A private collection of material focusing on the never ending joys of the Trimet industrial complex-Follow the Twitter feed for complete coverage and trimet scanner calls
https://twitter.com/AlYourPalster
Although I can understand and appreciate TriMet bus drivers and bus driver retirees fearing continued deterioration of their pension payments, I am somewhat envious at the same time. The transit agency I retired from (which is larger than TriMet) doesn't pay for any retiree medical. However, we all knew that going in and through our career that we would not be getting any medical benefits upon retirement. Therefore, because our agency was part of the state PERS, the union employees (hourly paid, non-salaried) were --and still are-- able to boost retirement pay some by working more overtime in the last years of employment. l was able to pour it on in my last two years just because I knew that I would have to pay for my own medical once leaving employment and retiring.
Therefore, I too, in a sense, am seeing my pension payment deteriorate because I'm experiencing huge increases in my monthly payments for medical each year. It's increased almost 60% since I retired. So I'm taking quite a hit too. Only the difference is that I knew this would happen and prepared for it by working huge amounts of overtime my last two years so my monthly retirement payment would be higher than if I did not put in extra hours. My last year earnings were more than $130k which eight years ago was putting in a lot of hours ...not so many at today's wages, though.
So, I'm envious of you guys but at the same time, can feel your pain as, unlike my situation, you were "promised" your medical needs would be fully taken care of in retirement and now are slowly being taken away.
Can I ask how a TriMet transit operator's retirement pay is calculated? Is it also based on total compensation (including overtime) or is it based on base wages? Let's say a full-time bus driver puts in 30 years and is age 55 when he/she retires, what will the approximate compensation be before any medical payments are deducted?
Full-time bus driver or $75 per year after 10 years of service. (This is not true anymore, now it's a standard 401k type pension like Any other crappy employer)
So a 30 year full-time bus driver pension would be $2250. That was supposed to include medical insurance. But they cheated us out of that. Working overtime did zip for the pension.
Thanks for the explanation, Al. That puts things in perspective. So a full-time transit operator that started with the agency 30 years ago is only getting $27,000 a year under the old defined benefit pension no matter what their gross pay may have been at the time of retirement? I always thought that retired TriMet operators were getting a slightly larger base pension for some reason.
So now it's being forced upon them to start paying for a portion of their medical premiums each month and that amount keeps rising each year? And at the time they started, they understood and expected that their medical payments would be paid in full during their retirement years?
Okay, if that is the case, I'm no longer envious at all. I no longer will ask myself when I read your blog features "what are these guys complaining about? We all are getting our medical payments increased ...big deal, suck it up; it's happening to everybody." I now can perfectly understand the dilemma. It was something that was promised and is now being reneged. I'm completely in your corner on this and agree that there should be some grandfathering applied as something "promised" shouldn't be taken away in this manner.
I can thank my lucky stars that I was rejected by TriMet for employment back in the mid-70's. If I did get hired back then and stuck it out to retirement, I'd be as pissed too. I'm not sure if I could contain myself as well as Jim Fowler was able to do.
That's correct, if you did 30 years full time your pension would be $27k/year. The promise was made that medical would be covered.
After that last arbitration decision the pension was reduced by a $150 deductible plus $1500 co pays for medications and $1500 co-pays for medical coverage which reduced the retirement to $23.8k.
(for the last 4 years trimet retirees/employees have been paying part of the premium charge even though the BS media keeps reporting that Trimet covers the entire premium charge. This lie is also told over and over by the Trimet executives)
Now what Mcfarlane wants now is that all employee, including the retirees pay 6% of the premium charge which is more than we are paying now which translates into about a $1300/year reduction in pension but the real blow is if you ACTUALLY GET SICK cause then the pension will evaporate completely with the 20% coverage. As you know a hospital stay can easily run over 100k so if we are responsible for 20% there goes the entire pension.
Now in my case, a retired part timer, my puny pension that started at $950 and full medial has gone down to $780 with the $3000 copays not included.
I imagine that we will have to opt out of the Trimet retiree health insurance now and sign up for Obamacare, which I guess is what Mcfarlane and his cronies want.
Reneging on promises made to your employees is no small deal.
