    
|
||
Washington Post - Guild NewsApril 30, 2002
Guild to Post: "You Can't Take It With You"The Guild has proposed to improve the pension plan. Post management continues to refuse to do it. The pension trust fund has a huge surplus. The modest improvements we propose are easily affordable, offering a better deal to employees who have served The Post for many years while continuing to leave the fund all but bloated with funds to cover the needs of future retirees. When the pension plan was new, employees “diverted ”part of their salary increases into the fund –- a contribution that, in effect, continues to this day in the form of lower salaries for us all. Because of the fund ’s strong investment returns, the company has not had to make contributions for many years and will not have to for the foreseeable future. By law, the fund can be used only for retiree benefits, and it’s required to have enough money in it to cover promised payouts to current and future retirees. But how much is enough, and how much is just greed? One reference is IRS rules, which preclude certain tax benefits to companies once the funding level gets above 150 percent of projected needs. But as of the year 2000, the Washington Post pension fund had assets of nearly $275 million, or about 250 percent of its calculated liabilities. Among plans at large corporations, that’s extraordinary. Even The Post’s actuary concedes that the Post’s pension fund is “at the top end ” of plumpness for such plans. So the issue isn’t lack of money in the fund, it’s the reluctance of The Post to share it. Our proposal would increase the "cash supplement" used by many retirees to pay for health insurance –- a benefit that has not gone up for many years and which many now find inadequate –- and it boosts the regular payouts to retirees, based on their age and number of years of service. Here are some examples calculated by Bob Patrician, a research economist with the Communications Workers of America: An employee earning $41,555 a year (the average in commercial departments) and retiring this year at age 65 would get a pension benefit of about $17,100 a year under the Guild proposal, versus about $14,400 under the current language. If the same employee retired early at age 60, his or her pension would be about $14,100 under the Guild proposal,or about $9,100 without the changes we propose. An employee earning $80,397 a year (the average in news departments) and retiring this year at age 65 would get about $34,200 in yearly pension under our proposal, versus about $31,500 otherwise. An early retiree at age 60 would get $26,100 a year, versus $18,000. Our proposal would ensure that pensions would replace more than 41 percent of salary for retirees leaving at 65, and more than 32 percent for early retirees at age 60. There’s plenty of money in the fund to cover the costs involved. The Post should do the right thing: Share it with the people who devoted so much of their lives to making The Post. —Keith Sinzinger ,on behalf of your Guild Bargaining Committee Can
Post Employees Get BASIC FAIRNESS From The Washington Post?
WE WILL GET ONLY THE PEANUTS UNLESS WE SHOW THE COMPANY AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS THAT WE REALLY WANT MORE. Post bargainers believe they can simply ignore the majority of employees who are only seeking a fair contract. Under Post proposals we will continue to LOSE GROUND to inflation because of no pay raise the first year (small lump sum instead) and pay raises averaging little more than 1 percent in the second and third years. Our contract expires on May 18, in less than three weeks. Now is the time to show that you care. JOIN "MISTER PEANUT" AND OTHER DIGNITARIES FOR A MASS INFORMATIONAL PICKET-LINE RALLY AT THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY STOCKHOLDERS MEETING. Please add your name to sign-up sheets circulated in your department. THURSDAY,MAY
9 AT 7:30 A.M.SHARP.
If you ’re not a Guild member, please join today.
|
||
|
Washington-Baltimore
Newspaper Guild, Local 32035 TNG-CWA, AFL-CIO/ 1100 15th St., NW,
Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005/ 202-785-3650 /Fax: 202-7859 Copyright © 2002 Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild |
