100 million giveaway - need to know PART II

Author: "union activist"

Brothers and Sisters,

For a long time I have asked the union to do a comparison of our “total compensation” compared to the non-union “total compensation” when they published their salaries (the top wage earners). Since then we have not taken the fight to them, or any fight at all (sorry if this sounds inflammatory, it’s just fact), although we have changed many things in our approach to rebutted their claims, we still have not challenged them on the most important facts, that are in dispute here, “retirement benefits.” Retirement benefits are the most important challenge that we need to hit back on; due to the fact that they have already put it in the media that we “have some of the richest benefits in the industry.” My question is “WHAT ABOUT THEIR RETIREMENT” and how does it stack up against ours?

Well, let’s take a look at what their proposal is for us (let me rehash this from my previous email):

1. Make everyone change to Kaiser Medical, or United Healthcare Group (United got bad reviews on YouTube - VIDEO  that had fraud in 2008 CONSUMERIST. MOTLEY FOOL

2. Survivor Benefits reduced from 16 years to 1 year.
3. From age 58 to 65 the company only has to pay only 50% of the premium costs.

Reminder of what they said: CLICK HERE!

Now let’s take a look at the concessions they had taken to lower their (non-union) “liabilities;” NONE:

For non-union employees hired before May 1, 2009: As soon as the retiree, spouse or domestic partner is first eligible for Medicare, he/she must select Medicare Parts A & B to be eligible for continued health benefits from TriMet. When you become eligible for Medicare as a retiree, Medicare is your primary insurer for medical costs and your TriMet medical plan is secondary. The TriMet plan continues to cover dental, vision, and prescription costs as outlined in the plan. The health coverage for the surviving spouse or domestic partner and qualified dependents of a retiree will continue past the retiree's death for 10 years.

For non-union employees hired on or after May 1, 2009: Retiree health coverage terminates when the retiree becomes eligible for Medicare. If a retiree dies, health coverage for the surviving spouse or domestic partner and qualified dependents of the retiree will continue with the entire cost of coverage paid by the respective survivor and such coverage shall cease on the earlier of: (a) 10 years after the retiree’s death, or (2) the date the surviving spouse, domestic partner, or qualified dependent becomes eligible for Medicare (see attached full information).

Now let’s compare side-by-side:

1. For those who were hired before 2009: union members lose their choice of BCBS, non-union does not. Union members essentially lose their Survivor Benefit to just 1 year; the non-union side keeps theirs for 10 years. From ages 58-65 union members have to pay 50% of all medical costs, non-union does not. WINNER: Non-union; they take the so-called savings imposed on the union side and prop up the non-union side’s retiree benefits at near Platinum levels.

2. For those who were hired after 2009: union members before the change in the status quo fall under the first part. For those who were hired after the Arbitration (which are now on the Defined Compensation Plan as of 2012), you are in the same boat as those who were hired before 2009; yet you have a pay-as-you go plan. The non-union plan terminates at Medicare eligibility age; yet they keep the Survival Benefit for 10 years. WINNER: Non-union; the question is why aren’t these 2 plans in-sync with one another in their proposal (I think they made a mistake and will try again in the next contract)? We all know that the mortality rate is higher for the essential employees (union front-line workers), then their counter parts on the non-union side, thus the need for healthcare that is just 5% higher than the non-union side.

The point of the matter is that this company signed a contract twice for the “Cadillac Benefits” in order to post-pone having to pay the pension benefit trust funds as they were due. They did this in order to pay for these bloated liability projects, without taking into consideration that “the bill will become due” at some point in time. Is the union the blame for this; NO, if someone offered you the Cadillac Plan, you would take it. The Retiree trust is underfunded by $900 million, the OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) obligations is 0% funded, meaning they don’t intend to pay for retired workers benefits. This company has been on a spending spree with money that was earmarked for these trusts, and they violated that trust that was agreed upon in “good faith.” What will be the argument in Arbitration, “this debt (that we created) is unsustainable?” For all the media campaigns that this company has been on, is just “smoke and mirrors,” the truth is that you cannot just simply “cut” your way out, for “services already rendered” (calling it unfunded liability), you owe a debt, so pay it! Even if the non-union side has to take “some” concessions because, it is too expensive to maintain the “Platinum payroll” that the top earners are on long-term, it is simply unsustainable.

HR 406 RETIREMENT