Current employees must remember that they are not valued by the executive class that will throw them under the bus whenever it suits there purpose.
Al, you keep saying that you have to pay the full 10%, or 20% if the TriMet proposal goes thru. That is wrong.
It is terrible that they are grabbing money from retirees with premium and copay increases, but there is a CAP on what you have to pay out of pocket. Using your 100,000 example - the most you would pay is $1500.00, (plus the deductible) then the insurance pays it all. At 10% coinsurance, after 15,000 in charges, insurance pays 100%. If coinsurance is 20%, after $7500 in charges, insurance pays 100%
Retirees that choose the Kaiser option pay less out of pocket.
I don't think you can opt out of the group coverage and buy Obamacare. If you have group coverage available, you are already adequately covered. TriMet doesn't have an opt out option.
but there is a CAP on what you have to pay out of pocket. Using your 100,000 example - the most you would pay is $1500.00, (plus the deductible) then the insurance pays it all. At 10% coinsurance, after 15,000 in charges, insurance pays 100%. If coinsurance is 20%, after $7500 in charges, insurance pays 100% ~~~>The current contract has a cap at $1500 for prescriptions and $1500 for medical which means $3000 out of pocket, but that is the current contract Now the proposed new contract is this which comes right out of the TriMet press release TriMet’s three-year contract proposal includes 0-0-3% annual wage increase, and an 80/20 preferred provider health care plan and a $10 co-pay HMO plan, both with a 6 percent premium contribution, matching the non-union health care plan. That doesn't say anything about CAPS at all so I am assuming its 20% of everything that is incurred.
FURTHERMORE, What makes you think that after the expiration of this contract they won't pull the exact same shit again and whine about the 80/20 plan being unsustainable and the need to cut that to 50/50?
For new hires, after turning to the contribution plan got a 401k plan (which is in the members control), then suddenly they took it away and started giving them 457b plans (which is back in the control of the company), without telling everyone that it can be used as assets (say someone sues the company). the 401k is only offered to non-union employees..Beware people...just saying. HB
HB, when you say the 457B is back in "control" of the company, I'm not sure that is the case or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by that.
Participants in 457(b) plans are by law insulated and protected in the event the sponsoring employer has financial difficulties including bankruptcy or lawsuits. Mechanically, they function the same as a 401(k). The investment options offered to the employees may be different but most of the rules are pretty much the same with the exception that 457(b) participants are not subject to early withdrawal penalties as are 401k participants. Bus drivers should not fear TriMet pirating their 457(b) contributions. Yes, I suppose TriMet is capable of anything but it's against the law for them to "touch" or deny possession of those funds.
Where I worked, we had both a defined benefit pension and a 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan. When Deferred Comp' first started, many of us had the concern that since the "company had title" to the funds that we could conceivably be in jeopardy of losing them should a financial hardship be incurred by the transit agency but those fears subsided by the passage of subsequent tax reform acts along the way.
It's amazing how vehemently anti-union MacFarlane is despite his claims to the contrary (actions talk, bullshit walks). When was the last time any Trimet nonunion workers were assaulted, spat on, or even just cursed at while at work? When was the last time any of them worked a holiday, a split shift, late nights, or weekends? MacFarlane's complete lack of respect for his union workforce leads him to publicly lie and distort facts and figures. He extrapolates healthcare costs way into the future in a way that would bankrupt any company not to mention our whole country, and he refuses to give the union access to and/or the source of these numbers. He is disingenuous at best, criminally dishonest at worst, especially when you consider how he and his cronies will all retire with lavish six figure pensions funded by working people's taxes. The fact that this attack on a public employees' union is happening in a state with a Democratically controlled state government makes it all the more outrageous. Who needs the Koch brothers, Paul Ryan, or Scott Walker when you have Neil MacFarlane and Gov. Kitzhaber? Damn!
@Roamer the 457b plan that you are refering of is from the private sector which is covered by ERISA law, the public sector is not thus, can be used as assets in litigation. HB
Henry Beasley: false. A 457(b) plan is a 457(b) plan. It makes no difference if it is sponsored by a public or private employer. Feel free to quote reliable sources otherwise if you can.
