Retiree

The VEBA are separate for each, Ford, Chrysler and GM

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FREE/302149957&template# Did not know this had already been posted

I have found the same problem, two of my prescriptions that are generic are not covered by Medco and also they have no alternative to these prescriptions. I wish they would have provided a formulary and non formulary list of covered prescriptions with the change to Medco. I have heard that a lot of retirees are having the same issues with the prescription program that some of the medications are no longer covered.

That is correct, those that retired after 10/1/07 get the contractual pension increases Start of contract $3,020 per month 10/1/2007 – $3,140 10/1/2008 –$3,150 10/1/2009 - $3,160 10/1/2010- $3,170

Retiree Lump-Sum Bonus UAW retirees and surviving spouses whose benefit started before Oct. 1, 2007 will receive four lump-sum payments dur- ing the proposed 2007-2011 agreement. The payment for December 2007 will be $700 for all retirees and $455 for all sur- viving spouses. The lump-sum payments to be made in December 2008, December 2009 and December 2010 will be $23.33 times years of credited service, with a minimum of $233.33 and a maximum of $700. Surviving spouses will receive 65 percent of the retiree amount. Examples are as follows: Payment To Years of Credited Service Retiree Surviving Spouse 10 $233.33 $151.67 20 $466.67 $303.33 30 $700 $455 I do not recall anything in the modifications that changed this

I sent you the Language in the CBA instant message the article and section is volume II Article III subsection G for service credits while on lay off.

Thank you for your support of the retirees, since we have voice but no vote we depend on the active workers to defend our rights, and I for one know that it is due to your strong solidarity that many of our benefits have been protected. Thank you again and God bless all of you

Section 18. Any member who has not worked forty (40) hours by reason of not having been scheduled to work forty (40) hours, or received benefits in lieu of work equivalent to forty (40) hours' pay within any calendar month, shall be entitled to exemption of payment of regular monthly dues. Benefits in lieu of work shall include the following: Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (or any equivalent type layoff benefit), vacation pay, holiday pay, jury duty pay, bereavement pay, and paid absence allowance, but shall not include the following: pension benefits, sick and accident benefits, and Workers' Compensation. Effective January 1, 1982, if a member receives Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (or any equivalent type layoff benefit) equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of her/his gross pay for a forty (40) hour week, less statutory deductions, within any calendar month, then the member's dues shall be one (1) hour straight time pay per month.

Len A ; you’re absolutely right, this all began in the 1990’s when FASB 106 came into existence, the new rule required employers to recognize the expected cost of retiree benefits for current and future retirees in the current year rather than in the year those costs were actually incurred. Employers needed to “reflect on their balance sheets the present value of the estimated future costs for retirees’ medical benefits.” To get around this many employers and Unions began to negotiate Retiree benefit Cap agreements. These caps would limit the totally liability of the companies when it came to retiree health care. The original intent of these agreements was to limit the company’s impact on reporting in the financial statements. However just like everything else many companies have taking advantage of these Cap agreements. The UAW did win a major victory in one of these cases “UAW vs. Case” the court ruled: the parties intended both plans to vest. In addition, the court held that the original intent of the UAW/Case letter of agreement was to limit the impact of funding on the financial statements, not to limit the company's funding responsibility.

Monday, June 08, 2009 Ninth Circuit Retirement Benefits Victory The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion this week in favor of retirees of Simpson Paper. Tom Doyle represented these retirees in claims for unpaid health benefit premiums. The facts were fairly simple. Simpson Paper agreed in a collective bargaining agreement to provide health care for early retirees until they turned age 65. After several years of providing this benefit, the company ceased all payments. According to the company, the retireees did not have a "vested" benefit because the agreement said the benefit could be changed "subject to negotiation with the union." Although the Company did not negotiate with the union, the Company argued that since the benefit could be changed, it was variable, and as a result it could not "vest" and was entirely unenforceable. The District court agreed. The panel of the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed the District court and held that not only was there no vested right to benefits, the lack of such a vested right prevented the Courts from even having jurisdiction over the case. In response, our firm petitioned for rehearing en banc, i.e. by the entire Court. In support of the Petition, several allied groups filed supporting "friend of the court" briefs - AARP and California Employment Lawyers Association. However, before the entire Ninth Circuit could consider the Petition, the panel itself requested additional briefing. Now, in a stunning reversal, the Panel of the Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its prior opinion and reversed its own prior opinion on this case. As a result the Court withdrew an opinion that had substantially limited Federal Court jurisdiction in ERISA cases. Under this new opinion, it is clear that union retirees have a right to assert claims in Federal Court regarding breaches of collectively bargained entitlement to health benefits. Moreover, this opinion remanded the matter to the District Court for a jury trial on the issue of whether the Company "negotiated" with the union prior to making the changes. This is a major win for unionized employees and retirees throughout much of the country.

You would be much better off if you exhausted your unemployment prior to using your TAP benefit, since TAP is only 50% of your gross weekly income which is also offset by your unemployment, so your TAP benefit after unemployment would be next to nothing. However the agreement states that if you opt out of your TAP benefit you would be given a lump sum payment of $10,000 plus your maximum TAP benefit you would be eligible for, However if you chose this option you would forfeit all recall rights. Not much of a choice. hopefully this information was helpful. But make sure you talk to a Union rep before making any decisions.

Thank you, Stugots most members forget the contributions that were made by the retirees it is nice to hear active members such as yourself still backing and caring about us. But the damage has been done starting this January when the so called VEBA committee will make the decisions on what retiree's benefits will be. When changes are made to the retiree benefits the International Union will state that the decision to cut the benefits was done by the so called "independent VEBA committee" and not them. but again I want to say thank you and other actives workers that stand in solidarity with there former brothers and sister that are now retired.

A new hire does get a contribution of $1.00 per compensated hour worked into a TESPHE account, instead of retiree benefits.

I agree with Furious, UAW will have Ford ask to do away with retiree Vision and Dental prior to the VEBA, also look for more Trade consolidation and lose the right to strike. With these changes we will mirror the GM Chrysler agreements.