Winnipeg Construction X

[drew]

^ from what my informal discussions with friends/family - all health coverage seems very similar in terms of private/public (I am in the private sector, three different employers thus far, and my wife is a teacher).

Basically the minimum is 80% coverage of prescriptions and physio/etc ($500 per year), along with the standard stuff for private or semi-private hospital rooms, vision, dental, etc.

There aren't any major differences. Some employers offer 100% coverage, some don't.

The biggest difference is the retirement packages. Defined benefit pension plans are far and away the most lucrative benefit offered - and those are basically only available from public employers.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Even if that’s true, it reflects a decision of the legislature that encouraging such investments is more valuable than collecting the equivalent in tax. If they’re no longer of that view, they should amend the tax code.

I think it would be nice if that was the equation in reality. I reckon it's actually about fear. Why would one municipality amend their tax code to be less competitive when another isn't doing the same? It's a race to the bottom. As a society I believe we are missing out on the resources that could be generated from taxing corporations because we tell ourselves that not taxing them is having some sort of positive economic effect, then again, I don't really buy trickle-down economics either.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by drew

^ from what my informal discussions with friends/family - all health coverage seems very similar in terms of private/public (I am in the private sector, three different employers thus far, and my wife is a teacher).

Basically the minimum is 80% coverage of prescriptions and physio/etc ($500 per year), along with the standard stuff for private or semi-private hospital rooms, vision, dental, etc.

There aren't any major differences. Some employers offer 100% coverage, some don't.

The biggest difference is the retirement packages. Defined benefit pension plans are far and away the most lucrative benefit offered - and those are basically only available from public employers.

Defined benefit is not necessarily better. It just puts the risk on the company rather than the employee. Conversely DB plans are riskier in the sense that if a company goes under, your DB pension is not safe while a DC pension would be.

FWIW I work in the private sector and have a DB pension. DC has been grandfathered in though. Private sector has pretty much stopped with them after the financial crisis of a decade ago.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by drew

^ from what my informal discussions with friends/family - all health coverage seems very similar in terms of private/public (I am in the private sector, three different employers thus far, and my wife is a teacher).

Basically the minimum is 80% coverage of prescriptions and physio/etc ($500 per year), along with the standard stuff for private or semi-private hospital rooms, vision, dental, etc.

There aren't any major differences. Some employers offer 100% coverage, some don't.

The biggest difference is the retirement packages. Defined benefit pension plans are far and away the most lucrative benefit offered - and those are basically only available from public employers.

Though the differences in what's offered may not be huge if any dependent on the employer, how much is the average cost for health and dental benefits in the private sector?

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Defined benefit is not necessarily better. It just puts the risk on the company rather than the employee. Conversely DB plans are riskier in the sense that if a company goes under, your DB pension is not safe while a DC pension would be.

FWIW I work in the private sector and have a DB pension. DC has been grandfathered in though. Private sector has pretty much stopped with them after the financial crisis of a decade ago.

While you're right DBs in theory aren't necessarily better, in practice they typically offer more security and at least in the public sector are funded much better. Most public sector pensions have the employer and employee contributing 8% of their gross to their pensions. Most private though don't contribute necessarily in % will contribute way less and to a much smaller maximum.

Though after attending my wife's teachers pension seminar, they did warn of major changes ahead and talks of unsustainability. Either the employer or employee will need to start contributing more or cuts to the pension will need to be made dependent on future market fluctuations.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Though after attending my wife's teachers pension seminar, they did warn of major changes ahead and talks of unsustainability. Either the employer or employee will need to start contributing more or cuts to the pension will need to be made dependent on future market fluctuations.

There is arguably more political willingness to "get tough" on public sector pensions as evidenced by City Council voting to amend the terms of the WPS pension despite being enshrined in their collective agreement.

Pallister is a bit of an old school Progressive Conservative so I don't think he'd necessarily start gutting public sector pensions, but if Manitoba had someone more in line with a Jason Kenney type of conservative I could see that approach coming into play.

[drew]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Though the differences in what's offered may not be huge if any dependent on the employer, how much is the average cost for health and dental benefits in the private sector?

I pay about $80 a paycheque for group insurance and dental.

I am fairly certain that's close to what my wife pays each pay period as a teacher.

Even if you had an employer that was willing to pays for the whole thing, it then becomes a taxable benefit. There are no free rides.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

There is arguably more political willingness to "get tough" on public sector pensions as evidenced by City Council voting to amend the terms of the WPS pension despite being enshrined in their collective agreement.

Pallister is a bit of an old school Progressive Conservative so I don't think he'd necessarily start gutting public sector pensions, but if Manitoba had someone more in line with a Jason Kenney type of conservative I could see that approach coming into play.

The city does in fact have every right to amend certain aspects of the pension plan as stated in the WPS CBA. The CBA incorporates the terms and conditions of Winnipeg By-Law 2148/78, which is an old and obsolete By-Law which has been updated and states:

14. (1) Subject to Section 15, but notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law or the Plan, Council may by By-law from time to time amend, modify, vary or terminate the terms, conditions or provisions of this By-law or the Plan (and any trust arising under this By-law or under the Plan) in such a manner and on such terms as Council may determine appropriate, such determination to be conclusively deemed to be evidenced by the passage of such By-law, and such amendment, modification, variation or termination may be effective retroactive to a date prior to the dates such By-law is passed.


As for Pallister and Kenney, don't think that gutting a pension is reserved for the Conservatives. BC, the maritime's and I believe Ontario a few years back made alteration much the same as the City is doing. They just alter the amount or % they are willing to contribute to the retirement fund. The employee's are as a collective more then able to increase their contribution.

The Police pension I believe the City was contributing something like 17% of the officers wage, which is an amount I have never heard of before. Most public pensions are in the 8% range by both employee and employer. Moving forward it will likely be the employee that will need to increase their contribution amounts to maintain the pensions they have, much the same as they have had to in BC and the Maritimes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by dmacc

The city does in fact have every right to amend certain aspects of the pension plan as stated in the WPS CBA. The CBA incorporates the terms and conditions of Winnipeg By-Law 2148/78, which is an old and obsolete By-Law which has been updated and states:

14. (1) Subject to Section 15, but notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law or the Plan, Council may by By-law from time to time amend, modify, vary or terminate the terms, conditions or provisions of this By-law or the Plan (and any trust arising under this By-law or under the Plan) in such a manner and on such terms as Council may determine appropriate, such determination to be conclusively deemed to be evidenced by the passage of such By-law, and such amendment, modification, variation or termination may be effective retroactive to a date prior to the dates such By-law is passed.

I wasn't doubting the City's authority to do such a thing, it's just that things like that have historically been negotiated at the bargaining table. Governments have generally been reluctant to legislate changes unless they are truly backed into a corner, but the new breed of conservative governments seem to be taking a more, shall we say, strident approach to labour relations.

[Wpg_Guy]

Short video of the Aviation museum.
• Video Link

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Short video of the Aviation museum.
• Video Link

Very cool-has any work begun on the building?

[headhorse]

now there’s a huge waste of money

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by headhorse

now there’s a huge waste of money

Why?

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by drew

I pay about $80 a paycheque for group insurance and dental.

I am fairly certain that's close to what my wife pays each pay period as a teacher.

Even if you had an employer that was willing to pays for the whole thing, it then becomes a taxable benefit. There are no free rides.

The health & dental benefit plan for teachers is a) less coverage than most private plans, and in some cases there is NO coverage for certain health expenses. b) generally costs more than what private health and dental plans cover.

If an employer pays 100% of the health and dental premiums, that is NOT a taxable benefit to the employee. However, the portion of health and dental premiums that an employee pays is considered a deductible medical expense.

If an employer pays STD,LTD, Life Insurance or AD & D premiums, if these premiums are not treated as a taxable benefit, then the benefit if and when paid out becomes taxable.

DB pension plans work better in the public sector than in the private sector simply because employees in the public sector are employed for longer and contribute for a longer period of time than in the private sector. As well, several public DB pension plans are managed by third parties, limiting risk. At one point I was a member of a private DB pension plan. They were happy because they were fully funded, but the problem was they were dead in the water. The average age of entry into the profession/organization was > 50, and the contribution rate was based on an artificially inflated salary amount. After I left, in order to maintain solvency, the contribution rates were the maximum RRSP contribution limits. So purchase any other RRSPs, and they were fully taxable.

[drew]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

The health & dental benefit plan for teachers is a) less coverage than most private plans, and in some cases there is NO coverage for certain health expenses. b) generally costs more than what private health and dental plans cover.

You will have to explain how these teacher plans are different.

My wife is a teacher and gets blue cross. I can't right now figure out what major differences she receives or doesn't receive in terms of benefits as compared to the plan I am under. The kids all are covered under her dental plan, and so far, they never even bother to use mine because there is never any amounts owing after cleanings, fillings, etc.

I know her short and long term disability is different (teacher short term disability uses sick days, but then I don't officially get "sick days" - another teacher benefit) - but in every day life her prescription coverage is 80% (mine is 100%), she gets the standard coverage for massage, physio, etc. etc. Same as me.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Pinus

Why?

For the same $ we could have an 800' tall statue of Stalin!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

For the same $ we could have an 800' tall statue of Stalin!

OK, that made me chuckle

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

For the same $ we could have an 800' tall statue of Stalin!

Now that's funny!

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

The health & dental benefit plan for teachers is a) less coverage than most private plans, and in some cases there is NO coverage for certain health expenses. b) generally costs more than what private health and dental plans cover.

If an employer pays 100% of the health and dental premiums, that is NOT a taxable benefit to the employee. However, the portion of health and dental premiums that an employee pays is considered a deductible medical expense.

If an employer pays STD,LTD, Life Insurance or AD & D premiums, if these premiums are not treated as a taxable benefit, then the benefit if and when paid out becomes taxable.

DB pension plans work better in the public sector than in the private sector simply because employees in the public sector are employed for longer and contribute for a longer period of time than in the private sector. As well, several public DB pension plans are managed by third parties, limiting risk. At one point I was a member of a private DB pension plan. They were happy because they were fully funded, but the problem was they were dead in the water. The average age of entry into the profession/organization was > 50, and the contribution rate was based on an artificially inflated salary amount. After I left, in order to maintain solvency, the contribution rates were the maximum RRSP contribution limits. So purchase any other RRSPs, and they were fully taxable.

My wife is a teacher and I am currently moving over to her health plan because it is better then mine with higher maximums than all of my coverage's. Though I don't know other people's coverage's, I know hers was very good for us.

[wags_in_the_peg]

wow, love how construction thread is all about teachers.