OPEA Works to Amend HB 3108

 

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association continued its fight to preserve the state employee benefit allowance Wednesday. 

 

“OPEA has given Representative Peterson language to amend HB 3108 to include not only a $2,700 pay raise, but also to place a trigger in state law for automatic pay raises,” announced OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley. 

 

The language proposed by OPEA would provide a $2,700 pay raise for state employees effective July 1, 2008, as well as automatic pay raises if the state revenue certification in February increased more than three percent over the previous year. 

 

“If state revenues climb by three percent, state employees would automatically receive a five percent pay raise,” said Zearley. 

 

“Over the past 28 years, if this language had been law, state employees would have received 20 automatic pay raises,” Zearley continued.  (This analysis is based on the amount appropriated, which should be close to the February certification.)

 

“While we do not agree with the current language of HB 3108, we wanted to put compensation on the table for discussion,” he said. “If the benefit allowance is up for consideration, then compensation reform is equally as important and should be placed in this bill.  We are going to stand firm on this.”

 

Representative Peterson has indicated publicly that he believes that both benefits and compensation should be discussed together and agreed to place the requested language into a floor substitute for HB 3108.

 

“I want to assure all of our members and state employees in general that OPEA has never advocated nor would we ever advocate doing away with the benefit allowance,” said Zearley.  “Our members are dependent upon the benefit allowance.  If changing the benefit allowance is up for consideration, then reforming state employee compensation must be part of the same discussion.” 

 

OPEA believes that this amendment will either provide the platform to advance the legitimate total compensation reform discussion or serve as a poison pill for the legislation.

 

A report by the Pew Foundation report released last month indicated “the low pay scale ” for state employees is a major problem for Oklahoma, calling salaries for state employees unrealistically low.  However, Pew pointed out that benefits was an area in which the state can compete with the private sector.

 

“OPEA has provided the opportunity for all the parties, agencies, state employees and the legislature, to come to terms with whether the state is really interested in total compensation."

19 comments (Add your own)

1. TC wrote:
Now see! That is what I am talking about, turning the tables and stuffing a pay raise in the bill. That is freakin' sweet!

March 7, 2008 @ 2:43 PM

2. Shelly wrote:
I appreciate what is being done- both by the OPEA and Rep Peterson. At least he was open to suggestion and seems willing to help. I don't mind having the benefit allowance re-structured, as long as there is no lingering negative impact on the state workers. It's shaping up to be a good weekend- and maybe I won't have to check out alternative employment options.

March 7, 2008 @ 2:49 PM

3. Jim wrote:
Call me cynical but I'd say that the proof is in the pudding and before we declare it a victory, let's get it to the governor first. I know the Democrats will support it but will the republicans?

March 7, 2008 @ 3:08 PM

4. wrote:
well folks if they cut our benefits the state stands to save how much money? anybody have a guess?

to give all 36000 state employee's a 2700 dollar pay raise is going to cost 97 million dollars.

i do not think the overall goal of hb3108 is give money it is to take money and give to other places so that the budget shortfall can be met.


lets just hope hb3108 dies and nothing changes.

March 7, 2008 @ 3:50 PM

5. Kevin wrote:
I personally like the new language in the bill..you figure you prob get 100 to 200 dollars added on to your pay check if you don’t use all your benefit allowance and its taxed.. if we get the 2700 we get 225 added to our paychecks a month and if revenue goes up 3 percent a yr we get a 5 percent pay raise which is 1200 or more.. I personally like it..I doubt our legislators like it though. something about giving us 5 percent pay raises every yr..I hope im seeing this right. is that how everyone else sees it? if so GOOD job OPEA..I must say I was skepitical at first about what OPEA was doing with these negotiations with Mr. Patterson.. at least 2700 dollars is better then not getting 2700 and losing our benefit allowance. Just think if we had 36000 members we would prob keep our benefit allowance and get a 2700 dollar pay raise.

March 7, 2008 @ 7:03 PM

6. Lynn wrote:
To #5 Renee - Well, besides the fact that it was too late to put in for a new Bill? I think with everything being on the same bill, they only have the chance to ammend the wording just so many times before the final vote comes up to pass either the House or the Senate (before going on to the other side). If everything is on the same bill, it is harder for them to just ignore or Not Pass. They essentially have to pass both, or the whole Bill flounders (They don't need no sitnking raises!) This way if they want to pass the decrease in benefit monies, they have to pass some sort of raise....

....but we'll have to see what is decided on. There are still couple of more chances for it to be ammended. I personally don't think they're going to go for the whole $2700, but we have to think positive. It will be interesting to see the numbers the finally agree on.

My mother retired from another State's service. Her check is not all that big a deal, but the INSURANCE was. My Dad retired from IBM, and they are both on Mom's State Retired Insurance, as it had better coverage, but not necessarily cheaper. What needs to really be watched is the quality of the insurance offered. With Oklahoma being so far down on the health by population list, we need to be careful as to what exactly they offer for 'covered' insurance.

March 7, 2008 @ 7:37 PM

7. wrote:
Well this is might the straw that broke the Cammels back and kills this 1308 for the season. If it ddon't it will be a good thing to get an automatic pay increase provision in to law.

March 8, 2008 @ 10:06 AM

8. TC wrote:
Thanks OPEA, see you on Tuesday!

March 8, 2008 @ 1:27 PM

9. Vick wrote:
Well, our Legislators need to be asked why they reduced corporate taxes so much. With crude oil prices at record ($105 per barrel), why are state revenues down? And if the Legislators screwed up, why don't they take a pay & benefits cut instead of shafting State Employees?

March 9, 2008 @ 1:36 PM

10. Matthew wrote:
#10, you can thank Big Todd Hiett and his tax cuts for the decline in state revenue.

As for our state legislators' pay, with per diem added in they are ranked in the top 10 highest paid state legislators in the nation.

March 10, 2008 @ 9:13 AM

11. Mickey wrote:
There have been too many years the benefits were given in place of a proper raise.Now to give a raise but take benefits is a direct slap in the face to state employees.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:00 PM

12. Tonya wrote:
I depend on the benefit allowance it is a help, even if it does not help enough. I pay out a lot of money every month and still have to pay to go see a doctor and then a bill comes and I still have to pay more money. If my allowance is cut I know I will never get to go to the doctor, because I wont go now because I still owe them money for going in the past, and I am sending them money every month. State workers work really hard and they don't get much for all the work they do. Sometimes not even a thank you.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:39 PM

13. JD wrote:
I have been talking to alot of staff members uniform and non-uniform about this 3108 Bill that somebody must had a vision on how to save money for the State. The first thing that needs to happen is give all Employees a 10% pay raise acroos the board, then cut out a big percentage of Upper Management that in it self would save DOC millions of dollars. If the little mini White House would just open there eyes they could see the problems that Oklahoma has, which is mismanagement of money "period.The other States that surround Oklahoma aren't having any problem's because they hire very intelligent individuals that know how to prevail and take charge.If Bill 3108 passes DOC will lose a lot off staff members especially Officers,they are on the edge anyway.Good Luck and Hope they make the right decision.

March 10, 2008 @ 3:28 PM

14. Frank wrote:
Do not cut the allowance, make it use or lose!

March 10, 2008 @ 3:55 PM

15. Sandy wrote:
Personally, I don't want to see the Benefit Allowance restructured or abolished. OPEA needs to stand firm on NO changes to it.

March 10, 2008 @ 3:56 PM

16. df wrote:
I appreciate all the hard work and dedication everyone has put forth on behalf of this great state's workers. I think the state benefits AND pay raises should be equal to the State Legislators. We should have the same health insurance and the same pay raise precentage as the elected officals we placed in office. After all, do they not work for the same great state as we do? Futhermore, I think they should make the pay raise retroactive to the first of the year instead of making us wait several more months. That IS what that would do for themselves, right!!!

March 10, 2008 @ 4:09 PM

17. larry wrote:
why is there ALWAYS money for teachers who do not risk injury or illness working with behaviors, who work 9 months a year and I work 12. The benefits (health insurance) is equal or exceeds private insurance,which is outstanding don't change or mess with health insurance, just give us a raise,so that we can make a living wage without working 12-30 hrs overtime or having a 2nd job.
thank you for allowing me the opportunity the express my view,

March 11, 2008 @ 8:51 AM

18. Jennifer Hale wrote:
I think the pay raise is great and well deserving, but if we are going to lose some of our benefit allowance along with it we are moving one step forward an two back. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but isn't the bill going to cost State employees? Even if we get the $2700.00 that will be minus $1200.00 for single and $3,000.00 for a family?? Can someone enlighten me on this???

March 11, 2008 @ 2:23 PM

19. Renee wrote:
I think this bill was a red herring. It was hoped state employees would be so grateful to keep the benefit allowance, they would forget about attempting to gain a large salary increase or a return to the Rule of 80.

March 16, 2008 @ 6:17 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.