Home / OPEA BLOG

"Na Na Na Na, Na a Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye"

On the eve of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association Lobby Day, in which thousands of state employees will converge on Oklahoma’s Capitol, Representative Ron Peterson, R-Tulsa, announced the death of his controversial House Bill 3108.

 

In his press release dated March 10, 2008, Peterson gave credit to OPEA and election-year pressures for derailing his efforts to reform the state employee benefit allowance.

 

“We had an opportunity for a real win-win solution to a long-term funding problem facing state government, but the lack of visible support from the state agencies, state employees, and election-year pressures, have derailed the employee pay raise bill,’ said Peterson.

 

Peterson claimed that HB 3108 would have reformed the way the state pays for employee health benefits, freeing up millions to fund a pay raise for workers without any loss in health coverage.

 

OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley was excited upon learning about the demise of HB 3108. 

 

“We are glad to see HB 3108 and the attack on the state employee benefit allowance go away” said Zearley.  “In its current form, this bill would have harmed state employees.  There were no assurances that any change to the formula would have resulted in the millions of dollars it would have taken to make state employees whole.”

 

On the other side of the ledger, OPEA advocated for compensation reform. 

 

“OPEA advocated for a $2,700 pay raise, as well as a trigger that would have provided automatic pay raises for state employees of at least five percent when state revenues climbed more than three percent,” continued Zearley.  “This language would have resulted in state employees receiving 20 pay raises in the last 28 years, which is significant reform in our books.”

 

“OPEA still insists that state employees are due a pay raise and a long-term market compensation commitment from legislators,’ concluded Zearley.  “We have taken all the steps to reform, investigate, study and document the plight of state employees.  It’s time for the state’s leadership to invest in its workforce.”

 

"One battle has been won for a time," said Zearley.  "The battle for a pay raise is still ongoing.  Lobby Day will help us convince the legislature that we are a unified bloc and that our pay raise is due."

Posted on Mon, March 10, 2008 by Scott Barger

41 comments (Add your own)

1. FattCatt wrote:
OK folks here it is OPEA has proven their worth and I think its at least worth $15.00 a month!

Join OPEA!

>*x*<

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 8:19 PM

2. Brandon wrote:
Way to go! Good job, OPEA! This is an excellent opportunity for current members to talk with state employees who haven't joined yet. We all need to pull together and do our part to make working in state government the honor, privilege, and benefit that it deserves to be.

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 8:35 PM

3. TC wrote:
That's nice work OPEA! From my family, THANKS!

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 9:22 PM

4. ???? wrote:
Why would anybody think it was good to be knocked out of a pay raise? I thought it was odd when the pay raise was tacked on to a bill obviously meant to hurt state employees. If you have to go that far to get something killed, then state employees must be real low in priority.

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 9:29 PM

5. M wrote:
You did it! YOu did it! YOu guys are awesome! If we get a raise in the future, I'll join! Thank you for all your hard work and sweat! I can feel my blood pressure going back down! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Now I wont' have to look for a different job!

God bless all of you for all your effort!

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 9:30 PM

6. hopeful wrote:
I am very relieved that our benefits will not be cut, but still hoping that we will get the desperately needed raise.

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 10:07 PM

7. wrote:
Not sure what exactly happened here. Representative Peterson claims that "the lack of visible support from the ... state employees ... derailed the employee pay raise bill." HB 3108 unequivocally was not any kind of "pay raise bill." It proposed only to slash state employee compensation with families and children worst affected (unless health care costs plunge for some strange reason). Representative Peterson might not resurrect this very bad idea this legislative season, but that doesn't prevent his colleagues from doing so. Bad (and sometimes good) ideas, rejected once or more, occasionally revive with a fury especially at the end of the legislative session.

In other news, folks, the economy continues to decline rapidly with 45.0% inflation in commodity prices (most severely in cereal grains [wheat]). Perhaps the fiscal fat cats in Washington should take a field trip to Harare or any other equally doomed part of Zimbabwe to experience 100,000% inflation. In the interim, perhaps we can wish for a great harvest in Oklahoma to swell the state treasury. What will happen when our economy really collapses?

Looks like hard economic times ahead. Brace and prepare.

Mon, March 10, 2008 @ 11:07 PM

8. wrote:
Ron Peterson was lying from the beginning. He had no intentions of putting language in HB3108 that would give state workers a payraise. He works for the big insurance companies. Another conflict of intrest thing. Thank you OPEA!

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 12:02 AM

9. wrote:
Opportunity Lost for State Employees
this is what peterson had to say!




Contact: State Rep. Ron Peterson
Capitol: (405) 557-7338

OKLAHOMA CITY (March 10, 2008)

– Legislation that would fund a significant state employee pay raise while also boosting retirement benefits and saving taxpayer money may have been effectively killed this year, state Rep. Ron Peterson said today.


"We had an opportunity for a real win-win solution to a long-term funding problem facing state government, but the lack of visible support from the state agencies and state employees, and election-year pressures, have derailed the employee pay raise bill," said Peterson, a Broken Arrow Republican who chairs the House Economic Development & Financial Services Committee.

House Bill 3108, by Peterson, would have reformed the way the state pays for employee health benefits, freeing up millions to fund a pay raise for those workers without any loss of health coverage.

Currently, the state provides employees a benefit allowance that varies based on family size. Workers can choose from several health plans and, if their insurance plan costs less than the amount of their benefit allowance, they receive the difference in cash.

However, that system has created perverse incentives driving up the taxpayer-funded cost of employee benefits without improving health coverage.

For example, a state worker whose spouse already has insurance through another job can still add that spouse to the lowest-cost state plan to reap the cash difference provided through the benefit allowance.

For most workers, the reward for taking that action totals about $80 per month, but the state pays an additional $553 each month to cover the spouse who already has full health coverage and an additional $889 for a family.

"The state is wasting hundreds of dollars every month to give an extra 80 bucks to an employee," Peterson said. "That’s crazy. In fact, the cost of benefits in 2001 was $129 million and has now grown to $393 million. I think all of us realize the current system is unsustainable."

The system is also inequitable, he noted.

"The formula compensates employees with large families more than those who are single," Peterson said. "Normally, compensation is based on the work being done, not how many dependents you have."

In addition, because a portion of employee pay is now essentially generated through the benefit allowance, it reduces each worker’s retirement benefits, which are calculated on base salary.

House Bill 3108 would implement reforms taking the excess cash out of the benefit system, which would free up approximately $70 million annually. The reform would also reduce the duplication of coverage, which would free up millions of additional dollars to support the pay raise this year.

Peterson’s bill would provide the largest state employee pay raise of any option currently under discussion in this tight budget year.

The state currently pays 100 percent of the cost of an employee’s health insurance costs and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage. Peterson said the state would keep that commitment under House Bill 3108.

The legislation was developed after months of study and after state agencies told lawmakers the benefit allowance system was creating long-term funding problems. However, the same state agencies have failed to educate their employees about the problem and the benefits of the bill.

Peterson noted that he worked with the Oklahoma Public Employees Association throughout the process.

"As we studied this issue, it became apparent we could reform the system in a way that benefits state employees and also saves millions of taxpayer dollars that are wasted today," Peterson said. "That would be an extraordinary achievement in a tight budget year and it is a shame the state agencies, the OPEA and state employees let this opportunity pass."

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 7:47 AM

10. M wrote:
Some of you people just like to complain. Good lord. Next we'll get a 5% pay raise and you'll complain about that. It's OPEA's fault we didn't get more. Give me a break.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 8:52 AM

11. wrote:
Would State Rep's be considered as State employees? If so, wouldn't it be nice to figure out ways to get themselves pay raises? Sounds something like, well if we cut State employee benifits, we could save $$ theoretically. Then, since we did such a great thing, give us a raise.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 8:58 AM

12. Sandy wrote:
Excellent job done, OPEA!

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 10:10 AM

13. wrote:
Ron Peterson was acting like he wanted to help state employees with HB3108. "OH, my intentions are not to hurt state employees or take money from them." What a joke. OPEA fell for this hook, line and sinker. That is like him saying; "just sit there and let me cut off your leg with this hacksaw. It won't hurt a bit. I will come back in a couple of hours to give you a tornequet to stop the bleeding". He never had any intention of putting language into this bill that would give us back a payraise. He was going to sit there and let us bleed if he could get away with it.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 10:15 AM

14. FattCatt wrote:
# 14

I dont see how OPEA fell for this hook, line and sinker when they killed the bill?

>*x*<

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 10:27 AM

15. David Burgess wrote:
Thankful! Grateful! To OPEA for being in the right places and faces to benefit all state employees. To state employees that have become apathetic and think that being a member is a waste of time, then ask a teacher on their way to the bank whether or not numbers make a difference. They are proof that there is strenght and power in numbers. I appreciate the hard work of OPEA. Again, Thanks!

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 10:51 AM

16. MS DEAN wrote:
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A MORON NOT TO WANT A PAY RAISE....IT'S BEEN X NUMBER OF YEARS (SO MANY I CAN'T REMEMBER) SINCE STATE EMPLOYEES HAVE HAD A RAISE, AND NOW THAT ONE IS POSSIBLE, IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO A BILL TO CUT OUR HEALTH BENEFITS...WHAT KIND OF RAISE IS THAT!!! GIVE ME A BREAK...AND A RAISE!!!!!!

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 10:55 AM

17. Tim wrote:
OPEA should have NEVER tried to negotiate a deal with Peterson anyway. It was a bad bill for the state's employees and should have never gotten as far as it did.

BTW, the payraise was an "if" anyway. given our current economy, it likely wouldn't have happened. Howevre, the benefit "recalculation" would have happened and cost us all.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 1:50 PM

18. M wrote:
Some of you obviously have absolutely no clue how politics work. I'm glad you don't work for OPEA or we would truly be in bad shape.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 2:08 PM

19. wrote:
I read the proposed HB 3108 and unless I entirely missed it ,there was nothing about a raise - just recalculation of benefit amount. I don't feel all that secure about this thing being dead. I would have appreciated a "heads up" e-mail from OPEA about this. Heaven knows I get them when they want me to contact my rep. and sen. Unfortunately both are both republicans with those FAMILY VALUES so I don't even get the courtesy of a reply. I attended the rally . . . at least the crowd made it plain how they felt about Sen. Coffey's remarks! Too bad this wasn't covered by any media as far as I could see. I'm just tired of the same ol' stuff. Reality is, if your representative believes in tax reductions (like the Governor) there will never be sufficient money to fund a legitimate pay raise.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 2:29 PM

20. M wrote:
Once again, the media paints the state employees in a bad light. Briefly, News On 6 out of Tulsa had a brief report on the death of this bill. According to their report, it sounded as if we are all recieving state benefits for free. I get tired of reading the phrase "State funded" in regards to our jobs. When these same tax payers use a not-for-profit service, their monies go to support not only that company, but the employees. Everytime a product or service raises their prices, part of it goes to give raises to their own employees. Yet, the media doesn't drag employees from not-for-profit companies through the mud for getting a raise--and I don't need to point out that public sector raises are more than a measly 3% and that they come almost yearly.

Channel 6 also reported Rep Peterson as claiming that 96% of the State employees took the lower insurance just to get the extra money. He made us sound greedy and grasping. How does he know why they took the lower insurance? I planned to respond to these ridiculous accusations, but again, the web sight seems to have forgotten to add a comment section. And they have already replaced it with more current reports.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 3:07 PM

21. dj wrote:
for those of us that didn't get to go what were Coffey's remarks?

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 3:41 PM

22. RM wrote:
I just wanted to thank OPEA for all the hard work that you do. I was seriously thinking about getting another job, the state needs to think about their employees, a lot of us that work for the state could get much better paying jobs such as working for a tribe, etc. But we stay because we are loyal to the state of oklahoma and want to help improve the lives of the people who live and work here. I hope some day the lawmakers will appreciate state employees for what they do for the welfare of oklahomans.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 4:34 PM

23. TC wrote:
Looks like OPEA killed the deal! ATA BOY!

Employee health benefit plan measure dies in House
By Tim Talley

Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that would recalculate state workers’ health benefit allowance and provide money for a pay raise for state employees will not be heard in the Oklahoma House this year after failing to win support, the measure’s author said Monday.

But lawmakers will continue working with the state workers union on a plan to restructure the way the state pays for employee health benefits to free up millions of tax dollars for a pay raise for workers without any change in health coverage, said state Rep. Ron Peterson, R-Broken Arrow.

“The issue is not going away,” Peterson said. “It’s an unsustainable program, the rate of growth in the benefits. It’s going to have to be restructured.”

The measure, which had mixed support when it was approved by the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee a week ago, involves the health benefit allowance available to state employees.

Workers can choose from several health plans and, if their insurance plan costs less than their benefit allowance, they receive the difference in cash. However, the system has created incentives that have driven up the taxpayer-funded cost of employee benefits without improving health coverage.

A state worker whose spouse already has insurance through another job can still add that spouse to the lowest-cost state plan to reap the cash difference provided through the benefit allowance.

For most workers, the reward for doing that totals about $80 per month, but the state pays an additional $553 each month to cover the spouse who already has full health coverage and an additional $889 for a family.

Peterson said the state is wasting hundreds of dollars every month to give an extra $80 to an employee. “In fact, the cost of benefits in 2001 was $129 million and has now grown to $393 million,” he said.

Peterson said 96 percent of state workers are not choosing more expensive health insurance options and instead take cash to supplement their salaries. Fewer people in the higher option health plans means they become more expensive for those who are in it.

The legislation would take the excess cash out of the benefit system, freeing up about $70 million a year and reducing the duplication of coverage. That would free up millions of additional dollars to support the pay raise.

The state currently pays 100 percent of the cost of an employee’s health insurance costs and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage. Peterson said that would remain the same under his bill.

But the change was opposed by the Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which represents about 34,000 state workers. OPEA officials have said the change would cost a family with children about $250 per month.

“There’s been so much consternation on this bill,” Peterson said.

OPEA has proposed $2,700 across-the-board pay raises for state workers this year, a plan that would cost about $90 million to implement. The plan is slightly more expensive than Gov. Brad Henry’s proposed 5-percent pay hike for state workers.

Peterson said his bill would provide the largest state employee pay raise of any option proposed this year.

The measure is House Bill 3108.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 6:21 PM

24. TC wrote:
???? you are clueless and and CWA member and everyone knows it. Do us a favor and go away

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 6:57 PM

25. Curt wrote:
What peterson didnt mention is that we would be paying for our own raise

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 6:58 PM

26. wrote:
TC

I've been down this road with ???? save your breath.

>*x*<

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 7:37 PM

27. TC wrote:
This guy can't count but its a good article anyway of the power of OPEA! I'm glad I took the day off, I needed to sun and some stress relief.

OK-State employees rally at Capitol for more pay
03/11/2008 by William W. Savage III
(OK) A raucous crowd of state employees chanted "It's our turn" and rejected the notion that money is not available for pay raises during a rally on the state Capitol's south steps Tuesday.
About 200 members of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association listened to legislators and Gov. Brad Henry around noon. Many held signs supporting a $2,700 pay increase, and others' signs protested a currently dormant proposal to decrease a certain faction of employee benefit pay.

One bright orange sign, held behind the podium, read: "Our representatives - 6th highest paid in the nation. State employees - 50th lowest pay in the nation. Who's supporting who?"

Several Democratic senators and representatives spoke in favor of state employee pay raises.

"We have to stop the turnover in state agencies," said House Democrat Leader Danny Morgan of Prague. "You know the experience and dedication that we lose to the private sector."

Others implied it is not only employees that are going to the private sector.

"Ask those members (of the Legislature) if they voted for the last tax cuts," said Sen. Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau. "Don't let them say that there's no money for your pay raises but that they voted for tax cuts (last year).

"This is an election year. If this Legislature does not act, then hold these members responsible."

Corn has offered his own legislation that would provide a pay raise. SB 1379 awards a $2,700 salary increase to full-time and part-time state employees who received a rating of "meets standards" or higher on his or her performance rating effective July 1, 2008. The measure excludes certain individuals from being eligible for the pay raise. The bill prohibits money appropriated to the agency for the salary increase from being used to increase compensation for employees of private businesses under contract with the agency.

Moments after Corn's comments, Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, stepped to the podium and thanked the employees for the important work they do.

But Coffee said he was not going to beat around the bush.

"I wish I was standing here today saying the pay raise was definitely going to happen," Coffee said to a chorus of "boo's."

"Quit giving all the oil companies all the tax breaks!" yelled one crowd member.

"Let's take it out of your paycheck!" yelled another.

"Find the money!" yelled a third, to which the first crowd member responded: "You gave it all to the oil companies!"

Coffee continued.

"I know my message isn't popular today," he said, adding that in an election year, it is easy for the Democrats to make promises.

After he left the podium, Coffee extended his comments, adding that the pay raise proposal has a fiscal impact of "tens of millions of dollars" in what everyone agrees is a tight budget year.

Coffee also said the bill that would affect employee benefits likely would not be heard on the House floor.

The bill to which Coffee referred was HB 3108, by Rep. Ron Peterson, R-Broken Arrow. The bill modifies language related to the state's flexible benefit plan, expanding a certain calculation of average monthly premiums to include all health insurance plans, not just high option plans.

"That bill is dead for the session, and I probably don't see it coming back," Coffee said.

The bill was pulled from the House agenda Monday, which was happy news to one OPEA member.

"We're not asking for a lot," said James Swanson, an employee of the Department of Corrections. "We're just asking for enough money to get by."

Swanson said he would not vote for any legislator who had supported recent tax cuts.

"I'm not for a tax increase, but if we don't have enough money to do what we need to do, how can we be cutting taxes?" Swanson asked.

Speaker of the House Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, and Henry also spoke to the crowd, and while they did not advocate the proposed raise as requested by the employees, both stressed the importance of state employees. Henry noted that Oklahoma's employees fall below market pay.

"We have the best state employees in the country," Henry said. "Unfortunately ?."

Henry was cut-off by "boo's" and crowd comments: "Tell us something we don't know!" one member said.

"Pay us!" said another.

But Henry continued his statement, saying that he had proposed a 5 percent increase in employee pay during his State of the State address. OPEA is requesting a 12 percent increase.

Henry, despite budget concerns, remained optimistic.

"There is no reason that we cannot overcome this challenge," Henry said. "It is long past time that we institute a long-term pay plan for state employees."

Paul Sund, Henry's press secretary, later said Henry wants "whatever we can get" for both his teacher and state employee pay raise proposals.

Tue, March 11, 2008 @ 9:20 PM

28. Jim wrote:
If CWA members are coming on here for the sole purpose of posing as disgruntled OPEA members, their lives are truly sad.

Wed, March 12, 2008 @ 8:31 AM

29. Chris wrote:
I think the state employess that live in Ron Peterson's district need to do what they can to see that he isn't re-elected for any policital position....

Wed, March 12, 2008 @ 10:03 AM

30. wrote:
Panhandle: A member of the OPEA. Good work!!!!

Wed, March 12, 2008 @ 10:08 AM

31. John Martin wrote:
Take ANYTHNG away from state workers and there is no reason to stay and make a difference in Oklahoman's lives that need our help.

Wed, March 12, 2008 @ 4:24 PM

32. S wrote:
But M they do work for OPEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wed, March 12, 2008 @ 5:25 PM

33. Vickie Pannell wrote:
I'm sure the legislature thinks now that the bill is killed State Employees will be happy. Wrong!! Give us the raise we deserve. The legislature sure doesn't worry about saving money when they vote themselves a raise every year.

Fri, March 14, 2008 @ 9:26 AM

34. Vickie Pannell wrote:
I am glad the bill is killed. But State Employees are not happy enough to forget about our raise. The politicians aren't worried about saving money when they vote themselves a pay raise every year. We are one of the lowest paid state employees in the United States and would like to move up. Vickie Pannell

Fri, March 14, 2008 @ 9:32 AM

35. Carol wrote:
As long as that bill is untitled it can be slipped in somewhere. We have to be ever watchful and be ready to notify all state employees about it's status. If we are not vigilant and have people to work for our best interests, like OPEA, then we will be at the
mercy of those that really don't care about
anyone but themselves. The ones that keep us
from getting raises are those that are not
OPEA members. They think they can reap the good without membership, but if they were members the numbers would be so high the legislators would
fall over themselves to be nice to us. Try it and
see....What do you have to lose? How much will you gain over the membership investment of one year? Bet it's more than you imagine!

Tue, March 25, 2008 @ 12:28 AM

36. wrote:
State Legislature makes the most out of a part-time legislature! Now our teachers get pay raises 5 times out of 5 years.

Why are state employees always thought of last, and then when they do think of us, they always want to cut our benefits, when most of them were added to our plates in years when we DID NOT get pay raises.

I wonder if Peterson really has his facts straight. I did not think that if your spouse got insurance at his/her job that they were NOT allowed to pick up state insurance too! If that really is the case, and they can, then something does need to be done. Singles pay the price no matter what, and sometimes we don't get much back in the excess benefit allowance amount. Why should marrieds get all the benefits!

Tue, March 25, 2008 @ 11:44 AM

37. wrote:
If the budget was so tight as Peterson said in his article, then why did the state legislature AND teachers get their money so easily? Don't tell me again that Gov Henry's wife was a teacher. Is she a teacher now?

I've never seen the legislature or teachers get their pay raises in 2 separate amounts or time frames. I've never seen them have to tighten their belts.

Look into the problem of Clifton Scott being a state employee for about 20 years and contributing at the state employee retirement rate, but then when he went into elected service, they must have "converted" his 20 state years as 20 elected years, and now that added to his real elected years, means he'll receive a retirement benefit of close to if not over $150,000! How many fat cats at the state government can get that kind of a deal.

Once again, we have to scream and yell in order to save our benefits!

Legislature should have to live on our salaries and do without, before they think of "creative" ways to mess up what good benefits we have worked hard to keep! They sure wouldn't take anything away from themselves or the teachers, but think nothing of doing that for the state employees.

Tue, March 25, 2008 @ 11:51 AM

38. JE wrote:
First of all, HB 3108 was not a carrier of our pay raise. What OPEA said is that they were submitting that language to attach to the bill but then Rep. Peterson withdrew his bill. We have three other bills out there carrying our pay raise--two for $2700. A pay raise could also be included in the appropriations bills as well. What we need to be doing is contacting our legislators and expressing the above sentiments to them. I agree with Carol regarding membership. If we had 40,000 members like OEA, we would definitely have more clout. It is up to you. Do you want clout or do you want to continue to be a low man on the totem pole?

Tue, March 25, 2008 @ 2:31 PM

39. FattCatt wrote:
I seen a lot of people saying "What has OPEA done for State Employee’s to convince me to join?" Here is a time-in of accomplishments made by OPEA.

This list does not include the bills that were blocked by OPEA like HB3108 to keep State Employee's from being taken advantage of.


1982
Longevity pay was established.
The state started paying for dental insurance for employees.


1985
The state began paying for disability insurance for
employees.


1986
The State Employee Bill of Rights was created to ensure
state employees full participation in the political process.


1987
A death benefit was established for retirees.


1988
The retirement insurance subsidy was established.


1989
A family leave policy was implemented for state
employees before a similar federal bill was passed.

The SoonerSave program was established.


1990
The Leave Sharing Program was established.


1991
Electronic deposit was established.


1992
An Alternative Dispute Resolution Program was
established to help resolve workplace grievances.

A Pension Protection Plan was created to keep state
leaders from spending retirement funds.


1996
Annual leave was increased for employees with 10 years
or more of service.

A severance package was established for RIFed state
employees.


1997
The SoonerSave match was established.

Mileage reimbursement was raised to the IRS rate.


1999
The 50-pecent dependent insurance subsidy was established.

A process was established to allow state employees to
compete for their jobs when privatization is proposed.


2000
The dependent insurance subsidy was increased from 50
percent to 75 percent.

The insurance subsidy for retirees was increased.


2001
The benefit allowance was changed to guarantee that the
subsidy would increase as the cost of insurance increases.

Annual leave was increased to 15 days for employees with
up to five years of service and to 18 days for employees
with five to 10 years of service.


2002
The privatization process was strengthened to ensure
employee rights.


2003
Employee rights were strengthened in discipline and hiring.


2005
Employees were given the right to appeal evaluations to
the Merit Protection Commission.

The Office of Personnel Management began overseeing
the process of unclassifying positions.


2006
Active and retiree insurance premiums were blended to
provide retirees with more affordable health insurance.


2007
Minimum pay for state employees was established at the
federal poverty rate for a family of three.

Reimbursement for education loans was established for
state employees.


State Employee Pay Raises:

1980 - 10 percent.
1981 - Raises based on the Hay Study.
1985 - 8 percent on the first $30,000.
1988 - 5 percent.
1989 - $400.
1990 - $1,000.
1992 - 2.5 percent.
1994 - 6 percent.
1996 - $1,200.
1998 - The higher of 4 percent or $1,250, up to $2,000.
2000 - $2,000.
2004 - $2,100.
2006 - 5 percent.

Without OPEA none of this would have happened.
State Employee’s must have representation!
Join OPEA today!

>*x*<

Tue, April 8, 2008 @ 12:09 PM

40. JJ wrote:
I am a Park Ranger within the Tourism and Recreation Dept. We are made to work maint work during so called "off season". We had OPEA check into this and were told that and I quote "any classified employee can be worked out of their classification for up to 60 days"... Now what is saying is that if they want to that you could be scrubbing bathrooms or mowing highway ditches or something way out of your classification..I think that you guys should look into this because I dont think that OPEA is helping us on this issue. Since the big guy is a former Tourism and Recreation "Big Wig" and still has ties to several regional managers. I think we are being thrown under the bus by OPEA and you people should know that is we have to do it..SO WILL YOU!!! FAIR IS FAIR..

Sun, December 28, 2008 @ 4:25 PM

41. This scares Me wrote:
This is scary news. I have heard that the Tourism Dept does some strange things to its employees. Lets all stand behind them and get things changed. We are all in this boat together. If it happens to them then it could happen to us? I agree to that sometimes OPEA doesn't seem to help or do much about certain things.good luck

Sun, December 28, 2008 @ 5:10 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.