficult to apply.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.

what is stopping you now from changing jobs????

Monica R-W

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 6:24 a.m. hit the nail right on the head Dextermom.... I wonder how many entrepreneurs we might have in America, if health care costs were not a barrier?


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.

jj - that is a totally misinformed statement. The South campus athletic complex is completely funded by athletic revenue, specifically football. Priorities have nothing to do with it.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.

I think if you drive south on State St past Hoover & look west you can see where the savings are going. Thank goodness we have our priorities straight & the Wolverines have A-1 facilities.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:38 p.m.

Well, we'll see -- I'm sure part of the UM benefits plan is to eliminate health insurance for ALL retirees starting in year 2025 or a tad later (with the plan that there will be universal coverage/UM won't have to pay anything). In the meantime, people pay more and the excess goes to...where IS is going I wonder?


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8 p.m.

As a U-M employee at the hospital (AFSCME), we have had to pay more out of pocket, sure. But, honestly, where else can you work that gives you a salary and benefits that you can support a family on without an education? U-M is what the Big Three used to be. I don't take my job for granted and accept the cuts within reason. I do admit the administrative salaries are pretty outrageous, though...


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.

I could not agree more!!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I'm a fiscal conservative, anti-big government, and not a big union fan. But I have to admit I am starting to get pissed off at the so called leaders of these big organizations and government bureaucracies who continue to give themselves large raises and expect everyone else to take cuts. They should all take a lead and give themselves cuts or step down and let someone else lead. I believe that the union members have had it good for too long and needed to contribute more or get less but the leadership is asking for big problems and are out of touch with the realities of the real world.

Monica R-W

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 6:22 a.m.

Mike, We can agree on most of your post and, I would describe myself on the other side of your thoughts about unions. But, if one is to take cuts...they ALL should take cuts, IMHO.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

The big problem is that some of these people were hired with promises of grandeur. Put in your time, retire with benefits. Some of them passing on higher paying private sector jobs relying on what they were promised upon employment at the University of Michigan. Now many of these good people (some after 30+ years of service) have to choose between a bad or even worse choices. Leave now or loose retirement benefits. What these over paid University bean counters fail to realize is that all of the good hard working people they choose to screw, are the ones that made the University what it is today. (Liberal mess) that's another problem It is a shame that we the people do not unite and rise against the large money hungry corporations and institutions that treat their employees as disposable. They must be held accountable. Must be a trickledown effect from our lying president mr. obama. Mr. No accountability. What they have done is set precedence for employers. Lie cheat or whatever it takes to hire good honest people. THEN RENIG ON THEIR PROMISES. 30 YEARS LATER IT IS TO LATE


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.

Trickle down theory over the last 30 years has been a republican mantra, a failed one at that, so somehow blaming Obama is quite a stretch. LoL.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.

The change in health benefit cost distribution at the UM was needed - saved two job positions in the unit I work for (and we're a small department). By the way, I'm one of the 30+ good hard working people you speak of... I will still have health benefits when I retire five years or so from now. I just have to pay a slightly higher piece of the pie and it's all ok by me.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.

This is perfect example of why a national health plan that has a public option is very important. It should reduce costs for everyone INCLUDING the patients. It will slow and hopefully stop "for profit" companies setting premium rates based on investor needs first. It is always important to note the number ONE goal for any "for profit" company is to .... make a profit first .... then make other decisions second. In my opinion not a good way to provide health insurance decisions based on that kind of a model. Then the U of M would need not brag how they have reduced healthcare costs at the expense of the workers it covers.

Joe Kidd

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.

National health care is not less expensive. The Affordable Health Care Act is a perfect example. It is not reducing costs it is causing premiums to increase. And the big issue with it is how to pay for it an issue going to the supreme court.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

It should reduce costs for everyone INCLUDING the patients. If you believe that - you have missed all the lessons of history on this one and are still drinking the socialist cool-aid.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.

Hmm.. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Buy stock in these "for profit" companies as an investor. Then you are a shareholder and can vote! I would bet the UM investments in CREF invest in health care companies and in large amounts!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

Did I say anything about the nurses pay? Get your eye's checked! But since YOU mentioned it. You said. "They get a salary and benefits in exchange for doing their job, anything else is a distraction." Does that mean IF they were getting what the administrators are getting it would not be a "distraction" to you?

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.

THEY are the ones that have a problem with what they're getting paid. That's why they're protesting, obviously.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.

So you should have no problem with what they are getting paid!

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7 p.m.

The article includes a photo of protesting nurses and a quote from the nurses' union. Obviously they're talking about nurses' pay. And the administrator salaries would not be relevant to what nurses should get paid either. Nurse pay is determined by the supply and demand for nurses. Nothing else.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

This should have been a reply to Angry Moderator.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.

I honestly don't understand the complaining. My husband is happy he has a decent job & we get health coverage. Health care has gone up for everyone. Not happy with it? There are lots of people on unemployment that would love to have your job...


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.

Just to clarify, my husband does work for U of M but is not a nurse or part of any of the unions. The pay, flexibility, benefits, and time off are great. When people nit pick about having to shell out a buck for anything, it really grates my nerves.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

Exactly. Anyone can look it up at <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> and see that nurses get perfectly good salaries.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.

The nurses got a better deal than every other union in the hospital. ALL the other unions agreed to some concessions with the understanding that they would apply to everyone. The nurses backed out and got a special deal, they're still getting raises when others are on a pay freeze. Yet they're STILL whining, unlike the perfectly good nurses at St. Joe's who aren't even unionized.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

Angry Yes we are in agreement. And looking at some of your other post we are in agreement on a number of things.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.

Good, we agree then. The administrator raises are ridiculous, no need to pay extra when the market is saturated with qualified people who want those jobs.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.

I am ALSO glad to see their benefits getting more in line with reality and the current economy. I would just like to see the fat cats benefits getting more in line with reality and the current economy.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.

Oh sorry, I meant they were agreeing to increase their share of the healthcare costs, not an actual pay cut. I would not cut their pay, but I am glad to see their benefits getting more in line with reality and the current economy.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.

Angry You said: &quot;The deal the other unions made was based on the understanding that all employees were agreeing to cuts&quot; If this does not imply that the nurses should take a pay cut then I apologize. And you can clear this up by saying you don't think they should take a cut!

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.

jcj - please point out where I suggested a pay cut, or refrain from lying and putting words in my mouth.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.

Obviously, I am not only talking about the nurses, as my message was comparing the nurses' contract to the contract of ALL the other employees.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.

Why do you keep whining about the Nurses. This article was not only about nurses, it was about all UM employees....what is your problem with nurses, or do you simply have nurse envy??? If you want to be a nurse, just go to school, you do not have to act like you don't want to be a nurse. You can do it Angry, just do it.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.

Not the same thing at all buddy. The deal the other unions made was based on the understanding that all employees were agreeing to cuts to get the budget in order. That's how the administration presented it, but that's not what they got.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.

Earlier you said: Notice the quotation marks! &quot;The nurses' pay has nothing to do with administrator salaries or new buildings or anything else. They get a salary and benefits in exchange for doing their job, anything else is a distraction.&quot; I say to you:The nurses' pay has nothing to do with &quot;every other union in the hospital or anything else&quot;. They get a salary and benefits in exchange for doing their job, anything else is a distraction.&quot;

average joe

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.

&quot;We have been working hard... and we probably haven't been receiving the credit we deserve,&quot; Slottow said of the school's thriftiness..... I wouldn't define passing on medical insurance costs to employees as being &quot;thriftee&quot;. Oh, &amp; careful there pattin' yourself on the back....


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.

The retirees are next! The UM is already making plans to cut the healthcare benefits for retirees and they have sworn all the members of that committee to secrecy. This cost shifting is the same thing as a pay cut but UM wants to say that their wages are &quot;competitive&quot;. These kind of pay cuts may be necessary considering the aging population and the cost of medical care except that the &quot;savings&quot; will not go into cutting premium costs for everyone but instead will be pocketed by people like Ms. Pescovitz who will get bonuses for her cost saving efforts. should ask Mr. Fastow if he gets a bonus for his cost saving efforts., follow the money. Where do these &quot;savings&quot; get spent.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.

