Trimess

Trimess
FOLLOW THE TWITTER FEED FOR UPDATES

Friday, October 10, 2014

Contract proposal forces all blue cross members onto 80/20 insurance

Look at the two charts below.
 Under the non union contract Trimet is paying $1243 a month for the employee and their spouse. Under the new contract proposal Trimet will pay 95% of that coverage or $1,190 a month. The employee on the other hand will have to pay $63 a month

Under the contract language Trimet will only pay the same amount as they are paying for the non union employee for the union employee which is $1,190 a month. But the union 90/10 plan has a monthly premium of $1753 a month.
That leaves the union employee with out of pocket of $563/mo! That wipes out the entire pension check of many of the retirees. 
It basically forces everyone that is retired off Blue Cross.
 This is not acceptable
That's a total outrage
VOTE NO!



5 comments:

Cwherewetku said...

"I don't have the slightest idea."

Well, you're right there.

I'm not a Hansen crony, I'm not a Hunt crony. I want like all of us want. The best deal we can get under the circumstances. But it's a GIVE and TAKE process. It's a negotiation.

Some of these old farts that thought the E-Board and the negotiation team could just prance in there, hold firm and not give an inch until the second coming need to stop smoking the oregano! It wasn't going to happen that way and telling everyone that THE UNION SOLD US OUT is your opinion and this is your blog but WITH RESPECT to you, it IS also a bunch of B.S.!

I dare you to have done better. The company was screwing the union in the public eye, so the union went to the board and opened their eyes about things that they were clueless about. Then the union offered unrestricted access to the negotiations. These were things OUR UNION TEAM did...TM kicking and scratching all the way.

There was NO WAY IN HELL we were going to come out of this unscathed. They have an "endless" pot of money.

OK, SO TELL ME. IF YOU WERE THE NEGOTIATOR AND YOU *HAD* TO CONCEDE SOMETHING (OR A FEW SOMETHINGS), WHAT WOULD IT BE? WHAT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SURRENDER ON THAT WOULD GET THE OTHER SIDE TO GIVE UP ONE OF THEIR GEMS?

HMMMM? (and NO, saying "Well, I wouldn't! doesn't cut it. That's NOT negotiating and you HAVE TO negotiate)

As OPERATORS we are always saying to the public that they need to spend some time in our shoes...maybe WE need to spend some time in the negotiating team's shoes.

Cwherewetku said...

BTW, just so you know...IF the "leaked" information has truth to it, I AM PISSED we had to give up as much as we did, but that wasn't my point here.

My point was many of our "seasoned" members wanted to believe they could get by with no concessions. Not a chance.

Just so you know.

Al M said...

So we waited 6 years to just cave in totally on the health insurance?

So the whole fight was for nothing, that's what you're trying to tell me.

Look, might as well play it out all the way to the end then, all the way to the arbitration and even further than possible....

SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION!

Al M said...

Furthermore there really needed to be an amnesty for the retirees over the last 10 years not just the ones before 1992. This 'agreement' will create real hardship for some of our retirees that have health problems.

If Mcfarlane and his crew can have raises to their obscene salaries then they can have amnesties for the retirees who get by on tiny pensions that were given to them with the promise of decent health insurance.

SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION!

Henry Beasley said...

If 2014's pay cut wasn't an indication of future things to come, then be aware and be informed.
HB