Articles Include: “Retirees Gain Congressional Hearing for H.R. 1322,” “Retirees Adding Muscle to Voice in Washington,” ProtectSeniors.Org in the News, A Heartfelt Thank You from ProtectSeniors.Org, “In Focus: Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Retiree Issues” (Download)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Organization Launched to Aid Retirees
ProtectSeniors.Org begins it battle
March 1, 2006
Help is on the way for beleaguered retirees who are trying to deal with rising costs and shrinking healthcare coverage. ProtectSeniors.Org is dedicated to push for passage of legislation friendly to retirees. Specifically, ProtectSeniors.Org will focus initially on the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act of 2005, HR 1322, which was sponsored by Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts.
This bill will put in place protections on retiree’s company-sponsored healthcare insurance similar to those that ERISA has provided for pensions for the past 34 years. The bill would make it illegal for companies to reduce or terminate healthcare plans or to pass additional costs on to employees once they retire.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the organization plans to aggressively educate members of Congress as to the critical problems facing people who, at the time they need it the most, are watching their coverage shrink and their premiums soar. “This is a national crisis of huge proportions,” said ProtectSeniors.Org President James E. Casey, Jr. “Corporate America is trying to solve its financial problems by shifting healthcare costs to retirees, who can least afford the additional burden.
People worked for companies for 20, 30 40 or more years with the promise that certain benefits would be there through their working years and into retirement. These benefits were an integral part of the employee’s compensation package – something that they earned, just like their salary, during their careers. “It is unconscionable to renege on those commitments,” said Casey. “We plan to do something about this through ProtectSeniors.Org.”
For More Information Contact:
In the Press:
Lynn retirees air concern over loss of health benefits
The Daily Item
By David Liscio
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
LYNN — In what amounted to an informal Town Meeting, U.S. Rep. John F. Tierney Tuesday listened to Lynn-area senior citizens air their concerns over a potentially bleak health care future.
The gathering at Lynn Vocational Technical Institute was sponsored by ProtectSeniors.Org, a non-profit organization formed to support pending legislation designed to prevent corporations from taking away employee health benefits from retirees.
Specifically, ProtectSeniors.Org was formed by the Association of BellTel Retirees and is focused on House Bill No. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act. Tierney, a Salem Democrat and member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, first introduced Bill No. 1322 to Congress in 2001.
“They want to make it illegal for a corporation to take away the health benefits earned by their retiree family, which they promised in lieu of salary or hourly wages,” said ProtectSeniors.Org spokesman Paul Marin.
According to ProtectSeniors.Org., it is currently legal for corporations to “steal” a retiree’s earned healthcare benefits, a situation with roots that can be traced back years to the General Motors Corp.
GM offered full-paid health care benefits to its managers and their spouses for their entire lives if they would agree to retire by a given date. Thousands of GM managers opted for the plan and eventually retired, only to have GM later reduce or cancel those benefits.
The retirees filed a lawsuit, Sprague vs. GM, and won in a lower court but lost when the case was appealed. The retirees tried to take the legal battle to the Supreme Court, but the justices declined to hear the case, stating that the law had been upheld. As a result, Tierney and groups like ProtectSeniors.Org have concentrated their efforts on changing the law.
“I’m grateful that people like Congressman Tierney are trying to do something about this,” said Johnnie Shelton, 62, of Lynn, a former Bell Atlantic telephone company worker currently employed as a classroom aide in the city’s public schools. “It’s like a cancer. By the time you find out about it, it may be too late.”
According to Shelton, when she retired her health benefits covered nearly 100 percent of medical, dental and vision costs, but all that changed once the phone company became Verizon,
“It was a good retirement package. If I had my eyes checked and needed new glasses, everything was paid for. But the last time I went, they told me I would have to pay half the cost of new glasses and that I should bring $150 up front due to changes in my retirement benefits,” Shelton said. “I didn’t know they could do that. And it keeps changing.”
Shelton has been worrying about the future. “If I have to start paying half the cost of vision, just think about medical, especially for people on a budget who only have so many dollars in their pension checks. Suddenly, you’ve got to pay for your medication. I don’t know how they’re going to make it,” she said.
“What’s going to happen in years to come? Are we going to have to pay the whole thing? Where are we going to get the money? That’s why we have to get this bill passed.”
Tierney described the situation as a national crisis in retiree health care.
“These corporate cutbacks on retiree health care have reached intolerable proportions,” Tierney said. “For too long, working people have been denied health care benefits that were promised upon retirement due to the lack of strong laws in this area. The retirees lived up to their end of the employment bargain during years of hard work; now the companies must hold up their end.”
A recent study by the Employment Benefit Research Institute found that a 65-year old retiree without employment-based insurance may require up to $1.5 million to fund lifetime medical expenses, assuming death at age 100 and medical inflation of 14 percent annually.
“HR 1322 would reverse these recent trends and bring common sense and fairness back to retiree health,” said Tierney, noting the bill now has 79 co-sponsors in Congress.
Leo Murphy of Ipswich, regional vice president of the National Association of Retired Sears Employees, which represents 154,000 retirees nationally, said the bill would “ensure that companies don’t sell out the retirees whose hard work grew the companies in the first place. We all made plans anticipating our retirement years, and those plans have all been torn apart.”
Press Stories And Letters To Editors
Pamela M. Harrison, President, Communication Workers of America, Local 1103 Retired Members Council
Vice President Union Relations
Association of BellTel Retirees Inc.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
National Mobile Billboard Advertising Campaign Kick Off
ProtectSeniors.Org begins National Ad Campaign to educate Congress and Retirees
September 18, 2006
ProtectSeniors.Org, a national legislative and lobbying organization created by the Association of BellTel Retirees to fight for the protection of retiree economic benefits will kick off a two week, seven state & District of Columbia mobile ad campaign in New York State.
Over the course of two weeks, the 8 x 16 foot mobile billboard will travel through the streets and highways of New York, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, New Jersey and Connecticut with a message to the Members of the U.S. Congress. The mobile billboard reads “Members of Congress, America’s retirees are watching…Pay Attention! We Vote!”
