After the benefits discussion points comes a list of all feedback received, with items received over the weekend first. Brenner initial benefits discussion points: 1) possible compensation for not taking the health benefits package if a spouse has a better plan; 2) a fixed number of $ of benefits per faculty member, with the option of a yet-to-be-determined match ratio of money contributed into health care benefits; 3) increasing partcipation in the retirement plan (40% of faculty don't participate, even though your contributions are matched.); 4) the ability to move money not spent on healthcare (i.e. by using the risk/reward plan) to retirement contributions; 5) a "cafeteria plan" for employee benefits. -------------------------- At 08:47 AM 7/16/2007, Edward Kalajian wrote: >Jim, > >I was bothered by the statistic that many at Florida Tech do not use the >403b. I suggest that the faculty senate sponsor a seminar on why all >employees should be putting funds away for retirement. This should not >be done by any of the investment companies or by HR. It should be >conducted by employees or emeritus faculty who are currently invested >and are respected by the majority of employees. > >If not the faculty senate, then perhaps the Quality of Life committee >could sponsor. > >Ed > >Very Truly Yours >Edward H. Kalajian, Ph.D, P.E. >Professor, Civil Engineering >Associate Dean, College of Engineering >Florida Institute of Technology >150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne, FL, 32901-6975 >321-674-8020 FAX 321-674-7270 >kalajian@fit.edu -----Original Message----- From: Monica Baloga To: Edward Kalajian ; James Brenner Sent: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 9:08 am Subject: RE: Feedback on changes to the benefits package Ed and Jim, Dr. Catanese had talked to me as well about this issue. Jim, as chair of the QOL committee, I would be happy to work with you on sponsoring this type of event. Or I would be happy to have the QOL committee sponsor it solo, if that is what you wanted. Thank you, Ed, for offering this suggestion. Monica ------------------------------------ Dr. Catanese had talked to me as well about this issue. Jim, as chair of the QOL committee, I would be happy to work with you on sponsoring this type of event. Or I would be happy to have the QOL committee sponsor it solo, if that is what you wanted. Thank you, Ed, for offering this suggestion. Monica Dear Monica, How does Tuesday, August 27th at 3:30 in the library sound for such an event? Jim Brenner --------------------------------------- Here are my comments about the possible changes you listed. At 10:00 PM 7/10/2007, you wrote: >After discussions with the administration, >it is clear that now is a unique time to >make changes to our benefits package. >Among the possible changes: > >1) possible compensation for not taking the health benefits package >if a spouse has a better plan; I am strongly opposed to this suggestion, admittedly for somehat self-serving reasons. Despite the increasing costs, I think our health benefits package is one of our best benefits at Florida Tech. Those who choose not to participate in the plan already save the cost of their contribution. If Florida Tech compensates these individuals in addition then, as you pointed out, there will be less money available for salary and retirement benefits for the rest of us. I would especially oppose compensating those who choose not to participate in any health plan, presmably those who believe they are healthiest. Encouraging these individuals not to participate will further increase the cost of the health insurance for the rest of us. Brenner response: Those who choose not to participate in the health plan get nothing right now for not participating. This does lower the cost for everyone else, but if employee A works for those benefits, employee A ought to reap the reward of his/her work. By compensating people not to take health benefits, we will lower the size of the overall pool, possibly driving up costs to the rest of us slightly but lowering the cost overall to the university substantially. The university is far better off financially than it was several years ago, but our biggest vulnerability is skyrocketing health benefit costs. I know of several people, including myself, that take FIT healthcare benefits despite my wife's healthcare benefits being at least comparable. Many employers, including HealthFirst and the Brevard Public Schools, allow employees to take compensation instead of healthcare benefits. >2) a fixed number of $ of benefits per faculty member, with the >option of a yet-to-be-determined match ratio of money >contributed into health care benefits; Again, I strongly oppose this suggestion. Please explain to me how this could possibly benefit the faculty and staff as a whole. Are you suggesting that we will have to choose between health insurnace, life insurance, disability insurance and retirement benefits because there will only a fixed amount that we can use for these? I assume that our other benefits (e.g., dental, vision, HRA) would be excluded since the university does not contribute to these. Brenner response: One of the possible benefits to such a plan would be the potential to get university contributions to dental, vision, HRA, etc. >3) increasing partcipation in the retirement plan >(40% of faculty don't participate, even though your >contributions are matched.); I echo the comments of others in being very surprised that so many faculty are not willing to double their money by contributing at least the first 5 % to retirement. My conclusion is that they must feel their salary is so low that they can not afford to contribute even with the obvious incentive. Perhaps better advertising would help increase enrollment. Changing the process to opt out instead of opting in, as suggested, might be helpful. I cerrtainly would support an increase in the matching percentage, either for everyone or a gradual increase based on time at Florida Tech. This would be my top priority among the five proposed changes. >4) the ability to move money not spent on healthcare >(i.e. by using the risk/reward plan) to retirement contributions; This would be fine if it is legal. >5) a "cafeteria plan" for employee benefits. This is what we have now, isn't it? Brenner response: Not exactly. There are many benefits that many of us pay for but know we will never use. For me, an example of this would be mental health benefits. ------------------------- Regarding the cap on an individual's benefits, you must be joking (or I'm not reading your previous response correctly). Of all the problems that Florida Tech has, too many benefits for faculty is not one of them. Brenner response: An individual's benefits would not be capped, per se. The university already sets a budget on how much it wants to spend on benefits. One of many "fair" ways to handle benefits is to cover the employee in full, and offer the option for coverage of family members, etc. Literally everything is "on the table" right now, so there will be much to cuss and discuss. The university administration's goals are as follows: 1) Provide comparable benefits to what we have now, or better 2) Keep costs down to a minimum 3) Provide faculty members with as much control over their own futures as possible 4) Make sure that everyone is adequately prepared for retirement -------------------------------------------------------- This all sounds good. I can't believe that 40% of the faculty doesn't participate in the retirement plan, that's crazy! ------------------------------------------------ I think all 5 should be targets for change. Thank you for taking this on. ------------------------------------------------- I support 3 and 4 and then option 1. I think an increase on the matching funds would be ideal. --------------------------------------------- I am all for these kinds of proposals. I am one of those who has never maintained health insurance through Florida Tech, and I am very interested in increasing the value of retirement benefits. Brenner response: Cutting health costs is something we have to do if our salaries and retirement benefits are to increase. ------------------------- How about a gradual increase in the matching percentage for the retirement accounts as a function of years of service ? The flat 5% we are getting now are rather low compared to what other institutions are contributing... Brenner response: Providing an incentive for people to stay is a good idea. This is one that we might be able to push through as a benefit tied to promotions. --------------------------- As a long standing member of the Faculty Senate's Welfare Committee, I was interested in the ideas on the table for benefits reform. Since these important alternatives have been mentioned before, I think it's time to assemble a study group to probe the administration's in-depth plans for each of these options and to look at other institutions which offer similar plans. Obviously, the first step in this process is to find a senator to chair the Welfare Committee. I'm sorry to say that this office has been one that senators -- other than Cecilia Knoll -- have been reluctant to take. Perhaps you can find a new chair who will continue in Cecilia's tradition and work with the committee to tackle issues of vital importance (as this one is) to the faculty and university community at large. Footnote--I don't know if you realize it, but the equity program grew out of the seed the Welfare Committee planted in Dick Enstice's mind several years ago--one of the committee's best moments! I'm sure there will be more vital policies to come. I look forward to my continued work on the committee and wish you well in your role in the coming year. Have a good vacation! Brenner response: Finding a new senator to chair the Welfare Committee is something that needs done ASAP. Any volunteers? The equity pay program is one of the most important things that the Senate has accomplished in recent years. I got an equity raise myself this time around. The equity raise meant that I no longer could say that my 9-month salary was less than students graduating with B.S.'s in chemical engineering were getting to start for 12 months. Thanks go to the Senate and the Administration! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you please elaborate on "cafeteria plan"? I thought that's what we have where we get to choose many pre-tax benefits. Thanks and happy vacation! Brenner response: In addition, or perhaps instead of, what we have now, you get $x per employee, and you spend it how you see fit. --------------------------------------------- From a staff member: Like the idea. As a staff member and adjunct, I like it. Good luck maybe they might go for it for staff also. I do not take any benefits except life insurance as I bring all my benefits from the job from which I retired. ------------------------------------------- I am in agreement that this should be examined. Being off-campus, we don't have access to all benefits. When I wanted to sign up for AFLAC, I was told that the University's rep wasn't licensed outside of Fla. AFLAC is not a local concern and we have employees in numerous states. Does make one wonder. Thanks for tackling this issue. Brenner response: AFLAC should be available to all employees. ------------------------------------ >1) possible compensation for not taking the health benefits package >if a spouse has a better plan; Fac: at present this is not applicable, although if/when my wife does return to work, I'd welcome this as an option. >2) a fixed number of $ of benefits per faculty member, with the >option of a yet-to-be-determined match ratio of money >contributed into health care benefits; Fac: I'm not sure that I understand this correctly ... are you suggesting a health care benefits cap per faculty member? If so ... I am going to disagree as a matter of principle. I would hate to see one of our faculty members hurt in a serious accident or illness ... or have this happen to one of their dependents ... and then face extensive health care costs because of any such cap. There is both an individual (or family) and collective dimension to the university's policy coverage. Brenner response: What is being discussed right now is a benefits cap per faculty member, with the option of being able to buy more with some university match. >4) the ability to move money not spent on healthcare >(i.e. by using the risk/reward plan) to retirement contributions; Fac: not likely for me as I have a wife and six-year old son covered under my policy ... and we always seem to have something crop up (e.g., I had a doctor-ordered stress test in late June). The concept of moving unspent funds to retirement plans is fine ... as long as this does not compromise the "collective dimension" that I mentioned above. > >5) a "cafeteria plan" for employee benefits. Fac: It seems as if we have been moving in this direction for some time. However, I do not want to have to guess which specific services my family and I are going to want or need in any given policy period ... and do not want to have to wade through that much information to make informed choices. I am on the PPO 80 plan and find that to be "just about right" in terms of the balance between choice and coverage. -------------------- Dr. Brenner, I am definitely interested in compensation for not using the health benefits and also for a cafeteria plan for employee benefits. ----------------------------- 1. Don't use the word "Spouse". I have a better package, but not through my wife. Say, "Provide compensation for not taking the health benefits package". Brenner response: OK. Didn't mean to be politically incorrect, although sometimes I am. 3. Say, "Require participation in the retirement plan unless the employee opts out in writing". Brenner response: OK ------------------------------ Jim, As someone who doesn't use the university health benefits, I say Hurrah! I asked them in m y first year to match into my 403(b) since I didn't participate in the health plan and it was refused. ----------------- From a staff member: Because of my PT status, there are no benefits available to me. I would be interested in some type of opportunity to join your medical plan; dental, or other benefit plans as a PT employee if possible.