Wow...that's a big deal. My father uses his retirement benefits from GE and it's a big deal. If he lost that....
Yes, it is a big deal. I am a Goodyear retiree and nearly lost our benefits a year and a half ago. Goodyear proposed to eliminate all retiree health benefits. The union workers were on strike for 3 months to prevent that from happening. I have had a for my health coverage since Jan. '07, but, I still have it.
I'm 15 years from medicare, so, it would be a huge loss for those in my age group to lose the healthcare that we worked for. GM is the bellweather company for these changes. They will pressure the union to make these changes and, if successful, other companies will shortly follow suit.
Just read it carefully. It's NOT retirees. It's older than 65 salaried employees.
Now wait a minute... How does GM make such a decision that is not congruent with fed'l law...?
I thought for groups larger 100 and active employee must be covered by the group health as primary and Medicare as secondary coverage...
This does not jive at least with my understanding of the law, unless I am not clear on its meaning.
Hopefully some of your experts on such will speak to this specifically about GM eliminating coverage on active employees beyond age 65 that they are eliminating from coverage...? (Non retirees).
I guess the real clarification will come over time.
I haven't seen anything stating it will affect active employees.
Generally, unions don't bargain for the benefits of retirees. When push comes to shove, they will bargain for the active, dues paying workforce. Any union employee who thinks that the "younger generation" is going to bargain on their behalf has another thing coming IMHO. BTW I read recently that approx 12+% of the total US workforce is union, and only 7+% is non-government union.
While I feel for GM employees, I sold GM for years and they simply played all of their cards wrong - concentrated on behemoth 8,000 pound SUVs and trucks while their competitors were making eco-friendly cars.
Now wait a minute... How does GM make such a decision that is not congruent with fed'l law...?
I thought for groups larger 100 and active employee must be covered by the group health as primary and Medicare as secondary coverage...
This does not jive at least with my understanding of the law, unless I am not clear on its meaning.
Hopefully some of your experts on such will speak to this specifically about GM eliminating coverage on active employees beyond age 65 that they are eliminating from coverage...? (Non retirees).
Briefly, there was a rulling by the EEOC last December that said employers can require over 65 workers or retirees to go primary and medicare and the company pays secondary as long as they end out with the same basic level of benefits for younger workers. Federal law is based on an interpretation of EEOC regulations. The EEOC changed its regulations to clarify when it did not like the federal courts intepretation of its regs.
Bottom line is that the rules have changed or have been "clarified." Take your pick.
Winter
------------------------------------ The Bolsheviks are dining in the capital.
Briefly, there was a rulling by the EEOC last December that said employers can require over 65 workers or retirees to go primary and medicare and the company pays secondary as long as they end out with the same basic level of benefits for younger workers. Federal law is based on an interpretation of EEOC regulations. The EEOC changed its regulations to clarify when it did not like the federal courts intepretation of its regs.
Bottom line is that the rules have changed or have been "clarified." Take your pick.
Winter
Thanks for the clarification... I wasn't aware of the EEOC ruling. Definitely a decision that shifts more of the financial burden to the gov't... as opposed to industry.
I guess the only offset is that the 65+ person who is still woring is still paying taxes at a higher rate than they would if they were at home on the couch... or playing golf, etc.
I guess the only offset is that the 65+ person who is still woring is still paying taxes at a higher rate than they would if they were at home on the couch... or playing golf, etc.
Good point. The majority of seniors pay no federal income tax at all.
Well, you don't normally pay income taxes if you're broke as ****, which is what, about 85% of seniors????
No way... I would find your % of broke seniors hard to believe...
I don't know what it is but that generation controls quite a lot of the wealth (cash deposits) in this country and I don't think it is controlled by 15% of them either...
Now I would have to do some research on the subject... but I'm sure others have this data available at their fingertips.
No way... I would find your % of broke seniors hard to believe...
I don't know what it is but that generation controls quite a lot of the wealth (cash deposits) in this country and I don't think it is controlled by 15% of them either...
Now I would have to do some research on the subject... but I'm sure others have this data available at their fingertips.
Isn't that the truth...
Not only do they get an extra exemption for 65 and over, they get health insurance coverage at a bargain price.
These are the people that are usually bitchin' and moanin' that they're on a "fixed income" because they've only got $800,000 in CDs.
The GM Decision
Linear Mode
