I know racer. I wasn't throwing my anger at you, just angered at the pensions ran by unions is all. The same with the teamsters pensions over at UPS and UAL. They too have the long list of restrictive employers and industry restrictions of certain jobs as well.Not looking to argue any person’s personal retirement preference. I understand the arguments for and against both. I was just clarifying the pension language. Nothing more.
Life happens man. I got 3 guys right now at work in their 80's because they are now forced to work for the rest of their lives in order to keep the medical either for dependants, themselves or their spouses. And yes I did say 'dependants" for an 80 plus year old. It does happen and is happening in 2 cases I know of. When you are forced to be the sole caregiver of young grandchildren, you just inherited another 14-18 years of medical coverage all over again as well as college tuitions too.
We also just had a guy with a brand new baby girl at age 65 with younger wifey, so he too will be staying in the work field into his 80's as well.
So if these guys were due a pension they would not be able to pull from it per the restrictions in place, but they dam sure don't want to give up that 1ooK plus yearly income soon going to around 120-125K. They couldn't leave this industry and retain anything close to that starting all over outside of the restrictive field these pensions say you have to do in order to keep the pension payments coming in. So freakin sad and pathetic...