Retirees win back lost pension benefits
Retiree health benefits are a dying breed. Less than 30% of Canadian companies now offer them to retired employees.
And if you do still have coverage, get ready to pay more: Employers are shifting more costs onto retirees, starting benefits at a much later age, or requiring longer tenure to qualify.
But retirees are fighting back.
An Ontario man has just launched a class-action lawsuit against GM Canada on behalf of himself and 3,500 other retired white-collar employees for rolling back their benefits as part of the company’s recent cost cutting.
Among other things, GM Canada eliminated semi-private hospital coverage, slashed the annual maximum coverage for dental and orthodontic benefits, increased the amount members would have to pay for prescription drugs and eliminated life insurance coverage.
"We can't go back and demand more money for the work we did over the course of our careers at GM. It isn't fair for GM to come along after the fact and take away the benefits that we have already earned,” says lead plaintiff Joseph O'Neill.
He’ll be happy to hear that a small group of elderly Ohio retirees have won similar concessions, albeit only temporarily, against Victoria-based Black Press, a growing media enterprise with more than 150 publications across Canada and the U.S.
In an attempt to control costs, Black attempted to slash retiree medical expenses when it bought the Akron Beacon Journal a few years ago. But the pensioners fought back.
Last month, an Ohio judge agreed with them and ordered the paper to restore the benefits. The order is only temporary, however, pending a trial that could take months to resolve.
Have you, or perhaps your parents, had key retirement benefits taken away? How are you fighting back?
By Gordon Powers, MSN Money
Posted by: the obvious be d@mned | Jun 5, 2021 1:01:08 AM
"responsible" is overlooking some important points. many people worked and planned and succeeded in getting those jobs that came with pensions and benefits (all with an eye towards their future).
the companies that offered these pensions and benefits entered a contract with those employees.
when the company, many years later, renegs on the contract...it is not the employees' fault. it is the company breaking an agreement.
the only 'false sense of entitlement' that is running rampant and unchecked can be found with the company itself.
an analogy would be this: get a job, work two weeks, company doesn't pay the worker, and bystanders accuse the victim of "having a false sense of entitlement", or maybe "they should have planned better", or maybe "they should have seen this coming".
equally as assinine is "they lived beyond their means" or "who cares, i never had it as good as them".
what is worse, i wonder.....the criminality of companies? or the justification of theft by demonizing the victim?