Do you really think the Union gives a rat about the people who are retired? Do you somehow think they're going to give up something so we retirees don't have to pay more? The letter the company sent out is word for word what is written in the retiree health and welfare book. The neotiating was done a long time ago only they forgot to tell anyone when they retired.
UPS Health Benefits Shock for Retired Union Employees
- Thread starter kumet
- Start date
beentheredonethat
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this information, I thought this was the case. In particular the part about the contract that was negotiated agreed to the terms of the HW for retirees in that UPS paid all the monies up to a certain threshold and then above the threshold UPS and the retiree divided the extra cost. If that is true, and now that benefits cost a lot more why are people yelling at UPS? I get being upset. I really do. Heck, I as a mgmt person have been paying for a portion of my medical for many years. I currently pay over 350/month for medical for my family and another almost 300 per month in HCSA to cover what insurance does not cover. That's about 650/month I'm paying today as an active UPS mgmt person for my total healthcare costs. Can and will UPS negotiate a higher amount of monies for retired UPSers sure. However, that money will come from somewhere. It will come from current active employees pay raises or come from future contributions for HW and pension for current teamsters. Personally, I don't see that happening.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
It's a scare tactic.... plain and simple.
As a retiree.... I would suggest, calling your former Local and voice your opinion. Write them.
The company loves complacency.... they expect it.
-Bug-
i did call,and write.the 1st call,i got"we don't have anything to do with your insurance ,that's through u.p.s."then i sent an email expressing my thoughts.that even though this might be a good thing for the pension fund,because people getting ready to retire and draw a pention wouldn't be able to afford it.it might not be good for the union,because the motive to be in the union wasn't only higher wages,but the idea of being able to retire before you were to old to enjoy it.after my email,and a 2nd call,they did tell me they were working on it.if you aren't effected by this increase,then why get on here and demean the problem,because it is definately a problem if you're going to loose 20% of your income on 8/1/13,and then who knows how much each year after this.make sure the union knows how you feel,make sure the guys still working at u.p.s. and voteing on the next contract know about this.to them ,this could mean never being able to retire .if they loose $450/mo ,they could gain that back by working an extra 5 years.if the insurance keeps going up, like u.p.s.lead me to believe it would when i called them,combine that with inflation,they will never be able to retire on the pention.now with this perspective,is there anything else we can do?
sue union for lack of support
so you wouldn't have a problem if they wanted to raise it to $4850 / mo. in august?
pretender
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong--I think it sucks to have a person's share go from $50 to over $400; and there has to be a better way. However, I got to thinking: If $6250 is the threshold where the company and retiree start to share the cost of the increase, the people who are already paying $400 are having to pay 4 times as much for the initial premium...
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Entitlement is a sneaky, consuming fellow.
I've met people that are absolutely outraged that they can't get something others have and feel they have been done wrong.
I know I have been guilty of this too.
Good luck to those who are trying to get what they can ... I don't have any desire for you to not get it.
I'd say it depends on the Teamsters and their current membership during the current negotiations.
it's $50 to $495,almost 10 times what we're paying now.but ,i was wondering the same thing.was the company making money till it hit the $6250 mark?even if they weren't making money,this was the number they decided they could afford.10 times the insurance premium should equal 10 times the insuarance coverage.so in august they will start taking enough money from us to pay $62,500 medical cost per retiree,per year.do the math.$62,500 minus $6250 equals $56,200 per retiree,per year.u.p.s. profits should be right up there with the oil companies next year.top management should be able to take a huge raise,a huge bonus,and the shareholders will still be happy.unless, they are retired teamsters that spent most of their life working for u.p.s. and have to go back to work or starve now.
beentheredonethat
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, UPS is self insured, but insurance is administered through a health insurance provider where they do the administration and get a fee (usually a %) of the costs. Which is usually cheaper then if UPS tried to manage it itself.
The costs that is referred to is what was paid out for all the employee in a group, and then divided by the number of people, taking into account single, married w/o childred and married with children (also single with children). WIth already taking in the insurance copay of 50 into account. If the total costs averaged 5000 per family then UPS paid the entire costs of 5000 pulled from the UPS retiree savings fund that UPS set up and continues to pay money into. If the total costs go to 6250 again UPS pays the total amount. When the costs go to 16250 (10K over the number) UPS pays the 6250 + 1/2 the 10,000 over the amount or 11,250 dollars. the retiree pays the other 5000. I don't get where you are coming up with 62,500. The statement that the if premiums go up insurance goes up the same amount (10 fold) is an incorrect statement. How it is covered and costs split are clearly defined.
I'll take myself for example. I had a medical condition that I needed treatments for. I got 4 treaments per year and it costs 10-12K per treatment. That's 40-48K dollars of cost for me just for that, let alone Dr's visits, labs, other drugs etc etc.
I made a change to my eating, I lost weight, and ate healthier, I take a lot of supplements (vitamins, herbs etc). I spend about 2 dollars a day on supplements which is not covered by insurance. However, I have not had to have that treatment for almost 2 years now. I reduced the cost to UPS of paying to insure me for this treatment by almost 100K over the last two years. I didn't do it to save UPS money. I did it to be healthier, saving costs was a side benefit. One of the largest problems the nation is facing is diabetes and the costs associated with diabetes and the complications that arise from having it. Excluding Type I diabetes, most of it can be prevented by eating less junk food, a lot less carbs, eating more non starchy vegetables and lean meats. Also to exercise (cardio). If everyone did this, costs will go down. (at least for what insurance pays for diabetes related issues).
