In the field of aging, an enormous amount of valuable work is not paid for by wages. But if it were, what would it cost? And who would pay it?
We can answer at least the first question.
According to Independent Sector (IS), the value of a volunteer hour in 2006 was $18.77, up from $18.04 per hour in 2005. That’s a national average: in Wisconsin, where pay rates are lower, the value of an hour is listed as $15.63.
The figure is calculated using the average hourly wage for all non-management, nonagriculture workers from tables compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Twelve percent is added for fringe benefits.
If your organization uses volunteers, the figure can help you give a better picture of the value you receive or give—or in many of our cases, both. The site also links to Financial Accounting Board Standards for determining the value of volunteer services for financial statements. Generally, only special skills work your organization would have to purchase if it were not donated is covered.
IS is a "nonpartisan coalition of approximately 575 organizations leads, strengthens, and mobilizes the charitable community in order to fulfill our vision of a just and inclusive society and a healthy democracy of active citizens, effective institutions, and vibrant communities.”
A lot of food for thought here. What do you think about unpaid work in your field or other parts of your life?
Showing posts with label unpaid workforce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unpaid workforce. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Other voices: your comments
Thanks to those of you who've peeked at the blog, and special thanks to those who've responded!
Right now the comments appear in a separate link at each entry. While I'm trying to figure out how to get them to be displayed more prominently, I'll copy some of them here so it's easier for you to read them.
Regarding why we pay caregivers so much less than copy machine repair people, one reader said:
We have a long history of valuing the material product over the service related product, especially when the service rendered involves caring for other human beings. Perhaps because servicing the copy machine is usually done infrequently, and care of another is done daily and the costs accumulate quickly.
Yes, I agree. We think of caring for people as labor of love, paying emotional rewards. But I keep looking around for the cadre of (mainly) women at home, taking care of their families and their communities while their partners work in the paying workplace, and I don't see them. The world's changed faster than the systems that keep it running, or limping, depending on your point of view, along.
Next, another reader disagrees with my personal opinion that universal healthcare insurance would be the best response to the present crisis in healthcare access and reimbursement.
What is the evidence that the cost of insurance would be reduced should the state cover all people?
The proposal I remember seeing would require all employers to pay 20% of their gross to the state to pay for healthcare - there are equity issues with that, too. My son works for a firm that does 20 million dollars over the course of a year and has eight employees. Should they be required to pay $4million to provide coverage that costs them about $200,000 now?
Also, as managed care and gov't funding of healthcare becomes more prevalent, the pay scale of health care providers will have to be reduced to allow the "discounts" that will be forced on the provider. Gov't funding is not near the "real" cost, and privately insured people are needed to "offset" the loss to the company. This is one the reasons we don't have a Milwaukee County Medical Complex anymore!
Many good points.
I wonder what "real costs" are. In this odd system, charges are set high with the understanding that buyers with clout (large groups) will negotiate reduced fees, and that the fees need to be high enough to offset nonpayers. While the government reimbursement may be rock-bottom (or lower), the insurers are paying much less than the ticket price, too. The poor guy who pays cash is the only person who pays the asking amount. That seems goofy, since it's much cheaper to process that transaction.
I don't know the answers. And remember, I'm expressing my own opinions here, not those of the Milwaukee Aging Consortium or anyone else.
I do know that what I pay for health insurance prevents me from getting necessary health care, sometimes. One thing that seems like a must: linking what you pay for premiums to your household income. If you are paying 20% of your income for health insurance, chances are you are in dangerous financial territory.
Anyone have any creative solutions?
Right now the comments appear in a separate link at each entry. While I'm trying to figure out how to get them to be displayed more prominently, I'll copy some of them here so it's easier for you to read them.
Regarding why we pay caregivers so much less than copy machine repair people, one reader said:
We have a long history of valuing the material product over the service related product, especially when the service rendered involves caring for other human beings. Perhaps because servicing the copy machine is usually done infrequently, and care of another is done daily and the costs accumulate quickly.
Yes, I agree. We think of caring for people as labor of love, paying emotional rewards. But I keep looking around for the cadre of (mainly) women at home, taking care of their families and their communities while their partners work in the paying workplace, and I don't see them. The world's changed faster than the systems that keep it running, or limping, depending on your point of view, along.
Next, another reader disagrees with my personal opinion that universal healthcare insurance would be the best response to the present crisis in healthcare access and reimbursement.
What is the evidence that the cost of insurance would be reduced should the state cover all people?
The proposal I remember seeing would require all employers to pay 20% of their gross to the state to pay for healthcare - there are equity issues with that, too. My son works for a firm that does 20 million dollars over the course of a year and has eight employees. Should they be required to pay $4million to provide coverage that costs them about $200,000 now?
Also, as managed care and gov't funding of healthcare becomes more prevalent, the pay scale of health care providers will have to be reduced to allow the "discounts" that will be forced on the provider. Gov't funding is not near the "real" cost, and privately insured people are needed to "offset" the loss to the company. This is one the reasons we don't have a Milwaukee County Medical Complex anymore!
Many good points.
I wonder what "real costs" are. In this odd system, charges are set high with the understanding that buyers with clout (large groups) will negotiate reduced fees, and that the fees need to be high enough to offset nonpayers. While the government reimbursement may be rock-bottom (or lower), the insurers are paying much less than the ticket price, too. The poor guy who pays cash is the only person who pays the asking amount. That seems goofy, since it's much cheaper to process that transaction.
I don't know the answers. And remember, I'm expressing my own opinions here, not those of the Milwaukee Aging Consortium or anyone else.
I do know that what I pay for health insurance prevents me from getting necessary health care, sometimes. One thing that seems like a must: linking what you pay for premiums to your household income. If you are paying 20% of your income for health insurance, chances are you are in dangerous financial territory.
Anyone have any creative solutions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