Although I can understand and appreciate TriMet bus drivers and bus driver retirees fearing continued deterioration of their pension payments, I am somewhat envious at the same time. The transit agency I retired from (which is larger than TriMet) doesn't pay for any retiree medical. However, we all knew that going in and through our career that we would not be getting any medical benefits upon retirement. Therefore, because our agency was part of the state PERS, the union employees (hourly paid, non-salaried) were --and still are-- able to boost retirement pay some by working more overtime in the last years of employment. l was able to pour it on in my last two years just because I knew that I would have to pay for my own medical once leaving employment and retiring.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I too, in a sense, am seeing my pension payment deteriorate because I'm experiencing huge increases in my monthly payments for medical each year. It's increased almost 60% since I retired. So I'm taking quite a hit too. Only the difference is that I knew this would happen and prepared for it by working huge amounts of overtime my last two years so my monthly retirement payment would be higher than if I did not put in extra hours. My last year earnings were more than $130k which eight years ago was putting in a lot of hours ...not so many at today's wages, though.
So, I'm envious of you guys but at the same time, can feel your pain as, unlike my situation, you were "promised" your medical needs would be fully taken care of in retirement and now are slowly being taken away.
Can I ask how a TriMet transit operator's retirement pay is calculated? Is it also based on total compensation (including overtime) or is it based on base wages? Let's say a full-time bus driver puts in 30 years and is age 55 when he/she retires, what will the approximate compensation be before any medical payments are deducted?
Full-time bus driver or $75 per year after 10 years of service. (This is not true anymore, now it's a standard 401k type pension like Any other crappy employer)
ReplyDeleteSo a 30 year full-time bus driver pension would be $2250. That was supposed to include medical insurance. But they cheated us out of that. Working overtime did zip for the pension.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation, Al. That puts things in perspective. So a full-time transit operator that started with the agency 30 years ago is only getting $27,000 a year under the old defined benefit pension no matter what their gross pay may have been at the time of retirement? I always thought that retired TriMet operators were getting a slightly larger base pension for some reason.
ReplyDeleteSo now it's being forced upon them to start paying for a portion of their medical premiums each month and that amount keeps rising each year? And at the time they started, they understood and expected that their medical payments would be paid in full during their retirement years?
Okay, if that is the case, I'm no longer envious at all. I no longer will ask myself when I read your blog features "what are these guys complaining about? We all are getting our medical payments increased ...big deal, suck it up; it's happening to everybody." I now can perfectly understand the dilemma. It was something that was promised and is now being reneged. I'm completely in your corner on this and agree that there should be some grandfathering applied as something "promised" shouldn't be taken away in this manner.
I can thank my lucky stars that I was rejected by TriMet for employment back in the mid-70's. If I did get hired back then and stuck it out to retirement, I'd be as pissed too. I'm not sure if I could contain myself as well as Jim Fowler was able to do.
That's correct, if you did 30 years full time your pension would be $27k/year. The promise was made that medical would be covered.
ReplyDeleteAfter that last arbitration decision the pension was reduced by a $150 deductible plus $1500 co pays for medications and $1500 co-pays for medical coverage which reduced the retirement to $23.8k.
(for the last 4 years trimet retirees/employees have been paying part of the premium charge even though the BS media keeps reporting that Trimet covers the entire premium charge. This lie is also told over and over by the Trimet executives)
Now what Mcfarlane wants now is that all employee, including the retirees pay 6% of the premium charge which is more than we are paying now which translates into about a $1300/year reduction in pension but the real blow is if you ACTUALLY GET SICK cause then the pension will evaporate completely with the 20% coverage.
As you know a hospital stay can easily run over 100k so if we are responsible for 20% there goes the entire pension.
Now in my case, a retired part timer, my puny pension that started at $950 and full medial has gone down to $780 with the $3000 copays not included.
I imagine that we will have to opt out of the Trimet retiree health insurance now and sign up for Obamacare, which I guess is what Mcfarlane and his cronies want.
Reneging on promises made to your employees is no small deal.
Current employees must remember that they are not valued by the executive class that will throw them under the bus whenever it suits there purpose.
