GM & All Retirees! This is a very important e-mail requiring action on your part. Please read and forward to all GM and other retired people you know.

 

Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 2:46 PM
Subject: Comments: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) decision

Comments by Extend Health CEO regarding an article I forwarded to you earlier:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bryce.Williams
Sent: 8/11/2008 12:30:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Thanks for forwarding this guest columnist piece. We should clear up some comments in this piece.

First, the author is incorrect in his inference that the EEOC ruling established law. The truth is that the EEOC ruling only reaffirmed decades of prior case law. It did not say anything new or create a new paradigm in the law. The case law has been clear for almost 30 years now. Second, it is incorrect to state that GM set precedent of any kind. GM’s decision was predated by those of Ford Motor, Chrysler, Kellogg’s and over 100 other companies – some of whom just terminated a retiree group plan with no ongoing subsidy. GM is obviously continuing to provide a health care subsidy.

HR 1322 would provide a mechanism for ensuring that retirees who have retiree health care to continue to receive a retiree health care SUBSIDY. We consider that a good thing in order to help retirees afford ongoing Medicare coverage of some kind. However, other sections of HR 1322 also would change many sections of ERISA. Those changes are already meeting with massive resistance. ERISA is an important law. It is essentially the backbone legal construct that allows American corporations to offer tax free benefits (medical plans, pension plans and other plans) without having to be regulated by the insurance and banking departments of all 50 states. Modifying ERISA, even in small ways, has proven to be very, very difficult in the past 30+ years that the law has been on the books.

Hope this helps, even if it only provides a small amount of background re the EEOC ruling earlier this year. Net-net – the ruling only reaffirmed decades of case law and in no way, shape or form should anyone infer that GM’s decision had anything to do with this the EEOC said earlier this year. That ruling only re-affirmed what has been the law for decades.

Regards.
Bryce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cam
Sent: 8/10/2008 8:30:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/x1262715913/Flaherty-GM-First-Casualty-of-Off-Base-EEOC-Decision

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/

The MertoWest Daily News
GM First Casualty of Off-Base EEOC Decision
By Thomas Flaherty, Guest columnist
GHS
Aug 10, 2008

Sadly, General Motors has become the latest American company to eliminate health benefits for its retirees over the age of 65. This is just the first major casualty of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) decision earlier this year to allow companies to discriminate against older retirees by treating them differently than younger retirees. GM has set a precedent that will likely lead to other employers doing the same.

In recent years, as a cost-cutting measure, some corporations have resorted to canceling or reducing retiree healthcare coverage. These are benefits that were earned by employees and were considered part of their total compensation package.

In the 1950's - 1980's these benefits were "Inducements," in lieu of higher wages. Continued health benefits in retirement were a strong incentive for many to stay with their employer for decades of loyal service. The current inference that corporate retirement benefits are entitlements or gifts is just wrong. They are benefits earned over careers spanning 30 to 40 years. Corporations benefited greatly by providing them in lieu of higher wages.

Two bills now in Congress, the bi-partisan Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act (H.R. 1322), and the Pension Protection Act ERISA Amendments of 2008 (H.R. 6143), would address this issue and make companies live up to the financial commitments made to their employees and retirees decades ago. According to the bills, changes to health benefits would need to be made before an employee retires.

The financial reality of providing healthcare coverage is considered in both bills. They ensure that employers are not burdened with a cost they cannot afford or that does financial harm to the company. Companies may apply for an exemption if they feel compliance would be a substantial hardship. Most importantly, both bills ensure that employers meet their obligations to their long-time employees who earned those benefits through years of dedicated service.

Support from members of Congress is critical to retirees in this state and across the country, especially in light of the EEOC ruling that allows companies to cut supplemental health coverage to retirees age 65 and over.

Healthcare coverage is a vital issue for all Americans. It is imperative that before the Democratic and Republican conventions both presidential candidates and Congress address these issues - now of crisis proportion - and put into their platform a true plan of action for the protection of retirees' earned healthcare benefits.

To those holding or seeking office in 2008, I encourage you not to take the retiree/senior vote for granted. They represented 62.5 percent of those who voted in the last election.

Tom Flaherty is retired and lives in Marlborough.

GM & All Retirees - Please click this link

http://capwiz.com/abtr/dbq/officials/

to let your local congressional leaders (HA!) know they need to pass these two Bills:

Two bills now in Congress, the bi-partisan Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act (H.R. 1322), and the Pension Protection Act ERISA Amendments of 2008 (H.R. 6143), would address this issue and make companies live up to the financial commitments made to their employees and retirees decades ago. According to the bills, changes to health benefits would need to be made before an employee retires.