Here is the route – you are encouraged to come out and participate:
– The kick off press conference was held in Mineola, Long Island, NY at 10 am on Tuesday, September 19, at 100 Supreme Court Drive, South Steps. Below, press gets an ear & eye full. Click for larger image view. Use your browser BACK button to return to this page.
|BellTel VP & CFO Bob Rehm speaks with TV reporters||
Retirees Peggy Cronin Hannan and Cathy Wilder hand out ProtectSeniors.Org brochures
Bob Rehm hands out 50 brochures to John, an attorney who does volunteer work with Senior Center
Jim Casey explains HR1322 to Norfolk Retirees
|Click her to download on-air video clip of Jim’s Norfolk Interview. (1megabyte file size)|
|See Trenton Clip||See New York Clip Tom Butler discusses Retire earned benefits|
– The billboard traveled south to Newark, DE and circulated through the Christiana Mall and made stops at Macys sometime between 2:30 and 3 pm on Tuesday.
– From there the billboard went to Baltimore, MD where it circulated and made a stop on Wednesday, September 20, at 1 E. Pratt Street at 10:30 am, near the Convention Center and across from the Verizon Maryland Headquarters Building for a press conference.
– We then traveled south to Washington, DC and circulated thoughout the city. A press Conference was held at 10 am Thursday, September 21 at the Cannon House Office Building on Independence Avenue.
– The billboard then continued south to Virginia with a stop for a press conference in Virginia Beach on Friday, September 22, at 10 am outside the Doubletree Hotel at 880 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA.
– Richmond, VA was the next stop outside the Richmond Times Dispatch, 300 E. Franklin Street at 4:30 pm on Friday.
– On Saturday, September 23 a stop was made at 12 noon in front of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA and then went on to Staunton, VA . At 4 pm it was in front of the News Leader at 4 pm.
– On Sunday we headed north into Pennsylvania and stopped in Carlisle, PA outside the Sentinel at 1:30 pm
– Monday we held a press conference in Trenton, NJ in front of the State House, 125 West State Street at 10 am.
– The billboard then traveled to Stamford, Connecticut and stop on Tuesday at 10 am at the Stamford Government Center, 888 Washington Blvd.
– Tuesday afternoon the billboard went to New York City for a press conference at 26 Federal Plaza, between Duane/Worth Street, off Broadway. The press conference was held at 2 pm.
The ad campaign was designed to highlight retirees’ concerns regarding Corporate America’s elimination and reductions to retiree subsidized healthcare and to draw attention to the formation of the activist group earlier this year. For thousands of retirees, healthcare benefits have been slashed or completely eliminated, forcing them to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket, return to the workforce on a part-time or full-time basis or, in some cases, sell their homes.
Among ProtectSeniors.Org priorities in 2006 is the passage of H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act through Congress. H.R. 1322 would make it illegal for a corporation to take away or diminish health benefits earned by retirees and that were promised to them during their working years in lieu of salary or hourly wages.
Retiree Healthcare benefits are an earned benefit from employers, not a gift. The time has come to reverse the national trend and make it illegal to steal retirees’ earned benefits. Retirees are now the single largest voting block in America, we are getting stronger and we are determined to make sure that our benefits are protected.
For More Information Contact:
Corporate Board Member November/December 2006
The Complex Pain of Cutting Retiree Health Benefits
by Susan Littwin
As former employees struggle to pay bills they never expected, companies defend themselves by citing rising medical cost and obligations to shareholders. Directors can no longer duck this fraught issue.
John Devitto spent 39 years at Lucent Technologies’ corporate predecessors, Western Electric and AT&T Network Systems. An engineer and supervisor, he moved his wife and children from Maryland to Pennsylvania and then to Ohio so he could serve the company where he was most needed. In 1995 he retired, half a year shy of 60, believing that he had full health benefits for himself, his wife, and his youngest child.
Three years later the benefit cuts began. Devitto, now 70, is paying over $700 a month in health-insurance premiums for his wife and teenage son. He’s also carrying the cost of a $200-per-month life-insurance policy whose premiums the company stopped covering. “I’m paying $1,000 a month more than I expected,” Devitto says. “I’m not on welfare. But my wife has gone to work, I’ve given up my golf membership, and we don’t go away on vacations.”
Had he known 11 years ago that the company would renege on its promises, “I would have worked longer,” he says. “And my wife might have gone to work when she was younger and gotten a better job.”
In 1988 two-thirds of all large employers offered health insurance to retirees, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. By 2005, according to the survey, the share had declined to one-third. Says Michelle Kitchman Strollo, principal policy analyst at the Kaiser foundation: “We have also found, among companies that still offer benefits, that they have been reducing their generosity. This comes in the form of higher copays at the point of service, increases in deductibles, and, most striking, between 2004 and 2005 seven companies out of 10 increased the amount the retiree must contribute to the insurance premiums.”
Nevertheless, cutting retirees’ health benefits is the corporate act that dare not speak its name, the issue board members and corporate officers will talk about only in whispers and in private. Corporate Board Member’s attempts to get more than 40 directors to discuss the issue yielded only six on-the-record interviews. (Lucent director Daniel S. Goldin, 65, said typically, “If you wish to have that discussion, I suggest you call media relations at Lucent. I can give you the number.”) And repeated calls to seven companies that have modified benefits to retirees—including Delphi Corp., 3M, and Verizon—resulted in no corporate officers who would be interviewed. “I’m sorry to disappoint you,” Robert S. Miller, 64, chairman and CEO of Delphi, said affably. “But we’re in the middle of labor negotiations, and I can’t discuss that.” Caterpillar Inc., a defendant in a lawsuit brought by retirees over its reduction in benefits, issued this statement: “We will not comment on the status of health-care benefits of either current or retired employees due to the pending litigation.”
Leading the list of major companies that have reduced benefits is General Motors, the world’s largest private provider of health care for employees and retirees. GM is now requiring its more than 475,000 retirees to pay part of their own premiums, at an annual cost of as much as $752 per family. In addition to Caterpillar, Delphi, GM, Lucent, 3M, and Verizon, major companies that have made cuts include International Flavors & Fragrances and Unocal (now part of Chevron).
“This is a topic that is on the horizon for all of us,” says Bruce Stender, 64, CEO of Labovitz Enterprises, an investment firm in Duluth, Minnesota, and lead director at Allete, a Midwest utility and real estate company. “We’re looking at a changing business landscape.”
