The times, they are a changin...

[SEC=UGA]

Work at the Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta will go on today as machinist union workers rejected a proposed strike over a labor contract they deemed “substandard.”

 

On a 1,366 to 1,006 vote members of the Local 709 of the International Association of Machinists decided to stay on the job.

 

“We’ve got a pretty divided work force and it’s a pretty sad day,” Local 709 president Denise Rakestraw told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution late Sunday. “We’ll feel the consequences of this for years to come.”

 

Roughly 3,000 union members would have stopped working early Monday morning if it had decided to reject Lockheed Martin’s three-year deal. The current deal expired today.

 

The union leadership contended Lockheed wanted to take pensions from future employees and saddle all employees with what it considers an inferior health insurance plan.

 

In the face of record unemployment in Georgia, union members felt their action would have made better conditions for people who might be unemployed now but could be hired in the future by Lockheed Martin.

 

“The union has fought to make gains in wages and benefits over the years,” Rakestraw said. “It would be totally irresponsible for us to take away pensions for new hires.”

 

Lockheed Martin officials, who argued the pension change was needed to keep the the company competitive, were pleased with the outcome.

 

“What they saw in our proposal was a fair and equitable one,” spokeswoman Erica Crosling said Sunday night.

 

Lockheed Martin faced what would have been the first work stoppage since 2005 at the 8,000-employee plant that manufactures, among other things, the C-130J transport plane and the F-22 fighter jet. Crosling said if there had been a strike, then the plant would have continued to operate with its roughly 5,000 non-union

 

Union leaders began early Sunday recommending members turn down the contract offer. .

 

But some union members weren’t impressed by the campaigning.

 

“I think it’s a pretty good contract except for what the new hires get,” said Clyde Latta, a 25-year industrial electrical technician and union member from Rome. “Bad things happen to new employees everywhere. It’s a bad time to go out on strike.”

 

The three-year contract, called by Lockheed Martin officials it’s “last, best and final economic proposal,” gives three consecutive wage increases of 3 percent, 3 percent and 2.5 percent for current employees, and a $2,500 bonus to all union members for ratifying the agreement.

 

The deal also gives each union employee an $800 cost of living increase each December and increases pension payments from the company by $11 a month.

 

But Rakestraw said she thinks a last-minute change to the company’s insurance plan is what swayed many members.

 

The initial offering eliminated all HMO’s in favor of a plan called LM HealthWorks, that would pay for 87 percent of an employee’s health costs.

 

As part of the “final” deal, Lockheed Martin officials added a Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO that employees would contribute to at 15 percent.

 

With the vote, the company’s decision to replace pensions for anyone hired or rehired after Sunday stands. New workers will get a 401K-style retirement plan that Lockheed Martin would contribute $1,400 to each year in addition to employee contributions.

 

Union members compared the nearly $730,000 a current 30-year employee could draw in pension money over 23 years after retiring at age 55, versus the $42,000 payout a new employee would have for retirement after the same time at the company and at the same age.

 

It wasn’t enough, however, to convince a two-thirds majority to vote to strike.

 

“We understand the gravity of what we (were) asking them to do,” she said. “There are going to be an awful lot of disappointed people tomorrow.”

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Sounds like the current employees only care about themselves.

 

So if my math is correct then a new employee after working there for 30 years would get $152/month as their pension payout. I wonder what $152 is going to buy 30 years from now? They better contribute plenty to the 401K's and hope they perform well.

[SEC=UGA]

Sounds like the current employees only care about themselves.

 

So if my math is correct then a new employee after working there for 30 years would get $152/month as their pension payout. I wonder what $152 is going to buy 30 years from now? They better contribute plenty to the 401K's and hope they perform well.

 

That part of the article is very interesting to me for a number of reasons: THey are assuming that the only money that is going to be placed in the new workers 401 is the 1,400 per year that Lockheed is going to give to the employee for a 401 contribution. The 750K of which they speak is what the current employees have in pension and includes employees contributions to said pension. The math don't work. Either way, yes the retirement benefits of the new hires will not be as good as the current employees receive, but, the new hires will also be allowed to draw SS, so they have that going for them.

[bpwallace49]

It wont be long now

[Savage Beatings]

It’s a bad time to go out on strike

 

Kinda sums it all up right there.

[Big Country]

Sounds like the current employees only care about themselves.

 

So if my math is correct then a new employee after working there for 30 years would get $152/month as their pension payout. I wonder what $152 is going to buy 30 years from now? They better contribute plenty to the 401K's and hope they perform well.

 

 

Looks like they were using funny math to make it look even worse.

 

Would want to see details of how the $730,000 lump sum amount is calculated. Is it the value of the employer/employee contributions over the time period, or is it presumably including estimated gains over the time period. How much does the employee contribute compared to the employer currently.

 

For the 401k, they are clearly just showing employer contributions over the time period, no estimation of long term gains or employee contributions.

 

Seems to be an apples to oranges type comparison to make it look a lot worse.

[westvirginia]

Kinda sums it all up right there.

 

 

Sounds to me like the employees are thinking something like "I see how bad my neighbor has it being out of work. I'll keep working thank you, even if it's a little less lucrative than it was last year."

 

And again, a defined-benefit pension is an anachronism that should be deader than disco. The fact that unions keep thinking an employer should be required to make their unproductive retirement years comfy is a little telling.

[SEC=UGA]

Sounds to me like the employees are thinking something like "I see how bad my neighbor has it being out of work. I'll keep working thank you, even if it's a little less lucrative than it was last year."

 

And again, a defined-benefit pension is an anachronism that should be deader than disco. The fact that unions keep thinking an employer should be required to make their unproductive retirement years comfy is a little telling.

 

Especially considering they think the retirement age is 55!?!?!?!?! That is a bit screwed up in and of it self.

Edited March 8, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Especially considering they think the retirement age is 55!?!?!?!?! That is a bit screwed up in and of it self.

 

 

Why is it a bit screwed up? Someone works 30 yrs for a company and gets to start drawing on their pension at age 55. What's wrong with that? 30 yrs seems like a pretty long tenure to me.

[tazinib1]

Why is it a bit screwed up? Someone works 30 yrs for a company and gets to start drawing on their pension at age 55. What's wrong with that? 30 yrs seems like a pretty long tenure to me.

 

 

You can retire at age 38 if you join the military at 18 and do your 20. Something, in retrospect, I should have done. You can then get on board with a private company, do 20 and retire from them at age 58. Collecting 2 retirement checks before 60 years of age? I actually know a few guys that are on this path. Not too shabby.

[SEC=UGA]

Why is it a bit screwed up? Someone works 30 yrs for a company and gets to start drawing on their pension at age 55. What's wrong with that? 30 yrs seems like a pretty long tenure to me.

 

What is the "normal" retirement age for everyone not employed by a union? Further, when you have people retiring that early you eventually run out of people to put money into the pension fund to pay for all of the retired people. Then you run into pension funds being insolvent because they can't hit the returns they are guaranteeing and they don't have enough new money coming in to cover that spread. So, the company has to raise the price of its goods to cover pension costs, this decreases the demand for the goods the company sells, the Chinese don't have these problems, manufacturing heads to foreign nations with cheaper labor costs and no pension burden, there is less money coming into the pension funds and the whole company goes to sh!t. The Union guys look around and wonder where their jobs and benefits went, they complain about the company welching on their deal, but they have enough pull where eventually the fed gov comes in and bails them out with tax payer dollars and all is good. The company that had these issues in the first place attempts to rectify the situation by changing the deal with labor, but labor will have none of as they have quickly forgotten what occurred a mere few years ago. wash, rinse, repeat. That and these pension funds are ponzi schemes.

 

That is why it is screwed up to me.

[Savage Beatings]

What is the "normal" retirement age for everyone not employed by a union? Further, when you have people retiring that early you eventually run out of people to put money into the pension fund to pay for all of the retired people. Then you run into pension funds being insolvent because they can't hit the returns they are guaranteeing and they don't have enough new money coming in to cover that spread. So, the company has to raise the price of its goods to cover pension costs, this decreases the demand for the goods the company sells, the Chinese don't have these problems, manufacturing heads to foreign nations with cheaper labor costs and no pension burden, there is less money coming into the pension funds and the whole company goes to sh!t. The Union guys look around and wonder where their jobs and benefits went, they complain about the company welching on their deal, but they have enough pull where eventually the fed gov comes in and bails them out with tax payer dollars and all is good. The company that had these issues in the first place attempts to rectify the situation by changing the deal with labor, but labor will have none of as they have quickly forgotten what occurred a mere few years ago. wash, rinse, repeat. That and these pension funds are ponzi schemes.

 

That is why it is screwed up to me.

 

 

Wow... excellent summary right there!

[gbpfan1231]

What is the "normal" retirement age for everyone not employed by a union? Further, when you have people retiring that early you eventually run out of people to put money into the pension fund to pay for all of the retired people. Then you run into pension funds being insolvent because they can't hit the returns they are guaranteeing and they don't have enough new money coming in to cover that spread. So, the company has to raise the price of its goods to cover pension costs, this decreases the demand for the goods the company sells, the Chinese don't have these problems, manufacturing heads to foreign nations with cheaper labor costs and no pension burden, there is less money coming into the pension funds and the whole company goes to sh!t. The Union guys look around and wonder where their jobs and benefits went, they complain about the company welching on their deal, but they have enough pull where eventually the fed gov comes in and bails them out with tax payer dollars and all is good. The company that had these issues in the first place attempts to rectify the situation by changing the deal with labor, but labor will have none of as they have quickly forgotten what occurred a mere few years ago. wash, rinse, repeat. That and these pension funds are ponzi schemes.

 

That is why it is screwed up to me.

So simple but yet nobody seems to really get it.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

What is the "normal" retirement age for everyone not employed by a union? Further, when you have people retiring that early you eventually run out of people to put money into the pension fund to pay for all of the retired people.

 

 

So if 30 years isn't long enough then how many years should a person work for a company before they can draw on their pension?

[SEC=UGA]

So if 30 years isn't long enough then how many years should a person work for a company before they can draw on their pension?

 

I kinda like the retirement age to be somewhere around 65 to 68. Instead of putting number of years worked on it, why not put an age on it that has been generally accpeted by the Fed Gov to be the appropriate age at which one can start drawing retirement benefits without a penalty.

[Savage Beatings]

So if 30 years isn't long enough then how many years should a person work for a company before they can draw on their pension?

 

Pensions are a thing of the past. People should save on their own, and then retire whenever they feel like they have saved enough. Businesses can no longer afford to pay more and more people not to work.

[bpwallace49]

Pensions are a thing of the past. People should save on their own, and then retire whenever they feel like they have saved enough. Businesses can no longer afford to pay more and more people not to work.

 

I agree with this. But people tend to trip over how to deal with people in the system already that have been contributing in good faith for years.

 

Do you think that it should be starting for anyone new being hired in the system starting NOW, or is it sudden and immediate by cutting everyone off immediately, no matter where they are in the system?

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I kinda like the retirement age to be somewhere around 65 to 68. Instead of putting number of years worked on it, why not put an age on it that has been generally accpeted by the Fed Gov to be the appropriate age at which one can start drawing retirement benefits without a penalty.

 

 

I don't think it is fair to put an age on it. Assuming the retirement age is 68 if employee A starts working at a company at 45 years of age and employee B starts at 20, employee A gets to start drawing from his pension after 23 years in the system while employee B has to put in 48.

 

BTW I do agree that pensions are a thing of the past and the way they are set up does have a sort of a ponzi scheme feel to it, but why should some dude who's been showing up to work everyday for the past 30 years have to pay for the system's shortcomings.

[SEC=UGA]

I don't think it is fair to put an age on it. Assuming the retirement age is 68 if employee A starts working at a company at 45 years of age and employee B starts at 20, employee A gets to start drawing from his pension after 23 years in the system while employee B has to put in 48.

 

BTW I do agree that pensions are a thing of the past and the way they are set up does have a sort of a ponzi scheme feel to it, but why should some dude who's been showing up to work everyday for the past 30 years have to pay for the system's shortcomings.

 

I think that you have to honor those that are currently in the system (actually have been in the system for an allotted amount of time. That is for an actuary, not me, to figure out what that sunset date should be.) Unless you are discharged from these obligations through some sort of legal proceeding (bankruptcy) those pensions should be paid.

 

The neat thing about your question with regard to age and tenure can be easily handled. Full retirement benefits don't kick in until, say, age 65. If you choose to retire prior to 65, regardless of tenure, your benefits will be prorated. Now, say you are 65 and have only been teaching for 20 years, your pension will be prorated to a level that has been graduated by years of service and will receive a discounted retirement package based on you only teaching for 20 years. You will not receive the same benefits as a person who has been putting into the kitty for 30 or 40 years.

 

We are in no where near the same predicament as many eastern european nations with regard to their pensions. But, one may be wise to look at the turmoil that Greece is currently going through with it's low retirement age and pension system. Low retirement ages and guaranteed benefits get you into a lot of trouble. Especially when you have more retirees than workers and your pensions aren't fully funded.

[bpwallace49]

What is the "normal" retirement age for everyone not employed by a union? =

 

I dont know about you, but I have worked at companies that match IRA/401K contributions and have deferred compensation plans. They arent pensions, but they will allow me to retire earlier than the average. And I am not in a union. Of course, that also means I have to participate in those programs. Most pensions (take the teachers for example) in some states have it IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS that the state will match their MANDATORY pension contributions. Kinda like an employer match, right?

 

Some of these have to ba tackled on a broader basis than just a "budget repair bill", and look at the entire system and how it is legislated.

[Big Country]

So if 30 years isn't long enough then how many years should a person work for a company before they can draw on their pension?

 

 

Should be a different level for being eligibale to draw on their pension and being eligible for the maximum payout.

 

What is the normal working career for a person... let's say start at age 22 assuming 4 years of college thru normal retirement age of 65... that's 43 years of working. Not saying that 30 shouldn't make one eligible for retirement, but it should probably be at a much lower benefit level than someone that stays until a later age. The early retirer has a longer life expectancy, so will most likely be receiving the benefit for a much longer time period.

[Big Country]

I dont know about you, but I have worked at companies that match IRA/401K contributions and have deferred compensation plans. They arent pensions, but they will allow me to retire earlier than the average. And I am not in a union. Of course, that also means I have to participate in those programs. Most pensions (take the teachers for example) in some states have it IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS that the state will match their MANDATORY pension contributions. Kinda like an employer match, right?

 

Some of these have to ba tackled on a broader basis than just a "budget repair bill", and look at the entire system and how it is legislated.

 

 

Deferred compensatin plans basically imply that you are taking a lesser wage now in order to receive it later in life. No issue with that. Essentially a forced saving plan that you can opt in to. 401k matches are a nice bonus to encourage saving... i just wish that they could/would be set up to allow individual employees to choose their own investment options as oppossed to the preset limited options available in most plans.

[bpwallace49]

Deferred compensatin plans basically imply that you are taking a lesser wage now in order to receive it later in life. No issue with that. Essentially a forced saving plan that you can opt in to. 401k matches are a nice bonus to encourage saving... i just wish that they could/would be set up to allow individual employees to choose their own investment options as oppossed to the preset limited options available in most plans.

 

Isnt that exactly what the public unions have been doing for years? No wages now, but more in the pension for later?

[westvirginia]

Isnt that exactly what the public unions have been doing for years? No wages now, but more in the pension for later?

 

 

No, it isn't the same. One is an instance of defined contribution, with NO GUARANTEE of the resulting benefit. What all the unions want is defined benefit, which requires X deposits with Y returns.

[bpwallace49]

No, it isn't the same. One is an instance of defined contribution, with NO GUARANTEE of the resulting benefit. What all the unions want is defined benefit, which requires X deposits with Y returns.

 

WV, in a lot of cases, the unions have made deals with politicans to NOT get pay raises, but instead the state/city/etc will do an increase to the pension fund contribution. How is that different than deferred compensation? They are giving up money NOW in order to get more money later . . . right? Deferring their compensation, so to speak?