John Bos stirs up a hornets nest: Who promised the STRS associates medical benefits?

From Tom Curtis, 12/06/05:

Hello John & John,

This is in response to your "interesting question" email. The reality is that the STRS probably will never reduce the outstanding benefits (the best of the five retirement systems in Ohio) the employees are provided, unless a whole new administration comes about. One of Damon's favorite responses, since 2003 to our repeated requests for change in employee benefits has always been "If we were to change that, the employees would not like it." I am sure you would know what my response to that has always been.

We retirees must understand the STRS management feels a great need and usefulness for and from the STRS employee, whereas, the retiree is considered to be a continuous liability to their operation. We do nothing, but cost them money. We are not dying as fast as they planned and those of us between 52 to 65 are the utmost worst offenders in management’s' minds and are required to pay the largest burden. This is the sad reality we must face at this time. Whether we see any change in that scenario, will remain in the hands and mercy of our current board members.

The OEA has the same attitude. Once we retired, we are no longer a cash cow. Most do not join the OEA-R. We become nameless and faceless. We are probably deleted from their membership listing, never to be thought of again. It is interesting for all to know that their own retired workers are currently suing the OEA, as they discontinued health care benefits for them as well.

Please remember, Dyer may be gone, but his legacy remains and is carried on in the minds and actions of Damon Asbury, Bob Slater, Steve Mitchel and all others with that entitlement mentality. It was only about a year ago that Bob Slater reminded Molly Janczyk that our money is safe. That would be our contributions. The money they make from the investments of our contributions is not our money in their minds; it is the boards' and management’s' money to spend as they see fit. Please try to keep that in mind and everybody should be happy. YEAH, RIGHT!

The statement, "Retirement without health care is no retirement at all," is little more then lost air, when it is said by the STRS management staff. If our management at the STRS genuinely believe that, we retirees would not be there each month bothering them and keeping them from doing their jobs by having to contend with our complaints. We would have the health care benefit we were promised.

The STRS staff has known from the early 90's that health care was going to become an issue to be dealt with. What did they do to solve this problem? They have made a lot of statements they did not honor, such as the one above, which has most recently been made by Damon Asbury.

In the December 1992 STRS Newsletter, No. 79 it states, "Although the $354 million allocation (made in November 1991 from the general fund) will help stabilize the health care fund until 2002, it is not a permanent funding solution," explained C. James Grothaus, executive director. "An additional source is needed to add to the existing funding source that is statute paid through the employer contribution rate. The board is currently studying a proposal that, along with the $354 million allocation to the HCSF, would help maintain health care benefits on a permanent basis. STRS allocation projections and revenue sources are currently under study in an attempt to provide a plan that will be sufficient to fund pension benefits and health care coverage through the year 2020. Teacher advocacy groups have been asked to comment by December 1992 on a funding proposal that was recommended by Director Grothaus. The Retirement Board will review the input from the advocacy groups and determine its strategy for health care funding."

I will read the next few 1993 STRS Newsletters to see what they actually did decide to do to maintain health care benefits on a permanent basis. Do the statements above not sound like a statement of promise to any of you? Please respond?

Take care,

Tom Curtis

---

From Tom Curtis

Dec. 6, 2005

Hello John Bos,

Actually, those of us between the ages of 52 to 65, have a spouse to insure and retired before 1999 are in the poorest of situations. Until we reach the age of 65, the cost of our health care benefit could use up all of our savings or worse yet, bankrupt us. My total cost of health care for 2004 was just over $13,000. That is over one-third of my pension. That should not be the case. There should be a "grandfathering" of those people. Herb Dyer told one retiree, "some people have to fall through the cracks in any policy, so we are just those that fell through the cracks." Isn't that comforting to know. I guess Herb obviously never complied with ORC 3307.15, or he would never have stated such.

Take care,

Tom Curtis

---

Dec. 6, 2005

And so it goes! Every day I realize that we are lower than WHALE DUNG on the food chain!!

John Bos

---

STRS associates health care amounts to an annual bonus paid by STRS members!

Nancy Hamant

---

From Molly Janczyk

Dec. 6, 2005

I'm simply saying these are competitive job offerings. We, as actives, had great dental as a very large grp for a few dollors a month. STRS is a small group. Everyone looks for benefits when working esp. those receiving lower incomes as the majority of staff. I think there are other areas to concentrate on with much higher savings. I just don't think we can compare the two grps as employees are not receiving out of line HC benefits. Other areas like the child care which we have all screamed about and the double tuition reimbursement over other state agencies who give $3500 per yr vs $7000 and bonuses are a different story as they are comparable to other state employees. Any of us would look for jobs with competitive HC packages. Other businesses are increasing premiums payments per employee incrementally: Kroger just went from -0- to a few dollars a month. So, to increase monthly premiums competatively is certainly in order.

---

From John Curry 12/06/05:

Molly, I would suggest that free family dental (for associates)-at the expense of retirees and actives (for STRS associates) from an organization whose unfunded liability is skyrocketing is pushing the envelope a little too far. Not to mention the continuation of the $7,000 per year adoption perc that is still offered to the associates. Not to mention that PART TIME employees of STRS are still eligible for the excellent hc and free family dental insurance offered to them at our expense. Not to mention that the child care program for STRS associates is still not cost neutral. When times are tough, percs and bennies could and should be eliminated (remember STRS associates are "at will" employees)- but aren't. I think the Buck Report shed light on this situation (Buck didn't even consider bonuses) that STRS associates are on a par or above par for private enterprise in the Columbus, OH area. Problem is, STRS is not private enterprise. These figures need to be exposed and discussed. Maybe my line of thinking is "out of bounds," but these facts and figures need to be brought out and discussed. Information is the currency of democracy.

John - a Proud CORE member

---

From: Molly Janczyk

December 06, 2005

We must be very careful comparing two different areas. We got better benefits also as actives and it was contractual. The state does not promise retiree HC. We must stick to comparisons that can be compared. Actives ALWAYS get better benefits to attract to workplaces. IT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE.

---

From: John Bos

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:06 AM

Subject: Interesting Question

John,

If the retiree members of STRS were never promised medical benefits, who promised the associates medical benefits?

If the will need to eliminate our coverage, should not their benefits also be eliminated? We need the associates to feel our pain.

The only pain that they currently feel are the emails and comments at the STRS Board Meeting. This goes in the ear and our the rear.

John Bos