Just what is the picture that directors confront when they’re asked to sign off on benefit cuts? The savings are obvious and large. The GM cuts, for instance, will amount to as much as $1 billion. But how steep is the downside? Did corporations enter into a sacred promise, or at least a social contract, when they offered benefits to employees like Devitto? What are the risks of lawsuits, damage to the morale of current employees, and injury to corporate image? And how do directors balance these risks against the interests of their shareholders—including, in some cases, the need to avert bankruptcy?
Board members willing to be interviewed cite the evident reasons for reducing benefits. The first is the soaring cost of health care. According to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates, the cost of retiree health benefits increased by 12.7% in 2004 and another 10.3% in 2005. “If you look at the millions of baby boomers marching toward retirement and their greater life expectancy, the cost of caring for them is going up dramatically,” says John T. Cardis, a retired senior partner at Deloitte & Touche and a director of Edwards Lifesciences, Energy East Corp., and the office-supplies company Avery Dennison.
Anthony W. Schweiger, 64, CEO of the consulting firm Tomorrow Group, whose directorships include insurance provider Radian Group Inc., is among those who believe the benefits were ill conceived to begin with. “I can’t rationalize, as a director, how the company can be held responsible for open-ended postretirement benefits they have no control over,” he says. “The company must continue to maintain a viable enterprise, or every bit of the retirees’ insurance will be jeopardized. Something is better than all of nothing.”
Directors also emphasize companies’ obligations to their several constituencies. “You have to look at it holistically,” says Gordon R. Parker, 70, a former CEO of Newmont Mining Corp. and, at the time of this interview, in his last week as a director of Caterpillar. “I’m a retiree, and I’m totally opposed to cutting benefits.” But he voted “with a pang of regret” for Caterpillar’s reductions, which in 2000 capped retiree health benefits at their 1999 level and required everyone who had retired after January 1992 to pay a monthly premium making up the difference between the 1999 rates and the current costs. “You have to take a total approach to the success of the business. I think of it as a readjustment of wages and benefits so the business can survive. You have to do the right thing for your shareholders. You must look after your employees, your vendors, your customers. And sometimes the balance is, you have to cut.”
Retired steelworkers from Bethlehem Steel and LTV Steel know about getting nothing. After those companies closed their doors, 49% of retirees under 65 and therefore not eligible for Medicare said that they or their spouses had gone back to work because they had lost health benefits. Even among the Medicare-eligible, 10% reported that they had taken jobs to pay for insurance that covered some expenses not paid by Medicare.
Stephen Skvara, 59, is among them. Badly injured in a 1997 automobile accident, Skvara retired on disability from LTV Steel in Indiana after three decades as an electrical repairman. He took with him full health benefits for himself and coverage at $138 a month for his wife and youngest son. In 2002 LTV Steel went bankrupt, and though pieces of the company were acquired, the obligations to retirees were not. As required by law, Skvara’s pension was assumed by the federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp., but it was reduced from $1,900 a month to $1,200 and his $360-a-month special disability payment was eliminated. No law protected health benefits, so his and his family’s vanished. Skvara managed to find insurance that would cover what his Medicare disability payments didn’t, at $295 a month. His wife, a substitute teacher, and son, then 16 years old, were uninsured—and remain so. “I went into the steel industry right out of high school,” Skvara says. “I thought I’d have a comfortable life and provide for my family. Health care is a basic necessity, and it really hurts that I can’t provide it for them.”
A third reason that board members cite for the cuts is global competition. According to Thomas Getzen, the director of the International Health Economics Association and a professor of health insurance at Temple University in Philadelphia, the U.S. is the only major industrialized country that doesn’t provide universal national health insurance. Some employers in other countries offer private insurance as an extra—with benefits such as special access to doctors—but American dependence on employer health insurance is unique, and a direct cost foreign competitors don’t bear.
American companies that have fared badly in the global market have done so for reasons well beyond the burden of generous health care. But benefits are an easy target for cost-cutters, perhaps even a scapegoat. GM often blames its obligations to retirees for its competitive problems, but the pension funds for the company’s rank-and-file workers are bulging, with $9 billion more than is needed to pay out projected pensions for the foreseeable future. GM’s unfunded obligations to the retirement of executives, however, burden it with an annual $1.4 billion liability—largely offset by the annual $1 billion saved with cuts in retiree health-care benefits.
Employer-paid health care appears to be an accident of U.S. history. During World War II wages were frozen and labor was scarce, so employers offered health care in lieu of raises to attract and keep workers. The National War Labor Board ruled in 1943 that health-care contributions were tax-exempt for workers and tax-deductible for employers, and by the end of the war the number of workers in the U.S. with health insurance had tripled. According to a June 2006 report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the popularity of employee health coverage was driven mostly by continuing labor shortages—but the tax breaks didn’t hurt. The Revenue Act of 1954 affirmed the deductibility of employer health-care contributions. Health-benefit increases became a popular bargaining chip for both labor and management, and companies were amenable to making provisions for retiree health benefits because they were the equivalent of a long engagement—a zircon ring on the finger and nothing to pay now.
But a marriage of sorts did take place. The benefits may not have been taxable income, but workers came to regard them as part of their compensation, as money bargained for and earned. It became the American way: Employers paid for health insurance.
Among the reasons for reducing those benefits now, says Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, a corporate governance watchdog based in Maine, is “a dirty little secret. Certainly benefits are getting very expensive, but we are aware of and interested in the juxtaposition between cuts in benefits and increases for top executives. They cut benefits to make the balance sheet look stronger. The executives then reap the benefit of the stronger balance sheet by paying themselves better.” The cure for that, Minow says, “is that increases in executive compensation should be for operational growth rather than balance-sheet growth.”
The median pay package for chief executives of the largest U.S. companies was $6.8 million in 2005, according to a study by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. Patricia Russo, chairman and CEO of Lucent Technologies, which cut Devitto’s benefits, landed among the top 11 examples in a Corporate Library study, Pay for Failure: The Compensation Committees Responsible, which identified chief executives paid over $15 million despite negative returns to shareholders. (For more, see “Get Ready for the Next Spotlight on CEO Pay” in Corporate Board Member’s September/October issue.)
The discrepancy does not go unnoticed by retirees. “Those things bother me,” says Devitto. “Executives who didn’t do so well by the company left with big golden parachutes. Retirees who made a major contribution to the company were left holding the bag.”
The golden parachutes and hefty executive salaries in the face of benefit cuts may be a tactical error. “Either they’re seeing a more complex picture than I am, one that makes sense to them, or they’re tone-deaf,” says David W. Anderson of the Toronto-based consulting firm Anderson Governance Group. “What I would say to boards is, ‘It may be a correct business decision to take a difficult and unpopular path, but you must communicate it clearly.’ An inconsistent message is a real problem. For instance, they’re saying, in effect, ‘We must cut costs to survive, so we’re cutting health benefits. But we need great executives, so we give big bonuses.’ It may all be true, but it sounds inconsistent. Good leaders know they have to lead by example. When executives gets perks and higher salaries, it looks like favoritism.”
Thomas F. Donovan, 73, a retired bank executive who has served on at least eight boards, including Amerigas’s, and is now a director of three private foundations, says, “I’m troubled whenever I see benefits reduced to people who gave good service in the past. I can’t say categorically that I would never serve on such a board, but I would not sit by while benefits were reduced for retirees while executive compensation for the chair was increased.”
Another cause of benefit cuts—and one avoided as a corporate talking point—is changed accounting standards. The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Rule 106, adopted in 1990, required companies to record on their balance sheets an actuarial estimate of their entire health-benefit liability, instead of the pay-as-you-go method many had been using. The rule left a host of thriving companies looking, on paper at least, as if their heads were barely above water.
Last March the FASB put out for comment another proposed change that would require companies to move certain pension and other retiree-benefit obligations out of the footnotes and up front onto the balance sheet. “Current accounting standards just don’t provide complete information about these obligations,” said FASB member George Batavick at the time.
The new disclosures would be ugly for traditional unionized companies. An analysis by Bear Stearns found that Ford Motor’s balance sheet for 2005 would show about $20 billion more in benefit obligations, and GM’s about $37 billion more.
The proposed accounting rule aims to protect shareholders from invisible risks. Dennis R. Beresford, a former chairman of the FASB and now a professor at the University of Georgia business school, points out that the requirement wouldn’t change the real worth of a company, only its balance sheet. But it would make it look bad to investors. “Sophisticated investors know what’s going on,” he says. “They’ve been reading the footnotes.” But novices wouldn’t like the way things looked. Nor would top executives whose compensation may be linked to net-worth growth.
When he was on the FASB board, Beresford recalls, he was confronted by a CEO. “He told me that if companies were forced to account for this expense, many of them would be forced to take away the benefit, and that would be on my conscience. That didn’t make me feel very good, but I said, ‘Sir, I’m not the one who made those promises. You now have to measure your decision, whether to cut back or cut out. We’re just making you own up to it.’”
For companies contemplating a cut, Lucent offers a cautionary corporate narrative. In her 2004 book, Optical Illusions: Lucent and the Crash of Telecom, Lisa Endlich writes: “This is the story of a financially sound company steeped in world-class talent, dominant in one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, that in the space of two painful years [2000 to 2002] found itself branded with a junk-bond credit rating, under investigation by the SEC for its fraudulent accounting practices, fighting off rumors of insolvency, and, hat in hand, begging its bankers for a little more time.” Endlich traces hasty acquisitions, attempts at reinvention, and other corporate missteps. Lucent’s stock price dropped by 99%, and job losses came to more than half a million.
In 2003 Lucent eliminated death-benefit insurance for all management retirees and cut reimbursement to retirees and their spouses for the Medicare Part B supplement (outpatient care), leaving retirees with a cost of about $300 a quarter. In 2004 the company stopped paying dental-insurance premiums for retirees and eliminated the health-care-premium subsidy for dependents of management employees who had retired after March 1990 with a salary of $87,000 or more; in 2005 it lowered the salary minimum for this last cut to $65,000. Next, in January 2006, health-care premiums for management retirees were increased.
Lucent was compelled to make the cuts, says spokeswoman Mary Ward, because of the rising cost of health care and pressure from competitors. “We clearly recognize and acknowledge what retirees did for the company,” she says, “and we understand the impact this has on them. But it came down to what we could afford to do and remain a viable company.”
In September Lucent was on the verge of a merger with the French telecommunications company Alcatel, a deal that many regarded as an acquisition by Alcatel. If the merger closed, Russo, who became CEO in 2002, could collect at least $1.78 million in stock awards even if she remained chief executive at the merged company. Lucent spokeswoman Joan Campion cited the pending merger as the reason company officers and directors refused to discuss the cuts in benefits.
Lucent retirees were much more forthcoming. The Lucent Retirees Organization was chartered in 2003. Its original purpose was to help the troubled company however it could, says president Ken Raschke, who retired as vice president for manufacturing of a North Carolina facility that made transmission equipment. Among other things, members offered to do clerical work for free. But when the benefit cuts snowballed, the retirees’ organization turned against Lucent with the energy its members had once put into designing cell phones.
The group brought five proxy proposals to annual shareholders’ meetings. At the 2006 meeting it proposed that executive compensation be more strictly tied to performance. The proposal passed by 54%, but no action has been taken on it. The retirees also called for federal scrutiny of the merger to ensure that they’d still be collecting their pensions and remaining benefits. “No one should want a foreign company to own a $34 billion pension fund—worth more than twice Lucent’s market value—unless safeguards are in place to protect the pensions and benefits of 235,000 retirees and their dependents,” Raschke says.
The retirees’ organization has also provided documents and other support to the lawyers of three plaintiffs who are suing Lucent over the cancellation of their retiree health benefits. The lawsuits claim violations of the Internal Revenue Code and the implied contract of the pension and benefit plans described to employees in various letters and publications. “I signed hundreds of these letters, congratulating people on their retirement and describing their benefits,” says Raschke.
Should lawsuits like this one worry board members? So far the law is unclear. Katherine Stone, a labor-law specialist at UCLA School of Law, says the suits depend largely on the clarity of the contractual obligations to employees. “Was there an unambiguous promise to provide benefits for life?” she says. “The more usual situation is a plan that describes the benefits to employees and reserves the right to modify, alter, suspend, or terminate the benefits.” The basis of an unambiguous promise could be found in letters, booklets, or even speeches at employee meetings.
ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, does not mandate benefits, says Georgeann Peters, a benefits attorney in the Columbus, Ohio, office of Baker & Hostetler. Still, in a lawsuit by retirees against Caterpillar, the complaint cites violations of sections of ERISA. Stone argues that there is liability under ERISA “if the plan administrators knowingly misrepresented the plan. For instance, if they promised lifetime coverage knowing that it was not forthcoming, and employees relied on that promise and took early retirement or neglected to get separate coverage of their own and later found themselves ineligible.”
The Caterpillar and Lucent suits do not name board members as defendants. But Stone notes that directors have a fiduciary duty to protect the company. “If the firm is taking steps that open it up to liability, the board member might have to examine what promises have been floating around,” she says. Directors must also be aware of the image problem: Cutting medical insurance for retirees can make a company seem like Darth Vader. Raising the issue of a broken moral obligation, Ed Beltram, communications director of the Lucent Retirees Organization, says, “Those of us in management were always told to tell employees that their pay increases might not be so high, but they had secure pension and health-care benefits.”
Board members need not worry, it seems, about the impact those cuts will have on morale and recruiting. According to a 2004 survey by the EBRI, only 5% of current workers consider retiree health care their most important benefit. “The new economy is conditioning workers to see the landscape differently,” says one director.
What can be done to help current and future retirees? The National Retirees Legislation Network is a lobbying group representing more than two million retired people. It has been pressuring Congress in favor of HR 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act, a bill that would give ERISA-like protection to health benefits. But Network spokesman Jim Norby admits that the act has no chance of passage today. A bill passed by Congress in August provides greater protection for retirees’ defined-benefit pension plans, but not their health benefits.
Allen Karp, 65, formerly CEO and chairman of Cineplex Odeon Corp. and currently a director of Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. and Teknion Corp., among other companies, suggests that gradual reductions are possible for an outfit that is in good financial shape. “The company can provide a less painful transition for those who are most impacted,” he says, “and then take further steps for those who have many years until retirement.” Karp also suggests bringing everyone into the discussion: “Talk to the unions, the human-resources team. Everyone is terrified of the unions, but you have to try to bring them onto your side.” He cites GM’s cuts, which were negotiated with the United Automobile Workers. “The union was realistic,” he says. “It’s not in the employees’ interest to see the company become an uneconomical enterprise.”
But what about the valued former employee whose retirement is crimped and penny-pinching because a chunk of his pension now goes to health-insurance premiums—or, still worse, who doesn’t get the medical care he needs?
“We’ve all been around,” says Anthony Schweiger, the Radian Group director. “Stuff happens. Life isn’t as fair as you’d like it to be. You gotta do what you gotta do.”
You do…don’t you?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 29, 2008:
POLL OF LIKELY RETIREE VOTERS IS GREAT NEWS FOR CLINTON,
GOOD NEWS FOR McCAIN
– – – – –
Independents Favoring McCain Over Romney & Clinton
– – – – –
94% Say Congress Should Stay Out of MLB Steroid Issue
Washington, DC – A national election survey of 1,700 likely retiree voters by ProtectSeniors.Org, a non-profit advocacy group, has great news for Senator Hillary Clinton, good news for Senator John McCain and bad news for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. At the same time, retirees caution Congress to pay less attention to steroids in baseball.
Of those retirees polled, just 56% have selected a presidential candidate. 43.9% of retirees surveyed identified themselves as Republican; with 31.8% Democrats; and 20.9% identified themselves as Independent voters.
Among Democrat respondents, Hillary Clinton holds an almost insurmountable lead. Senator Clinton was favored by 48.2%; more than the combined total of John Edwards 18.9%, Barrack Obama 17.7%, Dennis Kucinich 2.7% and Mike Gravel 0.6%. Among these respondents, 11.9% are looking for other options.
Among Republican respondents, John McCain holds a comfortable but not insurmountable lead, while the survey brings especially bad news to the Giuliani campaign. McCain is preferred by 36.8% of likely retiree voters. He is followed by Mitt Romney at 26.3%, Rudy Giuliani 17.4%, Mike Huckabee 7.4%, Ron Paul 4.7%, and Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively). 5.4% of these respondents indicated they were considering other options.
Among senior retirees categorizing themselves as Republicans, Giuliani trails front runner, McCain by 2 to 1 and is 9 points behind Mitt Romney. Among Independent voters the former NY Mayor comes in 6th place with 5.6%, trailing McCain and Romney on the GOP side and all three Democratic frontrunners.
Among the Independent voters, Senator McCain (22.4%) leads Mitt Romney (20.4%), Hillary Clinton (18.8%), Barrack Obama (9.0%) and John Edwards (7.3%).
“This is further evidence of Senator McCain’s amazing comeback,” said Eileen Lawrence, Secretary-Treasurer of ProtectSeniors.Org. “A few months ago Rudy Giuliani seemed destined to be the Republican nominee and Senator McCain’s campaign was on life support. Now Senator McCain is leading everyone and Mayor Giuliani is finishing sixth.”
Congress also did not fare well in internet poll conducted from January 22-24, 2008:
– 95% of respondents said they do not approve of the job done by Congress’ during the 2007 session.
– 94% said Congress has better things to do than hold hearings looking into steroid use in Major League Baseball.
– Just less than one-third of likely voters said they intend to vote for Congressional incumbents (31.9%), with 68.2% indicating that they are seriously considering new representation in the Congress.
Leading foreign policy issues were: War in Iraq (38.9%); Immigration Reform (25.2%); Homeland Security (26.7%)
The top domestic issues were the Economy (42.9%), Retiree Healthcare Benefits Protection (36.4%), Affordable & Accessible Healthcare (24.6%), Social Security & Medicare Reform (5.4%) and Energy & Environment.
ProtectSeniors.Org is a not-profit retiree association representing more than 45,000 corporate and municipal retirees from over 20 industries, including AT&T, IBM, Lucent, Merck, Nortel, Raytheon, SBC, States of California & New Jersey, TXU Energy, US West, Wachovia, Wyeth Labs and Verizon. For more information visit www.protectseniors.org
# # #
Recent Press and ProtectSeniors.Org Releases
- Bill Jones testifies before house committee on Education and labor lays out the need for a law to make it illegal to take away retirees healthcare. Click here of complete testimony and addendum sent on 9/30/08
C. William Jones
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education & Labor
Hearing on Safeguarding Retiree Health Benefits
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Testimony of C. William Jones, ProtectSeniors.Org
Committee on Education & Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on Safeguarding Retiree Health Benefits
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the Committee, my name is Bill Jones and I serve as Chairman of the Board of ProtectSeniors.Org, a not-for-profit organization formed to tackle the issue of retiree healthcare. Our sole mission is to advocate for passage of H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act and saving millions of Americans from certain poverty because of the loss of their earned healthcare benefits. Notice that I used the term earned rather than “promised.” I will get to that later.
I’m here today because we have seen an escalation of retiree healthcare benefits slashed by corporate America. This is why with your help and leadership Mr. Chairman, legislation in the form of H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act was introduced.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the original ERISA legislation in 1974 included healthcare insurance as a critical part of the Congress’ plan to provide retiree income security. In fact, H.R. 1322 is the original healthcare language drafted by Michael Gordon and included in the ERISA legislation.
As we all know, and the reason I am sitting here today representing millions of retirees, the H.R. 1322 healthcare insurance portion of the original ERISA legislation was eliminated from the final bill in order to lighten the load and make it more likely that the legislation would pass. Those close to the plan’s design gave up the healthcare portion temporarily to pass the much needed guaranteed defined benefit pension law. They had every intention to amend ERISA at a later date to add protections for healthcare insurance. If Michael Gordon were alive today he would be sitting in this seat telling you the same thing.
If we look back in time when most of the current retirees were in the workforce, we would see that larger American companies universally offered retiree healthcare to their employees and retirees as an incentive to retain trained employees.
The workers accepted the IOU for retirement healthcare and other benefits in exchange for lower wages, fewer vacation and holidays. Employers deducted the costs of providing the insurance and reminded employees that the retirement healthcare and other benefits were part of their overall compensation package. So that is why I say we EARNED the health insurance benefit.
Employers on the one hand acknowledged their implied contract, yet in the mid to late 1980s added a clause to their benefits practice that said they had the right to alter, reduce or terminate the plan at any time, with or without notice. This clause was called “the reservation of rights clause.”
This change was never communicated to the employees during their careers. In the mid-1990s some employers placed the statement of possible termination in employee’s termination packages at retirement. Therefore thousands of employees who had signed their retirement papers to retire were then and only then given the fine print on the insurance plan’s possible demise as they walked out the door. And, most never read the fine print and were devastated as they were forced to pay more and more for health insurance they had not planned on having to buy.
Mr. Chairman, let me be clear here, employers told their employees annually for 20-30-40 years that their reductions in pay and other perks were in exchange for their retirement healthcare and other benefits. Yet after they were retired these same employers started to charge retirees for health issuance or stopped paying for it altogether.
It is very important to understand that corporations benefitted greatly by providing healthcare benefits in lieu of wages. They did not have to pay social security, unemployment insurance and workman’s compensation. They could also defer funding those obligations when earnings were low, unlike payroll that must be paid on time. Further, since the amount of an employee’s pension is directly proportional to his or her rate of pay, corporations saved pension costs as well.
Many of the retirees even took an early retirement program, because they were offered a 100% paid healthcare insurance a by the human resource or higher-level Vice president (See Sprague vs. GM).
General Motors was the first to renege on this implied contract. GM designed an incentive plan for management employees to retire early. They included free healthcare for the employee and spouse for the rest of their lives as one of the most attractive and beneficial features of the incentive plan.
However, in the mid-1990s GM started charging for retiree health insurance. Several thousand retirees looked at their early retirement GUANTEE of 100% paid healthcare for life and consulted an attorney. The retirees chose to take GM to court to try and recover what was, in their mind, a clear case of corporate theft. The case was first settled in a lower court and the finding was in favor of the retirees.
GM then appealed the case and the appellate court found in favor of the company. The retirees were shocked to find that a Benefits Practice, none of the retirees were aware of, contained some legalese which the Sixth Circuit Court said favored GM and the retirees were not actually guaranteed healthcare for life as the Vice President’s retirement incentive letter stated. The Benefits’ Practice in the dark recesses of the corporate headquarters contained the previously mentioned “reservation of rights clause.”
These courageous GM retirees could not believe it so they anted up hundreds of thousands more of their retirement earnings to carry the case to the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately for retirees all over the country, the Supreme Court agreed with the sixth Circuit and refused to overturn the ruling. That ruling left all retirees who expected to have health insurance in retirement at the mercy of their former employers.
Three judges dissented, stating that GM did create a vested night to lifetime health care benefits and criticizing GM’s 44corporate shortsightedness.” the dissent stated, “it was easy to promise employees and retirees lifetime health care…. Rather than pay off those perhaps ill-considered promises, it is easier for the current regime to say those promises were never made. There is the tricky little matter of the paper trail of written assurances of lifetime health care, but General Motors, with the en banc majority’s assistance, has managed to escape the ramifications of its now-regretted largesse.” According to the dissent, the majority’s opinion “is heads, General Motors wins; tails, the employees lose.”)
Let us make this situation very clear. General Motors promised to provide lifetime healthcare insurance for no charge to all employees who retired by a certain date. Thousands of dedicated employees agreed to that deal and retired by the deadline. GM later reneged on that commitment and the burden for the healthcare costs fell on the retirees who were living on a fixed income and who upheld their part of the bargain. This unbelievably dishonest act was determined by The Supreme Court to be perfectly legal.
As we have seen in recent years the number of employers dropping health insurance has increased dramatically. With more and more employers claiming to not be able to compete globally, it is only a matter of time before most US corporations who still offer their retirees health insurance stop the practice and force these people who are on fixed incomes, to buy expensive health insurance.
The result is that most will become uninsured. They will become only one health problem away from bankruptcy and a ward of the State and Federal Medicaid System. Had they been paid, during their working years, a fair amount instead of a lower amount plus a promise of healthcare coverage in retirement, their pensions would have been significantly higher and they would have been able to afford to pay for their own healthcare insurance.
Instead, GM cashed in by promising the benefit instead of paying a higher wage only to renege on the obligation and cash in once again by stealing the promised and earned benefits from those who could least afford it. The retirees were presented with a lose-lose outcome while GM benefitted with a win-win.
What makes cuts to medical coverage so hard for many retirees to take is that they are most often perfectly legal. As we have stated above, this is unlike pension plans, which are protected by federal law. Former employers can cut health coverage at any time for retirees. A few retirees have successfully sued former employers for their benefits in recent years (See Qwest case). But employment lawyers say that can happen only in rare cases where employers didn’t specifically reserve the right to change their minds in writing or where workers
can prove a company verbally promised the benefits were permanent.
