« MLK party wasteful | Main | Give back the surplus »

January 13, 2008

Retiree benefits

Regarding the recent story about the new EEOC regulation that allows employers to reduce or eliminate retiree health benefits: What do they think we worked all those years for?

We stayed with those companies 35 and 40 years for the salary and the health benefits we were promised in our retirement. We didn’t want to rely on the government for our health care because we know how that works.

I don’t see the politicians reducing or eliminating their health care.

This is more money to pay some CEO a few more million or put a few more dollars in some politician’s pocket.

Then they wonder why people want change and don’t trust our elected officials any more.

My 80-year-old mother lives on less than $1,300 a month. She got a $38 increase in her Social Security, but with her increase in her supplemental insurances and other pre-pay she’s more than $100 in the hole. I agree with a previous letter writer: The winners are big business, the rich and I’m adding the politicians.

Linda Schill
Paola, Kan.

Comments

BuddyT

sorry for typo...first line should read

"As usual.......

BuddyT

As you lower case you come to a fork in the road and take it. All NG and I said is that your retirement is YOUR responsbility and not ours. No one mentioned the issues you raise and they are not the same.

The medical leave act btw is now being pushed by the left to become a "Paid Medical Leave Act". How many billions will that cost employers and how many small business's will fail because of it.

The nanny state thinking of the left will eventually bankrupt this country if we allow it to continue.

jack

The next move is to go after sick pay. It has already begun. The propaganda is that having a sick pay policy just encourages people to miss work. All you turn back the clock people should be delighted.

In the 1930s my grandfather was part of the street warfare (the polite term is labor riots). What were they fighting for? The "right" to be sick 3 days per year without being fired was a big part of it. Two other pieces were getting the employer to take responsibility for the medical bills of those hurt on the job and $0.35 per hour.

Damned lazy bums. Think how much better off we would all be under the work rules people like grandpa were fighting against. No workmen's comp. No work safety rules. If you were too sick to work (or even late) you were fired. Your child was sick and you couldn't afford a doctor---let the worthless little creep die.

Oh, for the good old days!

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

I agree BuddyT, when are people going to understand simple finance.
Social Security is nothing more than a cookie jar for Washington.
Most Americans have no idea what ROI is anyways.

Lost_In_Ambivalence

Gary

There have been many cases in the past decade in which a company or industry reorganized, declared bankrupcy, or appealed to the government to get out of legally binding retirement agreements. I do feel sorry for those people as many of those affected put in their 45 years before all this started happening. If you now believe in a fixed benefit from your employer, you are a sucker.

Gary

Linda: The EEOC's ruling had no effect on an employer's contractual duty to fund retiree health benefit. If you had a promise of health benefits as a retiree, the promise would be legally enforceable. More likely, you did not have a promise. Your employer probably funded, in whole or part, retiree health benefits as corporate policy so long as it could afford to do so, without making any promise that the benefit would continue indefinitely.

BuddyT

Hey Linda, who says I have to fund your retirment? Why didn't you take a little responsibility for yourself? Ever heard of IRA's? You people amaze me, sit on your sorry butts and do nothing then criticize those who get off theirs, and succeed. I do not feel a bit sorry for you whiner.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright