By CRISTINA JANNEY
Hays Post
After failing to come to a contract agreement during federal mediation, the Hays USD 489 school board and Hays NEA have moved on to a fact-finding process.
The compensation package, specifically health insurance is the stumbling block in the negotiations.
“The compensation package is the difficult issue,” Mike Walker, board president, said. “The board had proposed a compensation package addressing both a salary increase and an adjustment to the health benefits package. Hays NEA has stated that they would like to consider each item separately.”
Walker said the board wants to provide a total compensation package to teachers and staff that increases base salaries and addressed the benefit package.
“We hope to reach agreement on the total compensation package soon so that employees will have time review their salary increases and any adjustments to the health benefits package before open-enrollment the following year,” he said.
RELATED: Teachers, Hays USD 489 locked in dispute over wages, insurance
The district had proposed setting a specific amount it pays toward family plans instead of a percentage. It currently pays about 83 percent. The district proposed continuing to pay 100 percent for single plans.
The district proposed capping the amount the district pays for dependent plans at $1,000. Having a set amount the district pays for dependent insurance rather than a percentage would help the district in setting its annual budget, the board contends. The district proposed the change in the insurance take affect next year.
Kim Schneweis, Hays NEA board president, said Tuesday night via email the major issues keeping teachers from an agreement are health insurance and salary.
“Less than two years ago, the school board left the state employee’s Blue Cross & Blue Shield insurance plan and chose Aetna,” she said. “The school board said they would find a plan that was the same or better than our Blue Cross plan, but the new plans are worse. The school board wants to cap how much they pay toward health insurance, starting in the 2020-2021 school year.”
She continued, “The teachers have serious concerns about the new insurance plan, especially the $3,500 deductible. Our previous deductible was $1,000, so that was a 250 percent increase. Teachers are paying more out-of-pocket for their health care due to the large deductible.
“Some are neglecting health care because they cannot afford the $3,500 deductible up front. We hesitate to agree to a cap on the premium when we already had a recent and dramatic increase in deductible. We also see no reason to rush this decision because health insurance premiums for the district did not increase this year.”
On the issue of salary, Schneweis said the district has received $1.3 million in new money this year from Topeka.
“The governor and legislators passed this finance bill with the expressed intent to increase teacher salaries and classroom funding,” she said. “Kansas teacher salaries lag behind in our nation, ranking around No. 40. The salary proposals from our school board this year are not proportionate with the new money sent from Topeka.
“The school board won’t agree to salary increases for the 2019-2020 school year unless we agree to reducing our insurance benefit for 2020-2021. In a year the legislators moved a mountain to increase teacher salaries, we feel frustrated our school board isn’t willing to pass on our intended share.”
Schneweis said the teachers have offered numerous times to work with the school board to explore options for health insurance. She said the teachers support using a committee of all stakeholders to find the best option.
“Our last big insurance change was rushed and resulted in employees struggling with large increases in health care costs,” she said. “If we are going to consider changes to our insurance benefit, we do not want to rush the decision. We also do not want to negotiate insurance for the 2020-2021 school year, while we still have no contract for 2019-2020.”
Schneweis said she did not know how long the fact-finding process could take, but it could be lengthy. She added the delay in reaching a contract agreement is creating a hardship for teachers.
“Currently, 11 weeks into the school year, teachers still do not have a contract for this year, and do not know their salary for certain,” she said. “When the new finance bill was finally passed, teachers were optimistic things would improve, so we are disappointed that the school board wants to further reduce benefits. We certainly have teachers who spent money on college hours with the expectation they would move on the pay scale.”
Schneweis said she thought the district needs to improve pay and benefits to retain and attract quality teachers.
“It is a hardship for our current teachers, but the long-term effects on our district are hard to determine,” she said. “It’s hard to measure the effect of a promising new teacher choosing to go to another district or different career, or a seasoned professional retiring early due to stagnant pay.
“When we create hardships for our teachers, we create hardships for our students, because their working conditions are the student’s learning conditions. We want the best for our students. Teachers would rather be preparing for their students than rushing off to a second or third job. Students are at the center of everything we do, and they deserve well-rested teachers who feel appreciated and supported.”
This is the second year in the row the school board and teachers union have come to an impasse during negotiations.
Further attempts were made during mediation to end the impasse, but as that was not a public session, Walker said he did not wish to disclose that information at this time.
“The board hopes to end the impasse and the board and Hays NEA will agree on a total compensation package,” he said.
Walker also said he did not know how long the fact-finding process might make.