Bullet point 2 suggests that with Trimet's benefits proposal they will save $3.2 million. I was expecting a much bigger number than that. If that is the difference between status quo and Trimet proposal then how do they come up with the $900 million due 40 years from now? I come up with $128 million.
Bullet point 3 is odd and I have no idea what that means other than Trimet continues to withhold illegally charged insurance premiums from 2009-2010. They can't get out of paying that, can they? I'm not sure how the same bullet point under 'proposed' is related to 'status quo'.
Bullet point 4 seems to suggest that medical costs will be declining well into the future
Bullet point 5 suggests the new contract as proposed would save the company $1.1 million only for retiree health care. Once again where the $900 million unfunded obligation number came from becomes questionable.
Obviously I am not the brightest person in the world but just looking at that chart how can Trimet claim complete doom if they don't get the arbitration award? I don't see it...
1 comment:
Regarding bullet point #1, I believe TriMet wants 0% wage changes while I'm guessing the union wants an increase like they've been getting. Not technically a roll back, but you could call it one given health care charges and if the wage increases don't keep pace with inflation.
Re #2 (and #5), the yearly "savings" is expected to increase over time, it's not a fixed number.
Re #3, that can continue to ignore the ruling
Re #4, it may refer to TriMet's costs, and if it does part of the reduction would would be from shifting costs onto employees. And the "decreasing" refers to the rate of increase going down, not that costs will be lower than before.
Post a Comment