State employee benefits fair when sacrifices weighed

Once again, as in years past, potshots are being taken at state employees as a way to balance the state budget. According to one such ad on the radio, the governor is praised for his work in cutting $38 million without raising taxes, while bemoaning the fact that unless he gets rid of “too many state employees and their benefits, which are better than most,” he will probably be forced to raise taxes on everyone in the state.

No. 1: State employees are taxpayers as well, so if taxes must be raised, we will be paying the increases as well. I’m not sure when the residents of Maine decided that because we work for the state, we somehow don’t live here and pay taxes like everyone else.

No. 2: When this ad talks about our health care benefits being “better than most,” please be aware that these have been paid for by our years of service to this state, via contract negotiations, etc. Many of us decided to work for the state primarily because we looked down the road and anticipated that health care would be vital to our survival. To state that we have not been asked to take our fair share of the burden for health care costs is to forget all the things we have had to give up in order for the state to balance the budget over the years. Remember the hit to our retirement? Remember furlough and shutdown days? Remember no cost-of-living increases, year after year, because the state couldn’t afford it? Givebacks – I’d say we have and continue to give plenty.

I’m also very curious where the $46,000 median state worker’s pay came from. I’m making nowhere that amount and I’ve got 21 years in. I’m extremely tired of this new philosophy whereby a company – our government or just an individual – can contract with a person and when it becomes “inconvenient” or “too expensive,” then change its mind about what they originally contracted to do.

As it is, when I inquired about retirement, I was told by Social Security that if I retired at age 65 I would be required to have Medicare as my primary coverage and that my state coverage would act as a backup (and to me that meant my prescription coverage would be intact). I would have to pay the Medicare Part A, which currently stands at $96.40 per month and has a $135 deductible, and also pay 20 percent of most of the other “services” covered. This is where I was assuming my state health care coverage would pick up the slack. Now, I’m under the impression that anyone over 65 and on Medicare will be dropped from state-based policies and that would mean taking out supplemental insurance to cover prescription costs.

Another article that has appeared regarding getting rid of state workers makes me wonder: If they can violate union contracts and get rid of us, does that mean that we can strike to attempt to retain our benefits and jobs? Currently, part of the union agreement with the state is that we are not permitted to strike no matter what type of contract is negotiated; not even if it has to do with shutdown days, furlough days or no increases in cost-of-living.

I would suggest that if it is so necessary to reduce the work force, providing decent retirement incentives would certainly get rid of a lot of employees with 20 or more years’ service.

Nancy W. Worcester lives in St. Albans.