 |
| May 04, 2025 |
Welcome! Click here to Login
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 02, 2011
To the Editor,
Is it possible to keep tax increases for the village within the 2% tax cap? Absolutely! It will require difficult decisions on the part of our village board but these are difficult financial times and require smart financial decisions. The state CSEA has a tentative agreement for its members with a proposed new 5 year contract which contains a 0% pay increase for the first 3 years and then a 2% increase for the last two years. In addition, they will pay from 2% to 6% more for their health benefits (they already pay 10% for an individual plan and 25% for a family plan). They will receive no longevity payments or increment payments. Additionally, they are looking at a potential of 5 unpaid furlough days for this year and 4 days for next year. I do not believe the village needs to take such drastic measures but I do believe it is time that the employees began to pay at least a portion of their benefits. Last year the board was offered a health benefits plan from a local insurer that would not adversely affect the village employees and it would have saved the village about $8,000-$9,000 per month totaling $100,000 per year. CSEA refused the plan. Since the village residents pay for 100% of the healthcare costs –at a minimum village employees should be required to pay $100,000 toward their healthcare plan costs. I worked for the federal government for 35 years. During that time I always paid for a portion of my healthcare benefits and retirement costs. Many years we had small or no annual increases. I have been retired for three years and, for the last two years, I have received no cost of living increases and the cost of my healthcare plan has increased each year. Even those folks on social security with Medicare pay over $96.00 per month. I am sure that for most of you, if you have a healthcare plan, are contributing to the plan. Why should it be any different for the village employees? With a large population on fixed incomes and expenses rising for everyone it is time that the village board takes a hard stand to reduce what it costs to run the village. I don’t think it is fair that I should have to pay for 100% of the village employees benefits. It is time they contributed their fair share.
Jan Smith
Cornwall-on-Hudson
534-4687
Comments:
|
Jan,
As a current federal employee I concur with paying into the system as I always have since I started with my position. But when you take a job where the salary may be low but the benefits are 100% that weighs into the decision to work for that organization. Changing the rules of the benefits in the middle of your career may not be commensurate with the given salary. Easier said for those taking a windshield observation, and $100,000 divided throughout the village taxpayers is very small savings to keep our nations people gainfully employed.
posted by j h on 08/03/11 at 9:23 AM
|
|
Ira,
If the village employees accept the alternate healthcare plan the village could continue to pay 100% of the costs and would still be able to save $100,000. Since the employees would not have to pay anything toward the plan a compromise on their part seems only fair. At a time when many people do not even have healthcare coverage why can't a compromise be made that can still provide healthcare and save us money?
posted by Jan Smith on 08/03/11 at 7:00 PM
|
|
Jan,
I'm not sure I understand your reply. In any case my comments stand. And I do not understand why we want to take away from someone fortunate enough to have benefits so they can be without just like everyone else. Misery does not deserve company. Leave these hardworking men and perhaps women alone. There are bigger fish to fry.
posted by j h on 08/04/11 at 11:23 PM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