“Most company Benefits practices contain what we call ‘weasel’ or “Reservation of Rights” clauses that protect them from any liability,” says Norman Stein, a law professor who specializes in employee benefits at the University of Alabama. Stein says studies show few employees ever read the clauses anyway, which are often in fine print and in language that isn’t always easy to understand.
Of course, many working Americans are coping with rising health costs. But seniors often find themselves in a particularly difficult spot when their benefits shrink. The vast majority of retirees live on fixed incomes with nest eggs that have taken big hits during the recent stock market decline. Many don’t have a contingency plan because they had no idea they needed one. They entered the workforce in a different time and place — employers were more paternalistic, unions were strong and health costs were still low.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Nor is it a union versus management issue. This is a retiree issue that needs to be fixed today. We are facing a healthcare crisis in this country and H.R. 1322 should be a part of the overall solution. The Federal government cannot afford to place these millions of retirees on Medicare. Nor can many of these retirees pay more out of their pockets to get the basic healthcare they need. You noticed I didn’t say quality healthcare because this in most cases is too costly for them to afford.
Were not here asking for a handout. What we do want if for companies to live up to the promises they made. A promise made should be a promised kept. With your continued help and support I’m confident we can get H.R. 1322 passed into law.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we are ready, willing and able to work with all of you on a bi-partisan solution that is good for retirees, corporate America and the pocketbook of the Federal government. With the crisis set-off in the financial markets, we cannot afford to pass additional taxes and burdens onto the American people. A solution to the healthcare crisis will require everyone to pitch in. We believe H.R. 1322 does just that.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
HISTORY OF ERISA
The Employee Benefits Security Administration is responsible for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting and disclosure provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). At the time of its name change in February 2003, EBSA was known as the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). Prior to January 1986, PWBA was known as the Pension and Welfare Benefits Program. At the time of this name change, the Agency was upgraded to a sub-cabinet position with the establishment of Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary Positions.
The provisions of Title I of ERISA, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, were enacted to address public concern that funds of private pension plans were being mismanaged and abused. ERISA was the culmination of a long line of legislation concerned with the labor and tax aspects of employee benefit plans. Since its enactment in 1974, ERISA has been amended to meet the changing retirement and health care needs of employees and their families. The role of EBSA has also evolved to meet these challenges.
The administration of ERISA is divided among the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury (IRS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Title I, which contains rules for reporting and disclosure, vesting, participation, funding, fiduciary conduct, and civil enforcement, is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. Title II of ERISA, which amended the Internal Revenue Code to parallel many of the Title I rules, is administered by the IRS. Title III is concerned with jurisdictional matters and with coordination of enforcement and regulatory activities by the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS. Title IV covers the insurance of defined benefit pension plans and is administered by the PBGC.
Prior to a 1978 reorganization, there was overlapping responsibility for administration of the parallel provisions of Title I of ERISA and the tax code by the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS, respectively. As a result of this reorganization, the U.S. Department of Labor has primary responsibility for reporting, disclosure and fiduciary requirements; and the IRS has primary responsibility for participation, vesting and funding issues. However, the U.S. Department of Labor may intervene in any matters that materially affect the rights of participants, regardless of primary responsibility.
As a result of the enactment of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), EBSA has fiduciary and auditing oversight of the Thrift Savings Plan that was established by this Act.
Initially, the IRS was the primary regulator of private pension plans. The Revenue Acts of 1921 and 1926 allowed employers to deduct pension contributions from corporate income, and allowed for the income of the pension fund’s portfolio to accumulate tax free. The participant in the plan realized no income until monies were distributed to the participant, provided the plan was tax qualified. To qualify for such favorable tax treatment, the plans had to meet certain minimum employee coverage and employer contribution requirements. The Revenue Act of 1942 provided stricter participation requirements and, for the first time, disclosure requirements.
The U.S. Department of Labor became involved in the regulation of employee benefits plans upon passage of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act in 1959 (WPPDA). Plan sponsors (e.g., employers and labor unions) were required to file plan descriptions and annual financial reports with the government; these materials were also available to plan participants and beneficiaries. This legislation was intended to provide employees with enough information regarding plans so that they could monitor their plans to prevent mismanagement and abuse of plan funds. The WPPDA was amended in 1962, at which time the Secretary of Labor was given enforcement, interpretative, and investigatory powers over employee benefit plans to prevent mismanagement and abuse of plan funds. Compared to ERISA, the WPPDA had a very limited scope.
The goal of Title I of ERISA is to protect the interests of participants and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans. Among other things, ERISA requires that sponsors of private employee benefit plans provide participants and beneficiaries with adequate information regarding their plans. Also, those individuals who manage plans (and other fiduciaries) must meet certain standards of conduct, derived from the common law of trusts and made applicable (with certain modifications) to all fiduciaries. The law also contains detailed provisions for reporting to the government and disclosure to participants. Furthermore, there are civil enforcement provisions aimed at assuring that plan funds are protected and that participants who qualify receive their benefits.
ERISA covers pension plans and welfare benefit plans (e.g., employment based medical and hospitalization benefits, apprenticeship plans, and other plans described in section 3(1) of Title I). Plan sponsors must design and administer their plans in accordance with ERISA. Title II of ERISA contains standards that must be met by employee pension benefit plans in order to qualify for favorable tax treatment. Noncompliance with these tax qualification requirements of ERISA may result in disqualification of a plan and/or other penalties.
Important legislation has amended ERISA and increased the responsibilities of EBSA. For example, the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 reduced the maximum age that an employer may require for participation in a pension plan; lengthened the period of time a participant could be absent from work without losing pension credits; and created spousal rights to pension benefits through qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) in the event of divorce, and through pre-retirement survivor annuities. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 eliminated the ability of employers to limit participation in their retirement plans for new employees who are close to retirement and the ability to freeze benefits for participants over age 65. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 requires the Secretary of Labor to assess a civil penalty equal to 20% of any amount recovered for violations of fiduciary responsibility.
The department’s responsibilities under ERISA have also been expanded by health care reform. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) added a new part 6 to Title I of ERISA which provides for the continuation of health care coverage for employees and their beneficiaries (for a limited period of time) if certain events would otherwise result in a reduction in benefits. More recently, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added a new Part 7 to Title I of ERISA aimed at making health care coverage more portable and secure for employees, and gave the department broad additional responsibilities with respect to private health plans.
