spacewaitress
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah...stop your whining and take a little responsibility for yourself. Geez.gatemech said:
Retirees Shafted :shock:
- Thread starter ualflynhi
- Start date
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
gatemech Posted on Jan 15 2004, 04:57 PM
Yes, I do. I think if I have MORE than 25 years, I should get on before someone retired who HAD 25 years. If he HAD 25 years....and I HAVE 30 years, he goes, I stay. I have a problem with that. He retires and pays NO medical, I don't retire and I DO pay medical. I have a problem with that. He was UNINFORMED and I was INFORMED and now he calls foul because he didn't realize that this may happen. I have a problem with that.
Yes, I do. I think if I have MORE than 25 years, I should get on before someone retired who HAD 25 years. If he HAD 25 years....and I HAVE 30 years, he goes, I stay. I have a problem with that. He retires and pays NO medical, I don't retire and I DO pay medical. I have a problem with that. He was UNINFORMED and I was INFORMED and now he calls foul because he didn't realize that this may happen. I have a problem with that.
spacewaitress
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 0
Then when your work group negotiates, or your management group implements, your own retiree policies for passes and medical, make sure you put your money where your mouth is and try to get done for your group what you think would be fair for everyone.Deleted by Moderator said:
You will have that opportunity someday. Since you are under the impression that your idea is so righteous, DO IT!
Paul
I don't think that is possible. Pleaseure travel bennies are not negotiated work group by work group, with each one having its own set of rules (if that is what you mean). They are rather system-wide company policy. Otherwise we would see boarding by work group instead of company seniority.spacewaitress said:
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
JungleClone
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me start by saying that two things I believe are sacred are: 1) pensions; 2) retiree benefits.
That being said, I'm willing to bet this decision was made after consulting with the ATSB on cash obligations going forward relative to our revised business plan. Otherwise, this would have happened sooner in my view. It shouldn't be a surprising decision, however. Look around. Most companies today are making employees, and retirees, bear a significant portion of the health care cost burden. As long as health care costs continue to skyrocket, companies are going to be forced to pass the cost increase to their employees. Is it a lousy thing to have to do? Of course it is. I'm quite sure Tilton wasn't thrilled with having to do this, but it was deemed to be necessary to our reorganization, according to the company. To me, that translates into "after discussing our case with the ATSB, they strongly hinted that more needed to be done to reduce our cash obligations going forward."
That being said, I'm willing to bet this decision was made after consulting with the ATSB on cash obligations going forward relative to our revised business plan. Otherwise, this would have happened sooner in my view. It shouldn't be a surprising decision, however. Look around. Most companies today are making employees, and retirees, bear a significant portion of the health care cost burden. As long as health care costs continue to skyrocket, companies are going to be forced to pass the cost increase to their employees. Is it a lousy thing to have to do? Of course it is. I'm quite sure Tilton wasn't thrilled with having to do this, but it was deemed to be necessary to our reorganization, according to the company. To me, that translates into "after discussing our case with the ATSB, they strongly hinted that more needed to be done to reduce our cash obligations going forward."
When you are on the other side of the fence you will think different. I have seen retiree's get special treatment like showing up after boarding has started and go to the top of the list. I called the CS agent on that and saw those people going to the back and I was called to F/C.Deleted by Moderator said:
I don't care if you had 25 or 35 years. You did your time and life should be just a little bit easier. Seniors are getting hammered all the time in this country. More than just medical. Where will it end? If the medical gets cut or they have to become homeless because they can't afford to have a roof over their head we will pay for that through taxes. I'm sure nobody here would like to see a loved one on the street or be a burden on your own family. That is where we are heading. We need to cover our mentors back. Time flies and we will be in their shoes soon.
Think about it before you mouth off about how hard it is to get on a flight.
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
gatemech Posted on Jan 17 2004, 08:57 AM
I don't believe I mentioned loads.....ever. I never mentioned how hard it is to get on flights either. Please refresh my memory of where I posted that please.
If you stop working after 25 years and 2 months....I believe you should be placed on the standby list with 25 years and 2 months. I don't think you should go in front of all standbys, regardless of time served. That is what I said. Look at all the McDonalds going to the front of the list after retirement and how many years did they ACTUALLY fly for United? Time served...that's all I am asking for. (of course I realize this is NOT a negotiated item anyway, but it felt good to say it) God knows when it's finally my turn, they'll change this rule ...Murphy's Law you know. 😉
I don't believe I mentioned loads.....ever. I never mentioned how hard it is to get on flights either. Please refresh my memory of where I posted that please.
If you stop working after 25 years and 2 months....I believe you should be placed on the standby list with 25 years and 2 months. I don't think you should go in front of all standbys, regardless of time served. That is what I said. Look at all the McDonalds going to the front of the list after retirement and how many years did they ACTUALLY fly for United? Time served...that's all I am asking for. (of course I realize this is NOT a negotiated item anyway, but it felt good to say it) God knows when it's finally my turn, they'll change this rule ...Murphy's Law you know. 😉
:blink: Retiree's are not getting a "free" anything, they have already done their time. This company also entered into an agreement with the employees (many of them the retirees now) for less wages & benifits with the promise that if these folks would retire before July one they would be left alone, history has repeated itself again and the current goons in charge have proven they are no better than the last, I heard the same crap before we voted on ESOP, now I am 160K poorer, then BK and now I am about the same place I was 5 years ago! Management needs to learn how to manage,not rip off the employee's when it is the easist path.... :angry:
2
2BorNot2B
Guest
:huh: Good Evening!
Forgive me if this seems like an intrusion on your board, but I am USAir Retired under age 65 and am very intrigued by some of the info on this thread!
When I retired I was "given" Medical/Benefits Benefits for $83 a month, with United Health care. An excellent policy with superior coverage. That has now become a policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield that I pay $303/mo and co-pays and deductibles that shocked me! We are now about to lose even that ... and try to buy coverage over age 60 when you have Stents in your heart and your wife has developed Med problems! Talk about "Shock"!!
I was taken back by the statement that UAL was going to negotiate these changes with retirees! There was no negotiation for us, and the Union clearly states that they do not have the right to represent retirees based on U.S. Laws. Retirees must represent themselves!
In BK the "Company" can terminate retiree benefits at will, according to all the info I have been provided! 🙁
I wish I had the benefits you speak of, and indeed hope that you can hold onto them!
Ed
Forgive me if this seems like an intrusion on your board, but I am USAir Retired under age 65 and am very intrigued by some of the info on this thread!
When I retired I was "given" Medical/Benefits Benefits for $83 a month, with United Health care. An excellent policy with superior coverage. That has now become a policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield that I pay $303/mo and co-pays and deductibles that shocked me! We are now about to lose even that ... and try to buy coverage over age 60 when you have Stents in your heart and your wife has developed Med problems! Talk about "Shock"!!
I was taken back by the statement that UAL was going to negotiate these changes with retirees! There was no negotiation for us, and the Union clearly states that they do not have the right to represent retirees based on U.S. Laws. Retirees must represent themselves!
In BK the "Company" can terminate retiree benefits at will, according to all the info I have been provided! 🙁
I wish I had the benefits you speak of, and indeed hope that you can hold onto them!
Ed
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.atwonline.com/indexfull.cfm?newsid=3811
UA flight attendant union raises stakes over retiree health cuts
Dateline: Thursday January 22, 2004
United Airlines' flight attendants union, angered over the company's recent announcement that it intends to reduce retiree health benefits under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (ATWOnline, Jan. 15), is threatening to refuse to finalize the concessionary agreement reached with the airline last May.
According to the Assn. of Flight Attendants, which recently merged with the Communications Workers of America, the final contact language was received at union headquarters only last week. It must be signed by AFA International President Patricia Friend. In a statement released yesterday, Friend said, "I am not taking any action, including signing the contract, that could be perceived as affirming the validity of the illegal cuts United wants to make."
AFA said it is considering a number of legal actions as well, including "asking the bankruptcy court to set aside [the concessionary contract approved by the court last May], a bad faith bargaining suit, a motion to compel United to allow people to return to work who retired after United agreed to limit the health care costs of retirees, and asking the bankruptcy court to appoint an examiner to investigate management's duplicitous actions."--Perry Flint
UA flight attendant union raises stakes over retiree health cuts
Dateline: Thursday January 22, 2004
United Airlines' flight attendants union, angered over the company's recent announcement that it intends to reduce retiree health benefits under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (ATWOnline, Jan. 15), is threatening to refuse to finalize the concessionary agreement reached with the airline last May.
According to the Assn. of Flight Attendants, which recently merged with the Communications Workers of America, the final contact language was received at union headquarters only last week. It must be signed by AFA International President Patricia Friend. In a statement released yesterday, Friend said, "I am not taking any action, including signing the contract, that could be perceived as affirming the validity of the illegal cuts United wants to make."
AFA said it is considering a number of legal actions as well, including "asking the bankruptcy court to set aside [the concessionary contract approved by the court last May], a bad faith bargaining suit, a motion to compel United to allow people to return to work who retired after United agreed to limit the health care costs of retirees, and asking the bankruptcy court to appoint an examiner to investigate management's duplicitous actions."--Perry Flint
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
Not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback, but the company warned changes to retiree benefits was possible AND EVEN THE AFA UNION ACKNOWLEDGED TEHY KNEW THIS WAS AN OPTION! So, why all the surprise now!TravelDude said:
I guess you are willing to give a summer vacation, christmas off, or Easter to a co-worker who thinks it is more important to him with 6 months seniority. Seniority keeps accruing as long as the employee lives.
Pay your dues and you will gradually move up in the system. We all did.
Self interest doesnt look good here.
Travel dude,
We forgive your stupidity on the history of Ual and its pension fund, since you seem to think from a very selfish point of view.
We older workers funded the fund and there was actually 100 million excess cash in there until the company used it to buy Hertz, and make sure corporate raiders could not buy us out to sell the company piece meal and rob the pension funds.
I think over the years you have reaped a lot of the benefits we fought the company for.
We didn't have 401k's back then so our retirement income is not as good as yours will be when you retire.
The company manipulated employees to go out early with threat of lower pension and medical. It is very two faced for them to want more from retirees when their fixed income only decreases with inflation, while you are still working, and have the ability to make more money. You can probably equalize your loss with 4 weekends of overtime.
You think this will only affect us. It may trash your future too.
To side with the company on this issue really stinks in MHO
We forgive your stupidity on the history of Ual and its pension fund, since you seem to think from a very selfish point of view.
We older workers funded the fund and there was actually 100 million excess cash in there until the company used it to buy Hertz, and make sure corporate raiders could not buy us out to sell the company piece meal and rob the pension funds.
I think over the years you have reaped a lot of the benefits we fought the company for.
We didn't have 401k's back then so our retirement income is not as good as yours will be when you retire.
The company manipulated employees to go out early with threat of lower pension and medical. It is very two faced for them to want more from retirees when their fixed income only decreases with inflation, while you are still working, and have the ability to make more money. You can probably equalize your loss with 4 weekends of overtime.
You think this will only affect us. It may trash your future too.
To side with the company on this issue really stinks in MHO
