Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

RIF's and rumor's of RIF's. Read all about them here and hope your group isn't listed!

Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby Zzyxxzz on Mon May 30, 2016 11:17 am

Zzyxxzz
VP
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby goingback on Mon May 30, 2016 11:39 am

http://local1101.org/story/final-bargai ... erstanding

Has 106 pg Memorandum of Understanding
goingback
CEO
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby banshee on Mon May 30, 2016 2:30 pm

Thank you for providing that goingback and NYs 1101. My understanding had been that the increase to medical costs shifted to the employee would be modest. Some had said, from a weekly contribution of perhaps 11% of plan cost, to a new contribution capped 15% of plan cost per week, though these numbers may hold no water. I understood this conciliatory move to have already have been written in stone even before the strike began, which I thought unusual.

However, in reading this memorandum, I'm growing concerned that not only is it a possibility that the weekly contribution may triple (? - is that right or, again, do I continue to misread these things - I apologize but I'm simply no good at deciphering these writings?) under the life of this contract, but also that the cost of copays, pharmaceuticals, and out of pocket costs may have increased substantially as well (if I understand what I'm reading though I'm not a lawyer). If someone could explain it in layman's terms, I'd appreciate it, as I'm lost and hope I'm misunderstanding the financial impact. Has anyone done an apples-to-apples comparison of old costs versus new? If so, how bad is the hit? Does it outpace the salary increase?

I'm also concerned as to where this stands in regard to what retirement payout will be made regarding the mortality rate. There was a call-in conversation a few weeks ago where it was stressed in no uncertain terms that it would be unacceptable to cede any ground whatsoever in terms of allowing the use of the earlier (and now apparently no longer applicable) mortality rates when calculating pension payouts going forward. Which side made the concessionary move in this difference of opinion, as it was made to seem to involve a big chunk of change for those retiring in the next 15 years (far outpaced by the proposed 3% increase that is rumored). Did we dig in our heels in maintaining our original position regarding its importance and financial impact or walk it back to some extent? Is it even important?

The timing of this seems weird. I appreciate the efforts of the negotiating team, and give the naysayers little attention, but I cannot help but notice that:
-- employees are returning to work just as the additional strengthened bargaining power of hitting the unemployment threshold in some areas was about to kick in for 6 months, and
-- there appears to be a quick return back to work prior to any meetings where the discussion of any proposed concessions could be hashed out, meaning the clicking clock of unemployment benefits hits a totally new restart for some who would have otherwise been relatively okay for the next 6 months should this not be ratified, and tougher circumstances for those without this cushion.

Would waiting one more week until all the facts were in, and this was properly absorbed and debated, have hurt so much - in comparison with the alternative? It seems now, instead, the pressure is on to ratify or go broke, by our own design.

Am I wrong on this and misunderstanding? It would be a shame to have sacrificed six weeks of pay while snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if that happened. But, then again, I'm not privy to what goes on at the levels in which this stuff occurs. It's too easy to cast stones when you're not present and actually bearing witness to what transpires in these talks and what could have alternatively been. I appreciate all those on each side who undergo this ordeal. Great job! I'm just respectfully asking if somebody on the inside could explain what's what, and shed light on the timing of it all.
banshee
CEO
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby goingback on Mon May 30, 2016 7:27 pm

banshee,

I think the meetings will fill in the gaps . Reading the MOU I had some questions as you did. From what I read the weekly contribution would go up 15% /yr, not triple. Also the retirement payout needs further explanation. The mortality rate is changing. How does that affect lump sums? etc..... Hopefully the meetings will clear those and other questions .

When the 2012 MOU was posted there was a comparison posted with the previous contract. It would have been nice this time to be able to see the comparison.
goingback
CEO
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby banshee on Mon May 30, 2016 7:52 pm

goingback, that's good to hear because what I was reading in the memorandum were numbers far north of $300 monthly for family coverage, over $80 a week by contract's end. For me, that would be hundreds of percent more than current rates.

After seeing your clarification, I also realized I was under the mistaken impression that the mortality rate was staying the same, rather than going up to reflect how long people are actually now living. I interpreted the memorandum incorrectly, which is good considering the major major impact anything else would have had on our eventual payout.

Where did you get this info, as some of it seems different to the memorandum?

I was starting to fear this was one of those Emperor's new clothes situations when questions were being met with such deafening silence :lol: .

It's easy to succumb to paranoia when one's future financial future hangs in the balance. My bad! :|
Thanks
Last edited by banshee on Mon May 30, 2016 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
banshee
CEO
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby rsn04 on Mon May 30, 2016 7:55 pm

The upcoming release of the new Mortality Table Rates (statistical avg remaining lifespan) change is that it will be approximately 3 % longer than present Tables used, which will result in a 3% bigger lump sum buyout; that's why VZ offered a 3% pension increase over life of contract if the rates were frozen as of 2016. It will not mean much to anyone retiring by the end of the new proposed contract due to the Pension Band increases but anyone retiring under a later contract, unless re-negotiated, will be falling behind little by little every year. Anyone out there who has a different understanding, please correct me if i am wrong...
rsn04
Lineman (Person)
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby goingback on Mon May 30, 2016 8:28 pm

banshee, on pages 22 & 23 of the MOU I took any category and did the math form the monthly premiums yr to yr and came up with 15% yr .

On the bottom of pg 2 to the middle of pg 3 of the MOU it indicates the revised GATT lump sum basis ......

I am sure some will feel better and some will feel worse after the meetings...........
Last edited by goingback on Mon May 30, 2016 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
goingback
CEO
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby goingback on Mon May 30, 2016 8:31 pm

rsn04, I agree.............
goingback
CEO
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby tampa6 on Tue May 31, 2016 12:03 pm

Well.... I read it but still do not understand it.... does this mean retirees will only have ONE option? The advantage plan? You can click on the link "http://local1101.org/story/final-bargai ... " listed on one of the other replies in this section and at the bottom of the article click on the contract itself - it gives you the entire contract- not just a summary... you cannot copy /paste/print it. This does not sound good for retirtees. :(
tampa6
CEO
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:06 pm

Re: Tentative Contract- CWA from NY

Postby maggiekate on Tue May 31, 2016 1:19 pm

medical option for retiree:

I read it but it seems now we wont have our Blue Cross option with Medicare. The plan I have is Medicare with Blue Cross and a ten dollar co pay.

Also it said doctors who take Medicare will also take this one?
maggiekate
CEO
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:35 am

Next

Return to RIF's Cutbacks and Layoff's

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest