It's just amazing how similar Trimet cuts are to GE cuts. Americans are being systematically stripped of promises that were made to them yet they continue to support the people that are destroying them!
You just can't fix stupid I guess
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Two retirees have sued General Electric
in federal court alleging that the company violated federal law by
dropping its supplemental health coverage and placing retirees in a
health care exchange.
. Estimates are that more than 65,000 retirees and their families will be impacted.
executives, for their part, contend that other large companies have
taken similar steps and that retirees still will receive quality
coverage under the new system.
"GE will provide former salaried retirees with access to a private
health care exchange, and will help pay for eligible expenses. ...
allows GE to offer greater choice in coverage while striking a balance
among our obligations to employees, retirees, and shareowners,"
corporate spokesman Dominic McMullan said in a statement.
says GE notified employees in September 2012 that they wouldn't be
eligible for the company's post-65 retiree health care benefit if they
had not turned 65, retired or enrolled in the plan on or before Jan. 1,
It also said that spouses and same-sex partners also would
not be eligible if they had not reached age 65 as of this Jan. 1,
according to the suit.
A second letter two years ago to those over
65 said that on Jan. 1, "a new contribution structure" would be imposed
for certain enrollees in GE Pensions Prescription Drug Plan and/or GE
Medical Care Plan for Pensions.
Then early last month, the suit
states, GE notified those like Rocheleau, who is 72, that the company
was terminating GE Medicare plans altogether and would provide a $1,000
subsidy for older retirees to use for insurance through the private
The pair contend that GE represented in July 2012 that
it intended to indefinitely offer its Medicare plans while reserving the
right to cancel or amend the plans subject to "applicable contractual
requirements," such as changes in federal or state laws or IRS
GE had assumed a fiduciary duty not to exercise or
abuse its discretion to terminate the plans, the plaintiffs said, adding
that GE used language that would "confuse or mislead" the average
participant about when the coverage would terminate.
When asked if the move was intended to cut expenses, McMullan referred a reporter to the statement.
pointed out that GE's 2012 annual report projected that cuts to its
post-retirement benefit would reduce its liability by $832 million. "If
the company were bankrupt or in serious trouble," the change might be
more understandable, he said.
"This isn't a tragedy or a calamity
looming around the corner ... this isn't what employees expected of
General Electric," Rocheleau said.
Kauffman, a benefits specialist
who retired in 2011 after 37 years, traveled for two decades to GE
facilities in Lynn, Mass., Louisville, San Jose, Calif. and other cities
to explain to workers how their benefits packages would be handled
after mass layoffs and sales of their division.
assured people who were eligible to retire, she said, that they still
would qualify for GE's health coverage. "I was always so happy to share
that with people. Now I've ended up lying to all these people,"
Kauffman, 64, said in a phone interview.
Retirees sue GE over health coverage