Benefits plan draws some early criticism

Despite rumblings from employees in response to proposed benefits cuts, University Council heard little dissent on the issue at yesterday's meeting. Radiology Professor David Hackney said the University Council Committee on Personnel Benefits -- which he chairs -- has not had sufficient time to read and discuss the proposal. A-3 Assembly Chairperson Karen Wheeler, an administrative assistant at the Center for Community Partnerships, and Vivian Seltzer, Faculty Senate chairperson-elect and professor of Human Development and Behavior, said their constituents also had yet to formulate opinions. But individual employees have already begun to react -- often negatively -- to a host of proposals which would reinstate employee contributions to health care premiums while ending University payments for graduate education of employees' dependents and spouses. Wheeler said she has received many e-mails and phone calls voicing concerns about cuts to the benefits. Concerns have centered around changes in health care and the loss of reduced summer hours and graduate tuition benefits, she said. Biddle Law librarian John Hogan said the plan places most of the cost-cutting burden on lower-paid employees. He noted that two of the lower-cost health care options have been eliminated in the proposal. "The health insurance recommendations ? require significant employee contributions," Hogan said. "[A monthly payment of] $26 can be a lot for a family trying to live on some of Penn's salaries." Radiology Professor Sheldon Rovin agreed that the plan is not designed to help lower income staff. Rovin, who serves on the Personnel Benefits Committee, said that although the authors of the proposal said they considered lower income workers, that effort is not apparent. Faculty Senate Chairperson and Education Professor Peter Kuriloff said changes to the number of health care plans "seem reasonable" to him but may upset members of the faculty. An A-1 employee who requested anonymity said the plan was not as bad as he had expected. But he called the plan unfair anyway, since it requires workers to pay more money without receiving anything in return. "The sense I get is that we are having to pay for stuff we have not had to pay for in the past, and we are not being offered something in compensation," he said. "We are already working hard enough as it is." Most workers who came to the University in the last three years have not had to take on any health care costs, but since the proposal returns costs to their level as of 1994, Associate Provost Barbara Lowery, co-chairperson of the Benefits Committee, said workers would not really have to assume any "new" costs. She added that the health management organizations will now offer prescription coverage as well. And the committee tried to keep health care contributions as low as possible to ease the burden on lower income employees, she explained. The A-1 employee said although these cuts were modest, he fears future changes to benefits. "There is that feeling that this is just the first round of these [changes] and I'm not sure that is good for the overall morale of the staff," he said. Rovin agreed that future changes will be necessary since this plan does not address all benefits issues -- slating retirement and disability for discussion over the next year. "This document takes into account only fringe benefits which are the parts of a larger whole," Rovin said. "But they'll have to fix this again because they have not dealt with [benefits] as an interrelated whole." Discussion of the proposal will continue over the next month as faculty, A-1 and A-3 employees attend feedback session with various members of the Benefits Advisory Committee. The Faculty Senate has selected a group of faculty who have expertise in insurance, health care and benefits financing to "look at the proposal very carefully," Kuriloff said. The Senate is particularly concerned with benefits, because the University is currently considered to have an excellent package, which attracts many faculty and staff, he added. Hackney said the Personnel Benefits Committee will report to Council at its March 5 meeting, adding that it is too early to gauge reaction to the proposal.