Al, you keep saying that you have to pay the full 10%, or 20% if the TriMet proposal goes thru. That is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt is terrible that they are grabbing money from retirees with premium and copay increases, but there is a CAP on what you have to pay out of pocket. Using your 100,000 example - the most you would pay is $1500.00, (plus the deductible) then the insurance pays it all. At 10% coinsurance, after 15,000 in charges, insurance pays 100%. If coinsurance is 20%, after $7500 in charges, insurance pays 100%
Retirees that choose the Kaiser option pay less out of pocket.
I don't think you can opt out of the group coverage and buy Obamacare. If you have group coverage available, you are already adequately covered. TriMet doesn't have an opt out option.
ReplyDeletebut there is a CAP on what you have to pay out of pocket. Using your 100,000 example - the most you would pay is $1500.00, (plus the deductible) then the insurance pays it all. At 10% coinsurance, after 15,000 in charges, insurance pays 100%. If coinsurance is 20%, after $7500 in charges, insurance pays 100%
ReplyDelete~~~>The current contract has a cap at $1500 for prescriptions and $1500 for medical which means $3000 out of pocket, but that is the current contract
Now the proposed new contract is this which comes right out of the TriMet press release
TriMet’s three-year contract proposal includes 0-0-3% annual wage increase, and an 80/20 preferred provider health care plan and a $10 co-pay HMO plan, both with a 6 percent premium contribution, matching the non-union health care plan.
That doesn't say anything about CAPS at all so I am assuming its 20% of everything that is incurred.
FURTHERMORE,
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think that after the expiration of this contract they won't pull the exact same shit again and whine about the 80/20 plan being unsustainable and the need to cut that to 50/50?
They have already proven they cannot be trusted.
For new hires, after turning to the contribution plan got a 401k plan (which is in the members control), then suddenly they took it away and started giving them 457b plans (which is back in the control of the company), without telling everyone that it can be used as assets (say someone sues the company). the 401k is only offered to non-union employees..Beware people...just saying.
ReplyDeleteHB
HB, when you say the 457B is back in "control" of the company, I'm not sure that is the case or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by that.
ReplyDeleteParticipants in 457(b) plans are by law insulated and protected in the event the sponsoring employer has financial difficulties including bankruptcy or lawsuits. Mechanically, they function the same as a 401(k). The investment options offered to the employees may be different but most of the rules are pretty much the same with the exception that 457(b) participants are not subject to early withdrawal penalties as are 401k participants. Bus drivers should not fear TriMet pirating their 457(b) contributions. Yes, I suppose TriMet is capable of anything but it's against the law for them to "touch" or deny possession of those funds.
Where I worked, we had both a defined benefit pension and a 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan. When Deferred Comp' first started, many of us had the concern that since the "company had title" to the funds that we could conceivably be in jeopardy of losing them should a financial hardship be incurred by the transit agency but those fears subsided by the passage of subsequent tax reform acts along the way.
That's my understanding, anyway.
It's amazing how vehemently anti-union MacFarlane is despite his claims to the contrary (actions talk, bullshit walks). When was the last time any Trimet nonunion workers were assaulted, spat on, or even just cursed at while at work? When was the last time any of them worked a holiday, a split shift, late nights, or weekends? MacFarlane's complete lack of respect for his union workforce leads him to publicly lie and distort facts and figures. He extrapolates healthcare costs way into the future in a way that would bankrupt any company not to mention our whole country, and he refuses to give the union access to and/or the source of these numbers. He is disingenuous at best, criminally dishonest at worst, especially when you consider how he and his cronies will all retire with lavish six figure pensions funded by working people's taxes. The fact that this attack on a public employees' union is happening in a state with a Democratically controlled state government makes it all the more outrageous. Who needs the Koch brothers, Paul Ryan, or Scott Walker when you have Neil MacFarlane and Gov. Kitzhaber? Damn!
ReplyDelete@Roamer the 457b plan that you are refering of is from the private sector which is covered by ERISA law, the public sector is not thus, can be used as assets in litigation.
ReplyDeleteHB
Henry Beasley: false. A 457(b) plan is a 457(b) plan. It makes no difference if it is sponsored by a public or private employer. Feel free to quote reliable sources otherwise if you can.
ReplyDelete