So? Federal retirees pay the same amount as employees. Ask a VA employee across the street. It's fair and should apply to state employees as well.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.

Join the real world!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.

Extra! Monolithic healthcare institution cuts employee healthcare? MARY SUE COLMAN to hand out rebates to students and patents! Extra! University of Michigan unions create separate "insurance purchasing group" to thwart rising university administrative costs!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.

Nurses are getting a total of 10% increase in wages over the next 3 years!! Quit your whining!!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.

What is the total of bonus and salary increases paid to top 10 at UMHS during this period? How much has been spent on relocation and signing bonus to new/retained staff? If $400 million has been saved, then half the new hospital has been built on the backs (or sacrifices) of their employees. How much in the U of M endowment fund?


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.

&quot;They have accepted these changes and been really, amazingly good about recognizing our needs to cut costs,&quot; What choice does anyone have? None. Just be thankful for the job and insurance. No one's bottom line is going up, that's for sure. Losing money.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.

This just boggles my mind. I read all the time about the U-M renovating THIS, buying THAT, the &quot;higher-ups&quot; making X-amount of dollars, pay increases.....and oh yes, don't forget the commercials. Lots of money there, folks. Advertising &quot;ain't cheap.&quot; Then, when I read in today's article &quot;They have accepted these changes and been really, amazingly good about recognizing our needs to cut costs,&quot; she said. I really don't get it.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.

Yeah I agree, revenues should be going to cost savings for patients.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

I never said that advertising benefited just the nurses. I said the university as a whole. I once worked there myself and I have family members as well as a very good friend who is a nurse who are currently employed there. If they should spend money on anything????? More parking and lower....the...cost.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.

Non sequitor. There's no reason that increased revenues from advertising need to go to this one group of employees just because they whine the loudest.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.

Exactly...on the advertising comment. Yet they make more money and still cry about having to cut spending.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.

The point of advertising is that it earns you more than you spent on it. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Michigan Man

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.

U of M employees unhappy again? What is wrong with this group? My mother, who was a nurse during the WW II era, reminded me frequently to not the bite the hand that feeds you. It would be refreshing if this group, for once, would express appreciation and/or thankfulness about their U of M employment. Just really tired of this group always being pissed off about something at the U of M. If you are that unhappy just move along to another employer.


Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 6:44 a.m.

Why move on when you know you can use threats to obtain what you want? Of course, just imagine being behind a union so powerful that you could march down a street, hold a sign and call your employer the devil and not only keep your job...but get a better benefit package out of your insults! Eventually, I believe the unions will be eroded away by UM standing against further strikes(by nurses namely). This will in turn allow top talent to compete for new job openings that want the position because its what they want to do, not just for the paycheck.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

It's the big picture in my opinion. I think everyone now is contributing to their health care costs....but when the U-M is constantly in the news about what they spend their money on and the salaries some of these people make a statement about the need to cut back. It isn't right.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.

&quot;That's the shifting of at least $260 million in healthcare costs to employees since 2003.&quot; That's all well and good if the U of M was losing money. But they can't be losing money or they would not be paying the Fat Cat's at the top so much! And how much good do those saving do the patient!


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

jcj has my vote on this one.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.

grye &quot;standard procedure at any big company.&quot; The last time I looked the U was a publicly owned and paid for entity! Not a private company.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.

Complain to the Regents. Employees paying more and top executives receiving more is standard procedure at any big company. Don't like it, then suggest you get on the fast track to the executive level.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.

Ah I agree, there are some hospital administrators deserving a 5-figure pay cut.


Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.

I am not defending the nurses. Just stating a fact that those at the top keep getting and spending like it was 1999!

Angry Moderate

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.

The nurses' pay has nothing to do with administrator salaries or new buildings or anything else. They get a salary and benefits in exchange for doing their job, anything else is a distraction.