Fletcher Allen was looking for cost savings. They found a less expensive transportation package to replace their current one deemed too costly .They contracted with another company based on savings and not surprisingly this new company doesn’t pay health care for its shuttle-bus drivers as the other had.
Quoted here from a good Free Press article, Fletcher Allen's spokesman tries nobly to explain the situation and earn his own salary, but maybe made it worse.
“The suggestion that we require similar health care plans and wages among vendors bidding with us is well intended, but is unrealistic in today’s world,” said Mike Noble, the hospital’s spokesman. …“ We have to be watching our resources as well,” Noble said. “You’ll notice that there is a lot of discussion about the very high cost of health care, and we are very mindful of that and watch what we do.”
Today’s world in context: The CEO of Fletcher Allen, a non- profit makes a salary in the high six figure range,plus benefits in today’s world. Medical bills in today’s world are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies in the United States.
especially since FAHC is doing some good work in another area; specifically, it has been carrying the flag on a national effort called “Farm-to-Hospital” which is an effort to increase the use of healthy locally produced food (both for nutrition and to support local agriculture); I’ve discussed this with the person responsible and she’s doing a good job; it will take time but they’re trying
on the other hand, contracting with a firm that doesn’t provide health benefits is irresponsible; they think it’s saving money for FAHC but it may well end up costing taxpayers money in subsidies for workers who still need health care; for an industry that is familiar with cost-shifting, they should know better
and BTW – we should all encourage the Leg. to require the state to only do business with responsible vendors who provide benefits to their workers
Apparently the folks at Fletcher Allen have overlooked the fact that their fortunes lie in expanded access to healthcare; which means realistically they should be patronizing businesses who provide health coverage to their employees.
and all the associated complaints that it doesn’t cover costs. Where do you think the medical care funding for those new bus drivers is going to come from?
If Fletcher Allen is lucky, their new contractor will only hire the over-65 crowd … Medicare pays better than Medicaid.
What happened to supporting wages and benefits that allow workers to buy or use the product they produce? It was one of the keys to Ford’s success, and Ford continues to outperform other U. S. automakers. Just a guess, but drivers with health benefits might consume more of FAHC’s product.
I don’t see any logical bar to FAHC making the provision of healthcare benefits at a specified level one of the specs of the bid — it makes the playing field level between companies, which would then have to distinguish themselves by levels of service or by finding real efficiencies elsewhere in their operations.
NanuqFC
The time is always right to do the right thing. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The decision making process was flawed, in that they did not consider the impact on quality of service that results from such a disparate compensation package. Turnover is much higher in organizations that don’t offer health benefits, as is absenteeism. For someone making $10 per hour, a single person health package will raise their compensation by 60%.
The “vendor” will promise a service level, and then not deliver…which probably exposes them to losing the contract. In the meantime, they pocket a huge profit, and then go on to the next set of myopic managers. Fletcher basically said, “We’re willing to accept transportation services from a company that can only hire those willing to take 60% less in compensation than our previous vendor.” I wonder what they would say if we applied the same logic to managerial compensation…