The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

According to my understanding, the new folks will be investing in 401-Ks of some sort rather than into the State Retirement System. How will this affect the SRS for everyone as well as them (having UAB and USA opting out)? Is this part of a partisan attack on Dr David Bronner and the present system?

UAB Hospital employees haven't been state employees for like 2 or 3 years now. UAB formed an LLC so that employees are working for a "private" company. I would imagine that it's not a political attack on anyone and is just a response to how much it costs to be a member of the TRS.

(06-15-2016 10:12 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  UAB Hospital employees haven't been state employees for like 2 or 3 years now. UAB formed an LLC so that employees are working for a "private" company. I would imagine that it's not a political attack on anyone and is just a response to how much it costs to be a member of the TRS.

It is not just UAB medical sites but also USA medical sites. Add in the new DO schools in Auburn and Dothan and you may be mistaken about it being a flanking attack on the SRS.

More & more companies are shifting towards having employee directed 401k's instead of pensions.

Here at work they froze the pensions after a certain period & started contributing a little to the employee's 401k.

The newer employees will be solely on 401k.

(06-16-2016 10:44 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:12 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  UAB Hospital employees haven't been state employees for like 2 or 3 years now. UAB formed an LLC so that employees are working for a "private" company. I would imagine that it's not a political attack on anyone and is just a response to how much it costs to be a member of the TRS.

It is not just UAB medical sites but also USA medical sites. Add in the new DO schools in Auburn and Dothan and you may be mistaken about it being a flanking attack on the SRS.

They didn't collaborate on it, it's just happenstance. And at UAB it's specifically just hospital employees. UAB School of Medicine, School of Dentistry, and School of Optometry employees are still on the TRS. It is because being in the TRS is supremely expensive for both employees and the employer, and because UAB Health System is not competing against other universities, but is competing against private organizations for employees. Hospital employees very rarely spend their entire career at UAB, at least when it comes to doctors and nurses, so the pension benefit is not attractive compared to a 401k that they can easily take with them when they leave, or, bring with them instead of having to start from scratch if they're in their 40s or 50s. Whereas a university professor coming from another state can bring their Georgia or Massachusetts state pension with them and pick up where they left off.

And the School of Osteopathic Medicine in Auburn is a private organization and is not eligible for participation in the TRS. It is not part of Auburn University, it just happens to be located in the City of Auburn. The same applies to the Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine in Dothan. Neither are state institutions and are no more eligible for TRS than Regions Bank employees.

(06-18-2016 08:45 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 10:44 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:12 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  UAB Hospital employees haven't been state employees for like 2 or 3 years now. UAB formed an LLC so that employees are working for a "private" company. I would imagine that it's not a political attack on anyone and is just a response to how much it costs to be a member of the TRS.

It is not just UAB medical sites but also USA medical sites. Add in the new DO schools in Auburn and Dothan and you may be mistaken about it being a flanking attack on the SRS.

They didn't collaborate on it, it's just happenstance. And at UAB it's specifically just hospital employees. UAB School of Medicine, School of Dentistry, and School of Optometry employees are still on the TRS. It is because being in the TRS is supremely expensive for both employees and the employer, and because UAB Health System is not competing against other universities, but is competing against private organizations for employees. Hospital employees very rarely spend their entire career at UAB, at least when it comes to doctors and nurses, so the pension benefit is not attractive compared to a 401k that they can easily take with them when they leave, or, bring with them instead of having to start from scratch if they're in their 40s or 50s. Whereas a university professor coming from another state can bring their Georgia or Massachusetts state pension with them and pick up where they left off.

And the School of Osteopathic Medicine in Auburn is a private organization and is not eligible for participation in the TRS. It is not part of Auburn University, it just happens to be located in the City of Auburn. The same applies to the Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine in Dothan. Neither are state institutions and are no more eligible for TRS than Regions Bank employees.

What about employer matching of employee contributions? Many private employers match a given per cent, effectively doubling the first part of the contribution. Does this apply to the 401k as operated by UAB and USA?

In the TRS, the first 3% from the educator is matched by the state. When the deduction was increased to 7.5% by the legislature, they did not provide matching for that additional contribution.

I don't know where you get your numbers (I'm assuming 1965 like everything else), but according to the RSA website, depending on what tier the employee is in, employer costs are either 11.94% or 10.84. Not 3%. http://www.rsa-al.gov/uploads/files/TRSR...ter_16.pdf

UAB Hospital employees are matched on their 403(b) (same thing as a 401k, but for non-profits) up to 5%. So, the cost to UAB Hospital is half of what it would be for participation in the TRS. http://www.uab.edu/humanresources/home/b...ograms#llc

Again, all of this is because it's cheaper for UAB to not have to pay TRS pensions to doctors and nurses. It's not a political ploy to try to get back at anyone. Just like the engineers building the football pavilion are professional enough to build it to withstand the f'n wind, UAB and I presume USA administrators are not so petty to play around with tens of millions of dollars just to spite David Bronner.

(06-21-2016 09:42 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I don't know where you get your numbers (I'm assuming 1965 like everything else), but according to the RSA website, depending on what tier the employee is in, employer costs are either 11.94% or 10.84. Not 3%. http://www.rsa-al.gov/uploads/files/TRSR...ter_16.pdf

UAB Hospital employees are matched on their 403(b) (same thing as a 401k, but for non-profits) up to 5%. So, the cost to UAB Hospital is half of what it would be for participation in the TRS. http://www.uab.edu/humanresources/home/b...ograms#llc

Again, all of this is because it's cheaper for UAB to not have to pay TRS pensions to doctors and nurses. It's not a political ploy to try to get back at anyone. Just like the engineers building the football pavilion are professional enough to build it to withstand the f'n wind, UAB and I presume USA administrators are not so petty to play around with tens of millions of dollars just to spite David Bronner.

This isn't entirely accurate, at least for the doctors. There's so many different entities, but most aren't UAB Hospital employees. Patient care charges come via Health Services Foundation, which is separate from UAB and UAB Hospital. Most also have an appointment/salary within the medical school, which is UAB the university, and involves Teacher's retirement. I'm pretty sure only those with additional Hospital administrative duties have an additional paycheck via UAB Hospital which would be the subject of this. I have no idea about nurses.

(06-22-2016 09:07 AM)TMcCarty Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 09:42 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I don't know where you get your numbers (I'm assuming 1965 like everything else), but according to the RSA website, depending on what tier the employee is in, employer costs are either 11.94% or 10.84. Not 3%. http://www.rsa-al.gov/uploads/files/TRSR...ter_16.pdf

UAB Hospital employees are matched on their 403(b) (same thing as a 401k, but for non-profits) up to 5%. So, the cost to UAB Hospital is half of what it would be for participation in the TRS. http://www.uab.edu/humanresources/home/b...ograms#llc

Again, all of this is because it's cheaper for UAB to not have to pay TRS pensions to doctors and nurses. It's not a political ploy to try to get back at anyone. Just like the engineers building the football pavilion are professional enough to build it to withstand the f'n wind, UAB and I presume USA administrators are not so petty to play around with tens of millions of dollars just to spite David Bronner.

This isn't entirely accurate, at least for the doctors. There's so many different entities, but most aren't UAB Hospital employees. Patient care charges come via Health Services Foundation, which is separate from UAB and UAB Hospital. Most also have an appointment/salary within the medical school, which is UAB the university, and involves Teacher's retirement. I'm pretty sure only those with additional Hospital administrative duties have an additional paycheck via UAB Hospital which would be the subject of this. I have no idea about nurses.

Nurses are just employees of the LLC, I'm almost positive. At any rate, even without doctors being involved, everything else still applies. By doing the LLC, retirement benefits costs for health system employees is literally half of what they'd be under UAB as a state employee.

I actually wouldn't put it past them to do this with regular university employees if they could get away with it (but of course they couldn't). Fringe benefit rates are really, really burdensome. The last year I was employed at UAB it was something like 33 or 34% for a full time salaried employee.

No argument, just wanted to clarify that portion.

"Fringe benefits" can make the difference between attracting and getting the quality of employee desired or having to settle for the quality of employee a business can get. We find the state considering trying to get teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists and such to move to less desirable locations within the state by offering a variety of fringe benefits as inducements.

What inducements are needed to get medical personnel to move into an area with no hospitals within an hour's drive or to get teachers to move to an area where all schools are rated as "failing" with no state program in place to assure, or even attempt, their improvement?