Jobs-jobs-jobs

[eolesen]

This is probably one of the few areas where Wing and I agree on something...

Yes, there's a lot of fraud out there. Percentage-wise, it's a small number of employees actually doing this, but AMR is self-funded, so every dollar for medical claims paid out is one less dollar in the profit column.

When several of the big three automakers did their verification, they found tens of millions of dollars in coverage had provided to ineligible persons. Even with an amnesty period, they still had hundreds of dependents being covered who were eventually kicked off their plans. Chrysler went as far as to payroll deduct the market value of the coverage provided from employee paychecks, even if no claims were paid out.

I've looked at what several other employers offer in my profession, and most of them offer coverage for spouse/kids, but at the employee's expense.

We're pretty damn lucky to have the coverage we have, especially managed care. The other employers typically only offer a choice of a HMO or an 80/20 plan with no max out of pocket....

There are exceptions to that, but fewer and fewer each year.


As far as part timer's go, I agree that they shouldn't get the same level of benefits as full-timers, but what about the full-timers who elect to CS/trip-trade as many hours off as possible and be a virtual part-timers?...

 

[aafsc]

Wing, you are an idiot. I am retired and I pay for my insurance. I am a TWA retiree and when I retired, my insurance was to be paid by the company for me. Part of my contract. Along comes good ole AA and now I am having to pay. What happened to the 5.5 million that TWA had for us TWA retirees health insurance? Good ole AA stole it and AA retirees do not pay for any health insurance.
I just wish someone could tell us TWA retirees where the 5.5 million went.

[post="256706"][/post]​

The first point I would like to make is that AA employees DO pay for their retiree medical. It is called prefunding. Over the working life of an AA employee, the employee pays a certain amount of his or her paycheck to prefund his or her retiree medical. In my case I pay about $7.00 per pay check (about $3.50 per week). AA matches this amount and it all goes to a fund to collect interest. So when you retire you have health insurance. Of course an employee can elect not to participate in this plan but they will not have any retiree medical.
As far as TWA retirees, this is what happened in my opinion. As part of the asset purchase agreement, AA agreed to assume the retiree health care costs of the TWA Inc. retirees and employees. This liability was over $700 million. This was probably allocated between the TWA people who retired before the transaction and the TWA people who worked for AA thus becoming AA employees. AA grandfathered the former TWA employees (who are now AA employees) onto the prefunding program. For example a former TWA person with 30 years seniority pays the lowest rate on the prefunding scale (just like an AA employee). It appears that the allocation of the total liability went in favor of the ex-TWA people who became AA employees. That is why a former TWA/AA employee who retired say..8 months after the AA/TWA transaction does not have to make payments like an ex-TWA person who never worked for AA does. They could have allocated more in your favor but then the ex-TWA people who came to work at AA would have to pay according to their age (the payments go up as age increases). And with the average age of the ex-TWA/AA employee being relatively high the payments would have been high (in some cases over $100 a month).
I think that the ex-TWA/AA employees would have been very upset if this were to happen and AA did not want to upset them as to where upsetting the ex-TWA folks who retired prior to the AA/TWA transaction would not affect AA at all. But you pay about what the UA retirees are now required pay and UA retirees spent their entire career at UA as to where you never worked for AA. As for the $5.5 million, it probably went to the TWA estate to pay off the creditors. Still, where are you going to find health insurance at your age for what you are paying to AA?

 

[Bob Owens]

I have to agree with Bob on this part timer deal. Why should a part time ramper or agent working for beer money be entitled to the same benefits as a full time employee? This is not fair to the full timers, it devalues the benefit. These part timers are bleeding the company slowly but surely, and the full timers get to suffer the increased premiums to offset their burden.

[post="256659"][/post]​

They are not bleeding the company because the company passes these costs on to you. The company gets the benifit of reduced wages and you get the burden of increased premiums.

 

[aafsc]

That's fine, the part time people are still employees. How about the multitude of dependants they bring along and dump on the plan as well? Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether dependants should receive the same healthcare package for the same cost as an actual employee?

The healthcare plans at most companies would benefit themselves if they had a different set of premiums and deductibles than that of a regular employee. I still think if you doubled the premium and the co-pay for non-payroll persons who are on the company's healthcare plan, it would still be an attractive plan at AA's rates but would surely lessen the burdon on the company's plan costs. In fact, you might find that many of the dependants would shift over to the plan of say a spouse perhaps, which may not be as good as AA's plan, which is why the employee lines up all their dependants and puts them on AA's plan. When last I spoke to someone about the plan, it sounded to me like the premiums were quite attractive, and the co-pays (except for the prescription drug plan, but anything to do with Medco is strife with problems from the beginning) were not all that unreasonable.

If the plan is good enough for most employees who enjoy it, why risk loosing it because dependants are eating up the bulk of the benefits?

I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I don't think AA would have gone through this massive dependant verification process if the plan wasn't strife with abuse. Making the plan not quite as attractive for dependants as for actual employees could easily lessen the burdon on the plan as well as curtail benefits abuse substantially.

Of course, those of you who may be sucking the life out of the plan by being attached at the teat as we speak are going to disagree with me.

There are a lot of companies whos plans don't allow for dependants at all and even plans that have limits on the number of dependants you can add per benefit enrollment year.

[post="256708"][/post]​

I think that AA is trying to make sure that "ineligible dependents" are taken off the list. This could mean kids who are now in college and over the age limit or divorced spouses, etc. When someone does have eligible dependents, the amount you pay does go up. Remember the Employee only, Employee+1, Employee+2 or more with the higher rates on the latter 2 in your benefits package? But enough of this full time vs part time crap. A way AA could save a lot of money is by having the employees' spouse put that spouse and kids on the spouses' health plan at their place of employment. That way, only the AA employee would be covered at AA. Almost everyone's husband or wife works today and most have some sort of medical at their job. Of course if the AA employee's spouse does not work or has no medical coverage at their job, then they will have to stay on the AA plans.

 

[jimntx]

Perhaps, but if this is a one shot deal why hire only to lay them off once the job is done?

[post="256277"][/post]​

Actually, there are a number of companies out there that do just that. They specialize in contract work as 3rd party vendors. When they get a contract, they hire people. When the contract expires, the people are out of a job.

Moreover, the turnover during the period of the contract precludes most of the people from drawing unemployment when they leave the job. These jobs pay not much more than minimum wage and attract people who are desperate for any kind of work. As soon as they find a decent job, they leave.

 

[twaokc]

Wing,
This is about the only thing that we agree on. MEDCO is a JOKE

 

[fix_airplanes]

For TWAOKC: on this thread.

AA employees have been paying "pre-funding" of retiree medical via payroll deduction since ~1986.

This "volunteer" payroll deduction was put into place to "fund" ones retiree medical coverage when an AAer becomes a retiree.

Cost of payroll deduction was based on age.

So, TWAOKC, my retiree medical is not free at all. I have paid a paycheck premium deduction towards it for ~20 years.

 

[twaokc]

It was in my contract that it would be paid, AA stole that from me

For TWAOKC: on this thread.

AA employees have been paying "pre-funding" of retiree medical via payroll deduction since ~1986.

This "volunteer" payroll deduction was put into place to "fund" ones retiree medical coverage when an AAer becomes a retiree.

Cost of payroll deduction was based on age.

So, TWAOKC, my retiree medical is not free at all. I have paid a paycheck premium deduction towards it for ~20 years.

[post="256807"][/post]​

 

[fix_airplanes]

It was in my contract that it would be paid, AA stole that from me

[post="256816"][/post]​

Yes, Airline Brother. It is a known fact that any one who worked for the "gone" airlines have been betrayed by their airline or PBGC, etc.

Promises were made when accepting employment with the "legacy" airlines, and now "most" of them are trying in one form or another to renigen on retiree promises.

All us "legacy" airline retirees are on the same sinking boat. Just depends on where we are standing on the boat "Titanic."

 

[aafsc]

It was in my contract that it would be paid, AA stole that from me

[post="256816"][/post]​

As I posted earlier, it seems that most of the benefit went to the TWA people who went to work for AA since they got grandfathered in at the lower rates. You do get retiree health care from AA so stop complaining and be greatful for what you do have.

 

[Winglet]

What happened to the 5.5 million that TWA had for us TWA retirees health insurance? Good ole AA stole it and AA retirees do not pay for any health insurance.
I just wish someone could tell us TWA retirees where the 5.5 million went.

[post="256706"][/post]​

Probably went the same place that AA retiree insurance is going to go next year when AA goes into Chapter 11.

You question would be a good one to ask of the former TWA CEO. Hmmm. . . I wonder if his health insurance (and bonuses, and retirement, and AMR stock options, etc, etc, etc) is still good. Whatyathink?

 

[aafsc]

Probably went the same place that AA retiree insurance is going to go next year when AA goes into Chapter 11.

You question would be a good one to ask of the former TWA CEO. Hmmm. . . I wonder if his health insurance (and bonuses, and retirement, and AMR stock options, etc, etc, etc) is still good. Whatyathink?

[post="256830"][/post]​

Well, if they do file we should get our prefunding returned plus accrued interest.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Well, if they do file we should get our prefunding returned plus accrued interest.

[post="256831"][/post]​

Interest, I wonder what the rate would be? According to AA's Jetnet FAQ on the pension, they earn over 13% a year on investments for the past 10 years. I guess we should expect that rate.

 

[eolesen]

Well, if they do file we should get our prefunding returned plus accrued interest.

[post="256831"][/post]​

When our prefunding was refunded in 2003, it was with accrued interest. Don't recall the rate.