Retirees Shafted :shock:

ualflynhi

Advanced
Nov 19, 2002
109
0
1. United to Seek Modifications in Medical Benefits for Retirees
Formerly on U.S. Payroll

* United is committed to reaching consensual agreements with its
retirees on shared costs for medical benefits, following procedures
established under section 1114 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

* Changes sought will bring United's medical benefits for retirees
formerly on U.S. payroll in line with those provided by other large U.S.
corporations.



2. HR Call Center Contact Information

* Immediately by phone at: 1-847-700-6062

* Beginning later today, by e-mail at:
[email protected]

* Beginning Monday, Jan. 19, by phone (toll-free within the United
States) at: 1-866-825-4101



3. Questions and Answers

----------------------------------------------------

United to Seek Modifications in Medical Benefits for Retirees Formerly
on U.S. Payroll

----------------------------------------------------

United is committed to reaching consensual agreements with its retirees
on shared costs for medical benefits, following procedures established
under section 1114 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As part of the
company's plan to successfully emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,
United said it needs retirees to pay for a greater portion of their
medical benefits. The modifications United will seek will require United's
retirees who were formerly on the U.S. payroll, and retired prior to
July 1, 2003, to pay a greater share of their costs of their medical
benefits.



"Current employees have already been asked to make sacrifices," says
Pete McDonald, executive vice president-Operations. "With this change, we
will bring retiree medical benefits more in line with those available
to current employees and those offered by other large U.S. corporations.
These modifications are among the necessary steps we must take in order
to reorganize successfully and exit Chapter 11 as a profitable,
sustainable and competitive enterprise."



The proposed modifications make the medical benefits of those who
retired prior to July 1, 2003, comparable to the medical benefits now
offered to employees who retire after that date. The proposed changes will
help United create a uniform, cost-efficient medical benefit plan for
all retirees, replacing a current patchwork of many different retiree
health plans now administered by the company. United's proposal will ask
many retirees to contribute a higher portion of the cost of their
medical benefits, and all retirees who retired prior to July 1, 2003, would
see changes to the coverage available under these benefits. Through
this process, United is not seeking any changes to retirees' life
insurance benefits.



As detailed in the Bankruptcy Code, retiree representatives will be
chosen to form an Official Retiree Committee. Retirees may be represented
by the union that today represents their former employee group, if the
union agrees to do so. United will negotiate with these
representatives with the goal of reaching consensual agreement on proposed changes to
retiree benefits that are fair and equitable.



The proposed changes are expected to significantly reduce the costs of
providing medical benefits to United's 35,000 retirees, which will help
ensure our ability to continue to provide these important benefits.
According to a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the
percentage of large employers offering retiree medical coverage dropped from
66 percent in 1988 to 38 percent in 2003. Companies that do offer
coverage have increased deductibles and other benefit limits for both their
active employees and their retirees.

----------------------------------------------------

Human Resources Call Center Contact Information

----------------------------------------------------

Retirees with questions about the 1114 process can contact the HR Call
Center in the following ways:



* By phone at: 1-847-700-6062



* Beginning later today, by e-mail at: [email protected]



* Beginning Monday, Jan. 19, by phone (toll-free within the United
States) at: 1-866-825-4101

----------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

----------------------------------------------------

1. Why are you revoking medical benefits for United's retired
employees?



This is emphatically not a revocation of retiree benefits. It is a
modification designed to create a uniform, efficient, and cost-effective
medical benefit plan for all retirees. It does so by making the medical
benefits of those who retired prior to July 1, 2003 more comparable to
the medical benefits now offered to employees who retire after that
date. Equally important, we need our retirees to pay a greater share of
the costs of their medical benefits to help reduce the rising costs of
providing medical benefits to our 35,000 retirees. However, we will
continue to maintain this important benefit.



2. Could United exit from bankruptcy without reducing retiree
benefits?



We cannot exit Chapter 11 without an effective business plan and these
modifications are part of an overall business plan designed
specifically to attract financing and achieve a successful reorganization. The
proposed changes are one of many necessary steps we have to take in order
to get our costs in line with the marketplace, reorganize successfully
and exit Chapter 11 as a profitable, sustainable and competitive
enterprise.



3. How much coverage will retirees be losing? How much more will they
have to contribute to their own medical benefits?



The specific impact will be the result of negotiations we have about
our proposed changes to retiree medical benefits with the Official
Retiree Committee. We will establish this committee under section 1114 of
the Bankruptcy Code.



4. Who represents the retirees in the negotiations with United?



As provided for in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, unions are the presumed
representatives of retirees in this process. It may be the case that
some unions accept the committee representation role while others decline
to do so. If this happens, the unions who accept will serve on the
committee along with representatives nominated by the company for groups
not represented by a union. Committee membership must be approved by
the Bankruptcy Court. Just as we did with active employees, we will
negotiate with these representatives with the goal of reaching consensual
agreement on any proposed changes to retiree medical benefits, as
necessary.
 
I don't think that is shafted at all. EVERYONE has taken cuts...why not them? I can assure you, they are doing better than anyone still on the payroll (as far as cuts go)
 
I agree with Fly, although no one wants to lose anything. This is a necessary evil! Retirees helped make this companies strong reputation mostly good, but also some bad. Retirees just need to keep in mind UA could terminate the plan and for future retirees. As stated in the post before 68% to 33% offer retirement plans.

I personally would prefer 401k matching so I could decide my own retirement.

Laughing, not to mention, nothing is more frustrating than having a short get away from work knowing you have to be back on Monday morning and some retiree is getting on the plane before (if I even get on that flight). I have limited vacation and should have better available use of flight bene's. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying retirees should lose flight bene's, rather employees should always get on before retirees.
 
I have to ask if this doesn't seem a bit far out - "consensual agreements with its
retirees on shared costs for medical benefits, following procedures established under section 1114 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. " How do you reach consensual agreements with 2500 F/As?
 
I can only speak for people I know who did not want to retire but who did so because of this retiree medical issue. I was friends with several people in Indy who were 55 and no where near ready to retire. They had many good years ahead of them. They retired for only one reason. They were promised that their medical premiums would be locked in at pre July 1, 2003 levels. When I read something like this I am so glad I don't work for ual any longer. I am struggling like mad but at least my current boss has never lied to my face and then laughed. I hope that if ual is going to go back on their earlier promise that they give people the chance to in effect unretire and go back to work if their individual situation would be better served by continuing to work.

Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: in-'te-gr&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
Something ual lacks.

Tim Thorpe
 
Tim Thorpe:
They were promised that their medical premiums would be locked in at pre July 1, 2003 levels.


Well they lied you know you cant trust businessmen,or at least management.
 
As far as UAL management goes, they prove the old adage..."The more things change, the more they stay the same." Or maybe that should be, "the more the rhetoric changes..."

You never could trust 'em, never will be able to. This while they tell you anything to get you on their team! A disgusting kick in the ass to those many who chose, after agonizing over leaving the company that THEY built. All the while United was LYING...same of BS.

Could there be a USAir-like slashing of pilot pensions to follow. I wouldn't doubt it! But then, I guess that would only be fair.

Paul
 
35,000 Retirees...

Think about it 35,000 Retirees...

That is a huge expense!

Everyone else had to give up, I had to give up several thousand a year. Why should they get a free ride. If the company fails they will lose everything as well. It is only fair for them to give some up as well.
 
PAThetic!!!

Many people have given their dedication, devotion, service, innovation, and lives to the betterment of our fine company in expectation of reaping the rewards that many have dedicated 20-30 years of their lives for. Only to be squandered by incompetent and short sighted management decisions based on unsustainable industry growth projections without a contingency plan and reserve finances.

To take advantage of ‘Human Beings’ (as well as dedicated retirees) that are trying to survive on a ‘FIXED’ income is incredulous in and of itself. The ‘ploy’ of the ‘active employees’ would be willing to sacrifice the livelihood of their mentors/elders is incomprehensible.

My Vote is ‘NO’!!!

JMHO,

UAL_TECH
 
Travel Dude:

The retirees are not getting a free ride. Many of the flight attendants who retired by July 1, 2003 were not necessarily planning to retire, nor were many ready to retire. The thing that weighed heavily in the decision to retire had to do with medical premiums. Several of my colleagues agonized long and hard and in the end, were enticed by the fact that they would be locked in under the old retirement provisions, which included not having to pay premiums for their medical insurance.
Until now, I was very optimistic about the leadership at United and felt that Glen Tilton and his team were a refreshing departure from the prior management regimes who were so disconnected from the rank-and-file (I'll include Gerry Greenwald). I think this latest gesture is a slap in the face to not only the retirees, but to the current employees as well. It is very underhanded to entice employees into retiring by promising certain perks and then renegging on those promises after it is said and done. Furthermore, threatening us with the Chapter 1114 card appears very heavyhanded in light of the sacrifices all of the employee groups have made (recent retirees included). I thought that bridges were finally being built between the two sides and trust in management was finally beginning to be established. I am very disappointed by this news and feel like management's credibility has been severely compromised. It has left a rather bitter aftertaste in my mouth.

Signed,

A Happily (Vol.) Furloughed F/A
 
Since, the begining of the bankruptcy process UA warned that retiree benefits could be changed. The company is not being shady at all, they were clear from the start of bankruptcy that this was a possibility. Even AFA's own spokesperson acknowledges this fact.

"United management's bait-and-switch tactics will hurt retired flight attendants on fixed incomes, and we will fight that with every legal means necessary," said Greg Davidowitch, president of United's flight attendants union.

UAL spokeswoman Jean Medina denied any deception.

"We very clearly in all communications made it clear there may be changes to retiree benefits," she said.

Flight attendant union spokeswoman Sara Nelson Dela Cruz said the company told workers that was a possibility as it educated them on bankruptcy law, but she still accused United of misleading workers.


SOURCE: http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cs...-fin-ual15.html
 
You know, I thought I was the most hard lined bast*rd on this board. But you guys really take the cake. You really represent what UAL people are all about. The retirees need to pay their share? It serves them right? What in the hell is the matter with you people. United made a deal...period! And to ask money from people who have served their time, with fixed incomes, to give up what little money they get...jesus christ. This company is a heartless, gutless consortium of diseased selfish individuals, and if there is a god, I hope and pray that this company goes straight to hell and lands you people right in the world of reality.
 
The Ronin said:
and if there is a god, I hope and pray that this company goes straight to hell
Well, if the company goes to "straight to hell," that will instantly solve a lot of problems.
NO COMPANY = NO RETIREMENT PENSION

All active employees had to make significant sacrificies to keep the company going, if the company fails so does retiree pension.
NO COMPANY = NO RETIREMENT PENSION

35,000 retirees is a huge expense, asking retirees to share in the burden of keeping the company a float is only fair, if the campany fails so does retiree pension.
NO COMPANY = NO RETIREMENT PENSION
 
TravelDude said:
Laughing, not to mention, nothing is more frustrating than having a short get away from work knowing you have to be back on Monday morning and some retiree is getting on the plane before (if I even get on that flight). I have limited vacation and should have better available use of flight bene's. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying retirees should lose flight bene's, rather employees should always get on before retirees.
Don't blame your travel problems on the retirees. Have you looked at the loads lately? What comes next? You feel you do more work than the guy with 25 years so you should get on before him. Come on. This is the way it has been and will stay. If you feel you can't get to & from your detination then don't go or by tickets. The stress is much less if you buy.

Back to the topic.

Nothing surprises me anymore. While under BK protection they will get their way.