Rabbit...
Could you please explain to us how the pension works?
If you are on layoff, What is the percentage of the wage are you getting???
Just curious...
I'm not currently on layoff; I'm on disability from my motorbike accident, getting about 60% pay. It starts out a little higher than 60%; I forget exactly and my most recent experience is hazy due to the happy-pills I sometimes was taking. I think it's something like 80% for something like the first 90 days, but please don't quote me.
As to layoff...
We don't get laid off nearly so often as people seem to think, or at least we didn't used to-- times are indeed changing, though, and for the worse. When a layoff _does_ occur, one's benefits are in proportion to one's seniority. I'm told the system has changed a little recently, but I presume it's still very similar to the one in effect a few years back, which was when I learned the details. GM pays something called "Supplemental Unemployment Benefits" (SUB) for as long as the beneficiary is eligible for state unemployment, to a complicated formula that reads something like "85% of base wages (including the state check), not including shift premium and minus $35 a week". Again, don't quote me but I'm reasonably close-- NO ONE can carry all of this around in their head. When I was a young man, something called "SUB credits" were accumulated by workers at the rate of about one per check, and monies amounting to a fixed (but low) percentage of wages were paid into an account called the "SUB Fund" to cover layoffs. Workers couldn't accumulate any credits until they had (I think) two years of service and could never accumulate more than 52 of them. Then they automatically were granted 52 at five years but couldn't accumulate more than 104 until they had ten years, etc. Then, every week that there were eligible laid-off GM workers entitled to be paid, the available funds were divvied up via a complex formula unknown to me so that a varying amount of credits were charged per week of collected unemployment benefits. I once had to pay ten credits for a week's SUB pay. (I believe that was the upper limit.) Above twenty years, SUB was no longer a factor, and the worker was guaranteed SUB indefinitely, so long as his unemployment pay lasted. When it ran out, he indefinitely drew what's called "GIS", or "Guaranteed Income Stream", which was a fairly modest sum. I'll note here that the rationale behind all of this was that high-seniority workers would only rarely be laid off, and that a large percentage of employees at any given time would have five years or less, in which case during periods of heavy layoff, when ten credits were drawn, were getting only five weeks of benefits. One of GM's core problems is that because they've contracted so much, there _ARE NO YOUNG PEOPLE_ in the plants. That not only makes programs like these far more difficult to sustain, but means that people on the harder jobs are getting hurt much more often and spending too much time on sick-leave. There used to be many "easy" jobs in the plants for the older and injured workers, such as janitorial jobs. Nowadays these have all-- via UAW concessions dating back at least to 1995 or so-- been contracted out, so that except for a small handful of "gravy" jobs-- one of which I'll admit I usually hold, for various reasons-- there is the line and _only_ the line right up until the day we retire.
As to retirement...
The issue is so complex that I could almost write a book on it. There are different rules for UAW foundries, for example, due to recognized health risks that come from working there. Everything I say, another worker might be able to rightly contradict for a special case. Besides, I'm no expert on the subject; it's one that's never been of much of interest to me because the rules keep changing so quickly that up until recently I knew that I'd have to relearn it all again before it mattered to me personally anyway. That said...
The basic reality behind the UAW retirement program is that building cars is an athletic, energetic undertaking that is ill-suited to older bodies. Foreign auto manufacturers in the USA haven't had to deal with this yet, because their US presence hasn't gone on long enough to generate older workers with thirty years of accumulated minor stress injuries. But, GM (and I presume the rest of the Big Three) have come to recognize that there's not much point to whipping a dead horse-- most workers can't physically hack line-work past about age fifty or so without a very serious risk of doing themselves the kind of permanent damage that the trial lawyer's association loves best. Since in recent years the "soft" job for older workers have gone away, the problem has grown markedly worse. The solution is what's called "Thirty and Out", meaning that after thirty years of service you're free to retire and be paid a pension equal to I don't honestly know what percentage of one's pay, though I suspect it's about seventy percent, up until age 62. At that point the amount is reduced in compensation for social security kicking in. GM also pays retiree health insurance until they're Medicare-eligible; I know it's a somewhat reduced plan compared to an active worker, but even though I know it's important to this discussion I don't know exactly how much it's reduced. After Medicare kicks in, to my very limited knowledge I don't know if there's still any benefits or not. I'm frankly still a long way from there, and don't expect the rules to be anything like what they are today by then anyway. So, why should I sweat it?
One thing that's also gotten a lot of attention lately are the "buy-outs", which again are grossly misreported. Yes, GM has indeed offered me, like all other workers with over ten years, something like (I forget the exact figure, since I wasn't interested) $50k to quit. But there's a lot more to that then the reporters bother to bring out. That $50k severs all of GM's retirement obligations to the worker, up until he hits (I believe) 65. Then they'll pay him an amount based only on the years worked, which sounds a helluva lot better than it is when you realize that the amounts paid per month skyrocket near the end of the thirty-years-of-service curve. In other words, fifteen years doesn't get you half of what thirty years of service does. Rather, if memory serves (and I admit being _very_ fuzzy on this) it's more like a quarter. Maybe even less. Plus, you find yourself out of work and middle aged, with "former lazy union worker" stamped on your forehead. No one's gonna hire you, unless you're very lucky indeed. This, in fact, is precisely why I'm here looking at expediting. Realistically, I'm going to have to hire myself.
Other buyouts don't pay anything; rather, a worker accepts what amounts to a long layoff at the end of his working career, leaving early so that another worker can have his job. (I desperately want one of these, but am just short of having enough years of service. Maybe next year, if they offer them again...) We at the plant have spent a lot of time debating the merits of these deals from GM's point of view, and frankly I at least have never heard a good argument as to how they benefit the company. Yet it's invariably the company who comes to the UAW begging for the chance to offer more of them, so there must be some kind of hidden carrot in there for them somewhere. When eventually they _do_ hire new workers, it'll be at roughly $10 less an hour actual pay than we currently get, and I don't know how much reduction in benefits. Maybe they're looking to _those_ savings? We on the floor honestly don't know. All I'm certain of is that I want one.
In addition to this pension, UAW members may if they choose establish an IRA/Keough/whatevertheheckitis. The wise ones do. During a few brief intermittent periods of my career, matching funds were offered, most of them a percent or two payable in GM stock only. I sold the stuff as I received it, and have been very glad of this lately. (I've seen the bankruptcy coming since 1995, and have planned accordingly. It's just a few years early by my reckoning is all, due to the unexpected depth of the general crisis.)
Anyway... If this isn't the longest post in EO history, I'll be surprised. So, I'll shut up now. If I can explain anything further for you, I'll be glad to do so to the best of my ability. I'm very sorry and saddened that my company is begging the American people for funds, and even though (I repeat!) I'm against the loans, I do feel an obligation to inform anyone who asks me anything when I can, since I suspect you're all about to become stockholders.
Again, I'm deeply ashamed that this has happened. But, not in the least surprised. Management has been pursuing suicidally stupid policies for all of the 23.5 years I've been with the General. My only hope, which I don't really believe in, is that maybe they've finally learned a little something about the real meaning of quality, the importance of communicating with each other, and above all the total futility of "one size fits all" management.
