At a brief meeting on December 7, Bethlehem Township Commissioners unanimously approved a three-year contract with the police union, which represents 32 municipal police officers. Officers had been working without a contract since the beginning of the year.
The new contract awards a two percent pay increase in 2015, followed by a three per cent pay increase in 2016 and 2017. Officers are being paid retroactively to the beginning of this year.
Healthcare contributions will remain the same as they are now. Single officers will pay $25 per month for health care coverage, while those with families will pay $50. The Township will pay the rest, According to Assistant Township manager Doug Bruce, it costs nearly $25,000 per officer to pay for family health care coverage. Officers have agreed to increases in co-pays, as well as the elimination of post-retirement medical benefits for new hires. .
Sick leave has been reduced from 15 to 13 days, and vacation time is capped at 20 days.
Commissioners also voted unanimously to hire Andrew Kanaskie and Larissa Reggetto as their newest police officers. According to Chief Dan Pancoast, this marks the first time in its history that the township has had two female police officers. Another female officer, former NorCo Deputy Sheriff Gretchen Kramer, has already started.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Friday, December 11, 2015
25 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
" Single officers will pay $25 per month for health care coverage, while those with families will pay $50." Wow, this is a stark contrast between some private sectors family plans that have high deductibles. These high deductible plans costs $100s per month. I think all working families should be able to purchase comparable coverage as Congress.
ReplyDelete"...According to Assistant Township manager Doug Bruce, it costs nearly $25,000 per officer to pay for family health care coverage..."
ReplyDeleteMr. Bruce is absolutely correct. Thanks to Obamacare, employer sponsored healthcare plans have seen a cost increase of about 50%. Gone are the days of everyone in the group paying the same premium for their type of coverage (single, spouse, family). It's now based upon ages and the number of people insured under the employee's plan.
Congratulations to the new officers! Best wishes and Go Home Safe to your Families always!
ReplyDeleteWhen are these public sector staffers going to pay their "FULL" share?
ReplyDeleteI mean it's not like they're making only $25-35k, they are starting out at like $50k+ so why not pay what private sector employee's pay?
$25 per month for healthcare coverage? What a steal. How much do county workers pay?
ReplyDelete8:38, What you mean to ask is why they can't be under the boot like you are. That's why you have a union. It is called collective bargaining. Who would not want decent health care for his family? You actually begrudge that? Then shame on you. I is that short-sighted and selfish attitude which permits private sector bosses to step all over people. But you must like being stepped on, and probably have leather whips and chains in your basement.
ReplyDeleteNo, not being stepped on or union member: getting taxed out of my home because of benefits provided to government staffers who can and should be paying their fair share!
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you want them to be your slaves and want to deny them a decent health care package. It's a good thing they have a union, especially in Bethlehem Tp.
ReplyDeleteDeny? No, pay their fair share!
ReplyDeleteTheir "fair share" in your estimation.
ReplyDelete11:56,
ReplyDeleteAs was pointed out, it's called collective bargaining and they do better than you because they are in a union. You don't like people get better than you? Grow a set and organize your workforce. Otherwise, keep visiting your boss and begging him for that extra 25 cents an hour he never gives you.
Are unions responsible for those getting taxed out of their homes because they bargained in good faith?
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:32 absolutely incorrect. You rally need to expand your sources of knowledge on the ACA. The right wing sources are filled with half-truths and deception. Also you paint a picture of health care pre-ACA that never existed.
ReplyDeleteHardly. You get what you pay for. If you want police protection, you pay for it. Even the ultra conservatives who scoured The township budget in crowded meetings had no complaints about paying for police. They are the ones who come when you dial 911 to complain about college kids walking in your neighborhood.
ReplyDeletePeople are afraid to say anything about the police because when in fact as of 12-9-2015, there have been 1,109 people killed by police in America.
ReplyDeleteMaybe universal healthcare would be better? Seems to work on Canada. At least we would not have such a contrast in benefits. Why do hospitals need to support sports teams. The only way to stay nonprofit is to keep spending.
ReplyDelete@2:43,
ReplyDeleteI am speaking from first hand knowledge, not right-wing fabricated horseshit. Our employees' health insurance premiums are 50% higher now for exactly the same coverage, as they were pre-ACA.
Is that Obama or your Insurance company went for a rate hike for bigger profits and your employer went for less cost. Easy answer to just repeat Obama, Obama. You folks are driven by irrational hatred. However, it is getting old and everyone knows that health insurance companies don't give a shit about you or anyone but their bottom line. They are not about health care but making money. Pull your head out of your ass and think for yourself.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/13/justice-department-database-police-killings-counted-statistics
ReplyDelete@2:48,
ReplyDeleteThe coverage I referenced, did not change when the ACA was enacted. The premiums (not the employee contribution) increased by 50%. Single coverage which originally cost about $300/month is now about $425/month, depending on the age of the subscriber (older people pay more than younger ones, but nobody is less than $425). Family coverage (for 3 or more) went from $1400/month to $2200/month (even more for the more dependents a subscriber has). How is this not the result of the ACA? None of these age-dependent and subscriber count dependent differences existed before the ACA. Single folks all paid the same amount, regardless of age. Family coverage was the same amount for everyone with family coverage, regardless of having 1 or 5 dependents. There is no more group rate.
@155, The real question is, did your employers contribution change? I never felt reform would hold rates flat, however, I did hope it would dampen premium increases overtime. My employer used reform to pass on more costs to employees despite being self insured. When they realized it impacted employee attraction and retention, they lowered premiums this year, albeit not much. Employee benefits is one way to trim costs.
ReplyDelete@6:25,
ReplyDeleteI am the employer. The information I used came right from the bills.
And- they deserve it. Me and some other guy's at my Legion Post 9 in Palmer and, if I can draw in the VFW in Nazareth the Baker Post --I intend to gather funds to support their new U.S.Army bomb dog. This animal ,smarter than most people, should be of service now-a-days to any venue in this valley. We commend BT for taking OUR ARMY vet on and want to support BT as result. A good dog with a good nose can take things down to parts per billion . Our meters that we have on our fire department only run at parts per million. Dogs are generally smarter than the general public, don't forget that.
ReplyDelete5:26
ReplyDelete"Dogs are generally smarter than the general public"
Nice to here what you think of us general public types. Your dogs skills at public relations exceeds your own....Don't forget that.
http://politicalblindspot.com/police-officially-refuse-to-hire-applicants-with-high-iq-scores/
^ oops!
ReplyDeleteI must write HEAR (in block form) on the blackboard 1000 times.