Plus, you will be healthier which is the main reason to do it.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I would imagine it was at $6250 or higher in the last contract but it was negotiated at that time that UPS would maintain the $50/month charge with that concession by UPS being offset by some other aspect of financial concession by the Teamsters.
The cost for retiree healthcare in the letter was probably foreseen by UPS and Teamsters at the formulation of the current contract.
Like it always has been, there is this big pot of UPS money.
How do you (Teamsters) want to divvy it up?
beentheredonethat,i guess i jumped to the wrong conclusion.i figured it was like paying my life insurance.you pay 10x as much,you get 10x the insurance.if i was wrong,i'm sorry. if you are right,ups is chargeing each retiree $445/mo more which is $5,340/yr.if they are paying the same $5340/yr.that means the average retiree's medical cost is going to go from $6250/yr.up to $16,930/yr.between 12/2012 when they wrote the letter and 8/2013?does ups know something we don't?i certainly like your idea to get healthier,because if my insurance is going to go up another $445 every 8 months,i won't have any.
Last edited:
Leftinbuilding
Well-Known Member
It's my understanding, Obamacare does away with the cap. Could be wrong. That is one of my major concerns as well.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
You have a wrong understanding.
The provision of eliminating lifetime is for active employees only.
Retirees are not active employees and therefore lifetime caps are prevalent.
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
Could we buy our own insurance when these exchanges kick in? Being retired we might be within the 400% of poverty level and may qualify for assistance.
Ms.PacMan
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, the current Central States retirees are. 323% (for a single person) above poverty level if they are living on their pension alone. Lower still I imagine if they took the lesser payout to ensure their spouse was taken care of after death.
| Persons in family/household | Poverty guideline |
|---|---|
| 1 | $11,170 |
| 2 | 15,130 |
| 3 | 19,090 |
| 4 | 23,050 |
| 5 | 27,010 |
| 6 | 30,970 |
| 7 | 34,930 |
| 8 | 38,890 |
| For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $3,960 for each additional person. |
Leftinbuilding
Well-Known Member
Thanks Hoax.....could you cite a sourse for your info? I did some searching on Google but can't find anything that specifically addresses this issue. Thanks again.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Retiree-only medical plans exempt from lifetime-coverage limits
and you will get several results.
Here is one - https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/retiree-only-plans.html
Retiree-Only Plans. The preamble to the regulations makes a very important clarification regarding the status of
retiree-only plans. A plan that only covers retirees and no active employees will not be subject to any of the new
insurance market reforms. Thus, for example, a retiree-only plan will not have to provide dependent coverage to
adult children and may continue to include annual or lifetime dollar limits. Retiree-only plans are also exempt
from the HIPAA portability requirements and other mandates, such as those imposed by the Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act.
Retiree-only plans are exempt from the ACA-mandated "insurance market reforms" listed below:
- Sections 1001(5) and 10101 - No lifetime or annual dollar limits on essential benefits
- Section 1001(5) - Prohibition on rescission
- Section 1001(5) - Coverage of certain preventive health services provided in network
- Section 1001(5) - Extension of dependent coverage
- Section 1001(5) - Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions (Summary of Benefits and Coverage)
- Section 1001(5) - Provision of additional information
- Section 1001(5) - Prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals for insured plans
- Section 1001(5) - Ensuring the quality of care reporting
- Section 1001(5) 8 - Medical loss ratio requirements
- Section 1001(5) - Required appeals process and various requirements in the claims and appeals rules
- Section 1001(5) - Patient protections (choice of provider, emergency services requirements)
- Section 1003 - Rate review
- Section 1201 - Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status for children under age 19
- Section 1201 - Restrictions on what criteria can be used in rating and rate band limits
- Section 1201 - Guaranteed issue
- Section 1201 - Guaranteed renewability
- Section 1201 - Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status
- Section 1201 - Non-discrimination towards health care providers
- Section 1201 - Cost-sharing requirements and essential benefit requirements
- Sections 1201 and 10103 - Prohibition on waiting periods of more than 90 days
- Section 10103 - Coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials
Retiree-only plans are required to comply with the following ACA requirements.
- Section 1103 - Web portal reporting requirements
- Section 1341 - Reinsurance
- Section 1311(e) - Risk pooling (applies to small group retiree-only plans, with the exception of grandfathered plans)
- Section 3141 - Reinsurance
- Section 1342 - Risk corridors (applies to retiree-only qualified health plans)
- Section 1343 - Risk adjustment (applies to small group retiree only plans)
- Section 6301 - Research Trust Fund Health Plan Fee (PCORI)
- Sections 9001 and 10901 - Excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage
- Section 9022 - W-2 reporting (applies to employers that sponsor retiree only plans, but only if the retiree otherwise is receiving a Form W-2 from the employer.)
- Section 1502 - Reporting of health insurance coverage
- Section 6005 - Pharmacy benefit managers transparency
- Section 9003 - Exclusion of over-the-counter drugs for group health plans, FSAs, HRAs, HSAs
- Section 9010 - Annual fee on health insurance providers
Similar threads
