|
|
|
|
February 5, 2004 Mr. William Worgul Dear Mr. Worgul This letter is in response to your correspondence to Kathleen Barclay, Vice President of Global Human Resources, regarding your salaried retirement benefits. Let me assure you that your comments are of great interest to General Motors. It is important to state that GM does provide excellent benefits and programs for all our retirees. In fact, GM's salaried benefits are highly competitive and are considered among the best in the Industry. As a matter of information, recent benefit surveys indicate that most U.S. corporations do not provide any pension increases to their retirees and a shrinking percentage of companies provide their retirees with health care benefits in retirement. We, in fact, still offer our salaried retirees a choice of plans with comprehensive coverage. One of those plans in the Basic Medical Plan, which has comprehensive coverage, including prescription drug benefits, and no monthly contribution. Additionally, in prior years, GM has periodically decided to provide either increases to the retirement benefits or lump sum payments. There are, however, differences between GM salaried and hourly benefit programs. These differences have evolved over time and reflect GM's compensation philosophy. An important factor that differentiates the Salaried Retirement Program (SRP) from the Hourly Pension Plan (HPP) is that the SRP provides a richer benefit for those salaried retirees who elected to participant in Part B of the SRP while they were working. In general, the SRP monthly benefit, when added to other benefits and programs, such as health care and life insurance, and the Savings-Stock Purchase Program with the GM Matching Contribution provides an attractive total package of benefits in retirement. All of these factors are considered during our review of any potential changes to the benefit plans available to salaried retirees. While I understand the comments in your letter, I must state that our Salaried Retirees and Surviving Spouses are highly valued members of the GM family. GM does provide excellent benefits in retirement. In fact, you recently received a communication regarding enhancements to the provisions of the Salaried Health Care Program. We trust that you saw that the communication included a number of positive changes. We thank you for taking the time to communicate to us on this important topic. We wish you well in your retirement. Very truly yours Preston M.
Crabill, Director --- Response --- Preston M. Crabill, Director Dear Mr. Crabill, Your recent response to the letter I wrote to Kathleen Barclay regarding iniquities in pension adjustment distribution is highly appreciated. However, I am compelled to answer that the effort you have so eloquently made to stress that GM does provide excellent benefits does not mitigate the stark contrast in the way the recently allocated money was distributed to our hourly retirees and surviving spouses versus the benefits conceded to those of us who were salaried . A side by side presentation of the allocation, expressed in dollars, would certainly confirm the validity of my inequity argument. Granted, such a presentation would only embarrass the Corporation and generate more heat on the subject, rather than the light and reconciliation that is so urgently needed between them and their salaried retirees. I accept your declaration that we salaried retirees are still a valued part of the GM family. But only as a declaration, rather than a reality, elegant in word but not in deed. Bluntly put: we get the mouth - they got the money! Your reminder that there is a difference in the level of benefits because of programs available to salaried employees, such as Part B of the Salaried Retirement Program and the Savings-Stock Purchase Program, is appropriate. I must remind you though that participation in the Savings-Stock Purchase Program was extended to the Union not too long after it was instituted for us (September 1955). It was rejected by Mr. Walter Reuther, and perhaps understandably so, as it would be the establishment of a bond between labor and management that could make it more difficult for a union leader to take workers out on strike against a company in which they have part ownership. With this rejection in mind it could be reasonably extrapolated that the same would have happened if Part B, that you alluded to, had been offered to the Union. Both of these programs were of great benefit to us, but did require patience, commitment, and investment on our part. It only helped those of us who were willing and could afford to dispense with instant gratification of our needs and wants to reap a later reward. And that paid off! To the Corporation's benefit these programs did enhance our loyalty and commitment to them as illustrated by the fact that there was far less turnover in salaried ranks as compared to hourly back during those good years. As opposed to the feelings of some of my colleagues, I strongly reject any thought of a boycott by our salaried retirees on our continued purchase of GM products. We want our Corporation to survive and succeed, recognizing that their profitability is in our own best interest. We should not descend to the same mean-spirited attitude that the Corporation is currently displaying toward us. Our GM labor force is building fine automobiles and I, personally am very satisfied with my six-year-old Buick. Permit me to close on a personal note: some seventy years ago we coal miners, members of the United Mine Workers, chose to contribute "seed money" to establish the UAW in the auto industry. Today I congratulate our hourly retiree friends on their success in getting recognition and benefits from the Corporation that have eluded us. I'll try to suppress the envy that is so normal in the human mind and suggest, Mr. Crabill, that the minimum courtesy that the Corporation should extend to each of us is a mailing that would give more detailed explanations, rather than just platitudes, for their compensation philosophy as it relates to us. Again, I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to me. I hope that you will not take any personal offense to the aggressive tone of my letter, and that you would further communicate with me. Very truly yours, William J. Worgul Phone: (517) 485-3209 |
|
|