|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 27, 2015 11:32:05 GMT -5
I can't go to the first Open Forum meeting for UBC and administration to hear input from employees - happening today (Friday 2/27) at 1:00 in Cambridge. But I'm REALLY looking forward to hearing about it. I hope someone who is at the meeting will post here to share some highlights!
|
|
|
|
Post by rolando on Feb 27, 2015 19:47:11 GMT -5
It was very well attended, maybe 100 plus people there. I was really afraid I would be the only person to show up. Happy to see this topic is alive and well inside the Harvard community. It was more of the same BS we have come to expect from Harvard over this change. You could tell they were coached on how to address the audience, they were very cautious to not come across as defensive. There was a lot of good feedback and questions from the attendees. One lady on the benefits committee said that one choice was to increase the premiums by $100 per family. Many supported that idea. There are notions about re-introducing a higher premium plan next year with little/no co-insurance. That may have just been said to appease the crowd. Another comment that got lots of head nods from both the crowd and members of the UBC was the wasted man hours and work time that Harvard are incurring having employees dealing with all the paperwork and calls to insurance companies and providers with this new coinsurance plan.
One thing that was really annoying was all the members of the UBC's name tags are "Prof" this or "Dean" that. All making 200k plus a year I'm sure so the impact to them is not much percentage wise. Why are their not true representation of regular employees on this committee to represent the 99%?
|
|
shouldering the cost
Guest
|
Post by shouldering the cost on Mar 2, 2015 8:36:30 GMT -5
I was there as well and I felt that the "panel" was really combative and didn't really address the questions. They may be experts in their fields but clearly they have not done a good job explaining whatever rational they used to arrive at the change that has occurred. I also thought it was very intimidating that they asked everyone who stood up to state their name and where they work - if you just want general opinion no need to know so many details.
I also agree with Rolando - the idea that latecomers had to be ushered in to "show respect to the committee" - comprised of only faculty was insulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Before the Fall on Mar 6, 2015 7:21:40 GMT -5
It seems somewhat ironic that the sessions seem to highlight the communication failures that were inherent in the initial change process and acknowledge the need for change while simultaneously perpetuating the poor and arguably dismissive communication style in the sessions themselves. This strikes me more as an attempt to check the "solicited and received community input" box rather than any attempt to fairly hear and respond to community concerns.
|
|