Impact of the “After the Fact” removal of Corporate Retiree Health Insurance
The following is a sample of large companies who have reduced healthcare benefits of their retirees AFTER they retired. This list represents about 3 million retirees:
Following is a list of employers that have recently scaled back health
benefits for retirees:
Aetna Inc.: Stopped subsidizing health insurance for employees who
retire after 2007. In January, they will stop funding all retirees’ dental
Bethlehem Steel Corp.: Filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001.
They canceled all health benefits for its 95,000 retirees last year.
Caterpillar Inc.: Starting in January, retirees will pay significantly
more of their health insurance premiums, with costs ranging from $180
a month per individual to $370 per family.
Dupont Co.: Now charges pre-Medicare retirees higher health insurance
premiums than it charges current employees.
Embarq: The wire line spinoff from Sprint stopped offering Medigap coverage to their Medicare eligible retirees in January 2008
Kodak: Removed Healthcare supplemental Insurance for Medicare eligible retirees effective 2008
Levi Strauss & Co.: Stopped subsidizing Medigap coverage (private
insurance that covers services Medicare does not) for all retirees and
raised deductibles on prescription drugs to as much as $50. Company will stop
subsidizing benefits for future retirees.
Lucent Technologies: In January, stopped covering dependents of
employees who left after May 1990 if they made more than $87,000;
level will fall to $65,000 next year.
Sears, Roebuck & Co.: Starting next year, all subsidies for retiree
health benefits will be eliminated for new hires and employees younger
than 40. Sears is also capping employer contributions to retiree health
benefits at 2004 levels.
Tribune Co. (owner of The Times): Has stopped subsidizing retirement
health benefits for those hired after March 2003.
Verizon Communications: Stopped all future retiree health benefits for management employees and has dramatically increased the retiree portion of health Insurance from 0 to $800+ per month depending on size of family.
Whirlpool Corp.: Beginning this year, retiring employees are paying
20% of their health insurance costs.
September 30, 2008
Addendum to testimony of Bill Jones
on September 25, 2008 in the Education and
Labor Committee Hearing on:
RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS:
Additional information regarding the alternate proposed solutions for the theft of retiree healthcare insurance by Corporate America
ProtectSeniors.Org fully supports The Emergency Health benefits Protection Act (H.R. 1322) as the best and most expedient method to stop the flagrant reductions in earned retiree healthcare occurring all across the country. The maintenance of cost plan proposed by one retiree group in the hearing would seem to immediately discontinue corporate retiree health insurance in favor of a onetime dollar stipend to retirees and require them to go out and buy their own healthcare insurance. There are too many problems with that proposal to deliver them all in the time allotted. The following table represents the main differences between HR1322 and the maintenance of cost proposal. We do not support this proposal.
|Saving Retiree Healthcare|
Provisions of Proposed Fix
Restores previously taken away healthcare
Makes it illegal to take away earned healthcare
Covers inflation of healthcare cost
Allows Companies to get waiver if company in poor financial health
Provides a loan program if company cannot afford restoration
Is a bill written and entered into Congress with a Sponsor
Is the bill bi-partisan
Has the bill had a hearing
Causes possible taxable income for retiree
If you should have questions regarding this information please contact Bill Jones.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ProtectSeniors.Org Hires Washington Lobbyist
To get something done on Capitol Hill it takes a lot of skill and experience on the ground in Washington, DC.
Washington, DC — March 27,2006
Help is on the way for beleaguered retirees who are trying to deal with rising costs and shrinking healthcare coverage.
Last month, a group of former telephone company employees, all Association of BellTel Retirees leaders, banded together to form ProtectSeniors.Org. This new organization is dedicated to push for passage of legislation friendly to retirees. Specifically, ProtectSeniors.Org will focus on H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act of 2005.
ProtectSeniors.Org took a second major step forward in their efforts to activate the more than 111,500 former fellow employees around the country, who have been deeply impacted by the cuts or out right loss to healthcare once promised them by their former employer. They hired long time Washington lobbyist Paul A. Miller to represent them and act as Chief Lobbyist for the organization.
Paul was born and raised in Racine, Wisconsin. He received a BS in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin Whitewater. Paul served as an aide to Les Aspin former U.S. Congressman.
In addition to his work for ProtectSeniors.Org, Paul serves as President of the American League of Lobbyists, an association representing the lobbying community. Paul is very involved in the current debate in Washington on lobbying reform and has testified before Congress on the issue of Lobbying reform.
Paul also is the co-founder of the Hoops for Hope charity basketball event that pits members of Congress vs. lobbyists each year in an effort to raise money for children’s charities in the Washington, D.C. area. And most recently Paul was invited by the U.S. State Department to travel to Peru to speak and work with the Peruvian government on drafting and implementing a lobbying disclosure law similar to that of the United States.
“I am very excited about the opportunity this offers me and the members of ProtectSeniors.Org,” stated Paul Miller. “The leadership of the organization should be commended for their efforts to create an organization for the over 20 million former corporate employees who were promised healthcare and now risk having it pulled out from underneath them,” Miller added.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the organization plans to aggressively educate members of Congress as to the critical problems facing people who, at the time they need it the most, are watching their coverage shrink and their premiums soar. “This is a national crisis of huge proportions,” said ProtectSeniors.Org President, James E. Casey, “Corporate America is trying to solve its financial problems by shifting healthcare costs to retirees, who can least afford the additional burden and with Paul on board we believe we are in great shape to move this legislation forward,” added Casey.
H.R. 1322 would put in place protections on retiree’s company-sponsored healthcare insurance similar to those that ERISA has provided for pensions for the past 34 years. The bill would make it illegal for companies to reduce or terminate healthcare plans or to pass additional costs on to employees once they retire.
“People worked for companies for 20, 30, 40 or more years with the promise that certain benefits would be there through their working years and into retirement. These benefits were an integral part of the employee’s compensation package – something that they earned, just like their salary, during their careers. “It is unconscionable to renege on those commitments,” said Casey. “We plan to do something about this through ProtectSeniors.Org.”
“This legislation is extremely important to millions of American retirees and our job with ProtectSeniors.Org is to energize those who stand to lose or have lost portions of their healthcare benefits. Rallying these people to understand that together we can make a difference whereas individuals we don’t have that same voice. I would encourage everyone out there who has earned healthcare benefits and been promised them in retirement by their former company to call us and become a part of the solution – ProtectSeniors.Org,” Miller concluded.
For More Information Contact: