AA/TWU tentative agreement

[Red Arrow]

There are a couple of worrisome aspects about AA's medical coverage.  First, they want to end it completely for retirees.  We've had numerous employees retire over the last couple of years, and they've counted on that medical coverage to see them up to 65 and Medicare.  It may be legal to do so, but it it ethical to hire someone with the promise of eventual retirement benefits only to see those benefits yanked away after retirement?

I view taking away retirement benefits as the same as requiring someone to pay back their salary/wages for the period worked, totally unacceptable. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I view taking away retirement benefits as the same as requiring someone to pay back their salary/wages for the period worked, totally unacceptable. 

And yet, that is exactly what you advocate with support of 'you know who'.  They are the ones who have perfected that technique. 

I sincerely hope you never get hit by that kind of event, but don't be surprised if you do.  The small, test version of that was put in place 25 - 30 years ago with the installation of the 401k as a replacement to a defined benefit plan.  Should have been "in addition to", but like the state lotteries, it was an opportunity for cash to flow - into the hands of people who did NOT work for it from the hands of the people who did work for it for the period worked (ref. - see your comment above).

[Red Arrow]

And yet, that is exactly what you advocate with support of 'you know who'.

Once again, we disagree

I sincerely hope you never get hit by that kind of event, but don't be surprised if you do.  The small, test version of that was put in place 25 - 30 years ago with the installation of the 401k as a replacement to a defined benefit plan.  Should have been "in addition to", but like the state lotteries, it was an opportunity for cash to flow - into the hands of people who did NOT work for it from the hands of the people who did work for it for the period worked (ref. - see your comment above).

When I started work after TU, my employer had two defined benefit plans.  One was contributing (by the employee) the other was non-contributing.  The non-contributing plan would give you pocket change at retirement.  As I remember, you had to work there for 10 years to be vested in anything you personally did not contribute.  My father contributed a significant amount of his earnings during his working years in order to be able to retire.  I don't remember the amount but it was more than 2 or 3%.   My father spent 35 years with the same company.  One of the reasons we live in OK is because my dad had too much invested in one company to tell them goodbye rather than take a transfer.  He got retired early (57) by the actions of the company, without any venture capitalist involvement.  He didn't get what was promised in 1947 when he started with them but he got enough to not sue them.

For the most part, the work force is too mobile to make defined benefit/work the same place for 35 years, type of plans.  The fact that employers can contribute your 401K even if you have it maxed out is a good compromise.

I have worked for 4 companies since 1979.   I only worked for more than 10 years at one of them, came close on one, and have been with my present employer for 9 years.  I think the 401K has worked out better for me than a defined benefit plan that would not have vested me.   Many small companies had defined benefit plans of ZERO.  At least with an IRA or 401K, you get something. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is why instead of gutting the defined benefit, it could have been made portable.  And why not do both?  401k was a potentially good idea that has been an abject failure at its stated purpose.