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.

snapshot

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.

Joe_Citizen

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.

Jack

Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 4:48 a.m.

annarbor.com - 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.

jrigglem

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.

rcastentman

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.

Sallyxyz

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.

hweingarten

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: "...is 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.

kathryn

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?

guyfroma2mi

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.

xmo

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!

Cici

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).

dextermom

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.

A2James

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...

Mike

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.

ANTI LIBERAL

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

aareader

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.

jcj

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?

aroo_mama

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...

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.

average joe

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 6:10 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..... I wouldn't define passing on medical insurance costs to employees as being "thriftee". Oh, & careful there pattin' yourself on the back....

trespass

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 "competitive". These kind of pay cuts may be necessary considering the aging population and the cost of medical care except that the "savings" 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. AA.com should ask Mr. Fastow if he gets a bonus for his cost saving efforts. AA.com, follow the money. Where do these "savings" get spent.

newsboy

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!

A2Medic

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!!

dougfroma2

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?

TrappedinMI

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

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

lisam

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 "higher-ups" making X-amount of dollars, pay increases.....and oh yes, don't forget the commercials. Lots of money there, folks. Advertising "ain't cheap." Then, when I read in today's article "They have accepted these changes and been really, amazingly good about recognizing our needs to cut costs," she said. I really don't get 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.

jcj

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

"That's the shifting of at least $260 million in healthcare costs to employees since 2003." 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!