Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | Warren Homecoming | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Setting the record straight on pensions

September 15, 2013

DEAR EDITOR: Having read the Delphi pension salary article recently, I would like to set the record straight....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-16-13 5:57 PM

The Delphi Salaried retirees are MORALLY correct that they or NO ONE ELSE should end up at retirement with half of their expected money. The problem they have, which they can't seem to grasp, is that what happened to them is currently LEGAL in this country.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-16-13 5:54 PM

Billdog they , the salaried retirees, SHOULD HAVE their full pension. I don't know anyone who is saying otherwise. That being said, the question is UNDER THE EXISTING bankruptcy laws were they ENTITLED to a top up from General Motors? Even they admit that they weren't. Their argument that the Government discriminated against them is likewise without merit, and the court has set that claim aside. The one and ONLY answer to these kinds of EMPLOYER driven abuses is to ammend the bankruptcy laws to prohibit a company from eliminating their post retirement benefits even in bankruptcy. All creditors, such as banks and stock and bond holders are taking a calculated risk with their investments, are are rewarded with earnings either in interest or in profits. The Employee Should not be gambling his retirement in the same way a profit driven concern gambles with their investments.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-16-13 4:04 PM

Jodi, are you saying that the salary people are being dishonest or spreading misinformation? Nooooo! Standup you are not correct. Please refer to the two comments before yours. Hmmm, wonder W----ho was president in 2005? There is only one problem with the employees getting their pension taken from them, a contract was signed by the workers representatives and the company promising them a pension. Similar to the contract between a bank and a home buyer. If at the end of the agreed upon payments the bank said they couldn't have their house, I don't think those that feel these people were treated fair by Delphi, would see the bank as being fair to the home buyer. I never heard on Delphi investor cry they was slighted by their investment.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-16-13 3:07 PM

I switched contexts there. Meant more along the lines of lack of knowledge as it is applied to the salaried people's pension. It seemed that she wanted to "set' straight" the pension situation at Delphi. If she was not comparing her situation to those of the salaried employees, then it was a misfire, if so, then my message should be clear.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-16-13 2:33 PM

The "outstretched hand" seems to be asking for what she had earned and what she was promised and what was negotiated for.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-16-13 10:57 AM

Wow this writer really set them straight. I'll tell you what, how about you go get another job if you don't like what's being dealt to you? No one cam force anyone to retire. The fact that you even got 5 bucks from this company and don't work there anymore is more than many people get. The only thing you set straight was that you have no idea of what goes on outside your outstretched hand.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 8:15 PM

Actually standup the PBGC did not have a fiduciary responsibility to your pension plan. The administrators of your plan from Delphi had that responsibility. The PBGC has a fiduciary responsibility to the policy holders who purchase coverage for their plan participants. The PBGC must protect the overall funds of the PBGC.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 5:41 PM

Ok standup just exactly WHAT did I post that was incorrect?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 4:23 PM

Tired, as much as you like to think you know it all, you do not. (Just ask your fellow Hourly brethern.) The PBGC had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the pensions and the Treasury led President's Auto Task had no legal right to violate ERISA & PBGC law & statutes in directing/advocating HARD for the salaried pensions to be terminated. You'd do better to just let these folks fight for what is rightfully theirs instead of being the author of antagonistic posts.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 2:13 PM

Doesn't YOUR contract with Delphi call for a top up from General Motors, standup?

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 2:11 PM

Yes, because her Union had the forethought to see problems with the Delphi spinoff and NEGOTIATED a protection clause, Jodi receives both her basic pension from the PBGC and a top up from General Motors, if any is required after Social Security. Delphi pays her ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 1:16 PM

Jodi, your letter leaves us waiting for you to clarify something. Bottom line, you get your full pension made up by 2 combined sources, PBGC and Delphi (GM).

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 11:47 AM

Countyresident, In October 2005, when Delphi filed for bankruptcy, and continuing through the summer of 2005 Packard Salaried employees held face to face meetings with EVERY hourly employee. The employees were advised person to person that the plans for Warren Ohio called for approx. 1050 hourly employees post bankruptcy. At that time there were well over 4000 active hourly employees on the payroll. That meant that at least 3000 of these employees would not have a job at Delphi. They could either choose to stay, SENORITY PERMITTING, Retire, IF ELLIGIBLE, or BUY OUT of their employement. Each employee had to declare which option they were going to pursue by mid 2005. Many people, recognizing that their senority would not make the cutoff, left through the retirement option, even though they were not ready to retire and did not want to retire at that time. To be fair the Salaried employees were also placed into this same dilema, at a later date Were the retirements purely voluntary? No.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 11:31 AM

Actually what she is refering to as a bonus is the payment of a supplement ( TOP UP ) until the retiree is eligible for 80% of their earned Social Security amount. When 30 and out was negotiated that age was 62. The Congress adjusted the Social Security laws to provide for 76% of earned amount at age 62 and 80% at age 63. Until 2009 when GM filed bankruptcy they continued to pay the supplament (top up ) until the employee was 63 regardless of what age they had retired. If a retiree accepted Social Security at age 62 and thus the reduced rate of 76% they could draw both Social Security AND the top up until age 63 to compensate them for the reduced S.S. rate. When the IUE-CWA negotiated a new and final contract with then bankrupt General motors that language was eliminated and the retiree must sign up for S.S. at age 62 and recieve no compensation for their reduced rate for that 1 year. This was commonly but incorrectly called the Social security bonus on the plant floor.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 9:25 AM

I did not know that anyone was "forced" to retire. I know there are many people still working at Delphi or other GM plants that chose to stay.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 9:22 AM

Thanks for setting the record "straight".

So, you're telling us that you received a top up and a bonus?

And, you're telling us that you were "forced" to retire?

You've really set the record straight...

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-15-13 7:10 AM

No I do not get it Jodi. What's your point?

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments


I am looking for: