Brothers and sisters of rail labor, If I may be so bold please allow me to speak on a subject that needs to be addressed. That subject: Railroad Retirement.
Some of you may recall back in 1997 a proposal was written to change the retirement age to age 55, OR 360 service months (30 years). Initially the Railroad Retirement Board went nuts. It couldn't happen, it would bankrupt the system, it was a pipe dream. Then some of the Labor Leaders voiced the same opinions as well as "a snowballs chance in hell" and some of them are still in office today! How do I know that? Well, for one, I wrote the proposal for 55 OR 30. And I kept darned near every piece of paper in regards to the struggle that finally got us the 60/30 that we current have.
But quite frankly, there is one heck of a lot more that can, and needs, to be done. It is thus that I am again calling on the rank and file for dialogue for reasonable changes to the current system. (no, I wasn't a big supporter of 60/30)
1. Change the system so that we can retire earlier than 60 years of age, or 30 years credible service if we so desire. In other words, a choice. That change can be a 2% reduction in retirement benefits (pay) for each year under age 60 with said earlier retirement not to be less than age 55. And retirement at age 60 even if the person has less than 30 credible years service with the same 2% reduction, per year for each year under 30 credible years service.
Example: Retirement choice at age 55 with 30, or more, credible years service would equal a 10% reduction in retirement pay. Or Retirement at age 60 with 25 years credible service would equal a 10% reduction in retirement pay.
2. Spouses of railroad workers receive full retirement benefit's the day the worker retires, or dies, whichever comes first regardless of the spouses age or medical condition.
3. Any railroad worker that leaves service through permanent, or total, or occupational disability would be provided, at the carriers' expense, full medical benefits for themselves and their spouses and dependent children, until the disabled worker reaches the age to qualify for Medicare AND the carriers would provide any supplemental necessary. Those same benefits would be extended to the spouse of a disabled worker at the carriers expense AND the dependent children until age 21, or 25 if a student at an accredited college or university, or longer if the child is disabled.
4. Any railroad worker that leaves railroad service through permanent, or total, or occupational disability would continue to accrue service months until reaching full retirement age and credited years service. If you aren't aware of it, 60/30 provided the carriers, collectively, with an annual savings of $400 million per year. That is money that they no longer put into your retirement account. (1998 figures) Point number 5 is take the caps off of railroad retirement taxable earnings. Everyone from a basic force trackman to the CEO pays from each paycheck, all year. That alone would increase an additionally $500 million per year (again 1998 figures) into the Railroad Retirement account. Basically, what I'm saying is that, yes, the money for these proposed changes is there, and NO it will not bankrupt our retirement system.
And as a final little nudge, are you aware that U.S. Representative James Oberstar had offered a compromise before the current changes were enacted that would have given us 58/30 rather than 60/30? Yep, it's true. The proposed age, or credible service months changes, that I am proposing (and proposed in the past) provide the railroad worker a viable choice for earlier than 60 years of age retirement if they so choose. It is in no way meant to be mandatory.
It is criminal that anyone that leaves the railroad through disability should have to worry about medical coverage, eye care, and dental when it is quite likely the railroad industry is what crippled them! And the carrier doesn't have to step up to the plate for that care? I don't think so. When our broken body gives out make the carrier pony up the same, if not better, coverage for crippling us.
And our spouses supported us through our career. Why should they not receive those same full benefits the day we retire, or die, regardless of that spouse's age or medical condition? I appreciate your taking the time to read. Now is the time for us to act.
In total solidarity,
Ronald D. Friend
Currently 55 years of age with 38 years service
re: the question on earlier retirement
it is my contention that the rank and file membership, through dialogue, can develop a resonable proposal for earlier retirement for ourselves and our spouses, along with better benefits for our disabled brothers and sisters, through this venue. Any proposal must include medical coverage for those that retire as well as their spouses. In years gone by, we negotiated loss of jobs, and many other things, for carrier paid medical benefits. Starting around '99 those benefits that we sacrified for in years past were negated when we had to pay a portion of the health care benefit cost. It is, thus, that we should be able to benefit with medical coverage for ourselves and our spouses, if and when we retire, or die. Not pay exorbitant prices for continual coverage, not have to agonize over the cost of other necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter to have enough money to pay insurance premiums. We have given the best years of our lives to an industry that can often be unforgiving. Our spouses have supported us in that career. We cannot, nor must not, forget to provide for ourselves and those same spouses upon our retirement.
With a savings to the carriers of nearly 1/2 a billion dollars per year the money is there. With nearly another 1/2 a billion dollars per year by removing the caps for railroad retirement deductions from all railroad employees , more money is there. And yes, that would increase the payout benefit to those same retirees however, the money earned through NRRIT would more than offset that. And finally, we pay into railroad retirement from deductions from each and every paycheck. Is it not reasonable, then, to expect the carriers to pay that same money into railroad retirement at the same time? Currently, our deductions are not paid in until the date we actually retire, or die. (figures and information from RRB in 1998) Think of the potential assets available to our railroad retirement fund.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that through this forum we can develop a proposal that is reasonable through our collective minds. And that is where each of us must share the importance of this site to each and every railroad brother and sister out there. And their spouses. Encourage them to register here, read, and think about what is at stake, and yes we can make a difference. It is a legacy that railroaders that come after us will one day thank us for. Lets do it right, lets do it together, and lets do it now.
Thanks,
Ron Friend
re: the question on earlier retirement
Brother Jon,
I hear exactly what you're saying. However more than one carrier was on board for 55/30 UNTIL three labor leaders came out strongly against it. Then those same labor leaders used the old "divide and conquer" tactic and it worked. The thing that really forced the change was the magnified voices of the rank and file in all rail crafts. I witnessed it first hand at a lot of local lodge meetings in all crafts. At the time of the struggle I had a job that had me traveling all over the CSX property from Florida to the Canadian border. In so doing I was often an invited guest at a lot of different local lodge meetings from a lot of the various crafts. The noise to the labor leadings was deafening. They heard, then they handed us a carrot to keep us quiet. I have set in quite a few meetings with Congressmen and Senators on this subject as well as some of the upper management and labor leaders. Why did the carriers that supported it do so? Quite possibly "contracting out" may have been one of their ulterior motives. However, I could never get an answer from the labor leaders that were anti 55/30 as to why they didn't support it. Every arguement that they brought forth I was able to repudiate. We proved it wouldn't bankrupt the system. We proved it was something the rank and file wanted and needed. Honestly Jon, it wasn't all just the carriers. And this is hard for me to say in that I have been prounion, and a union activist my entire life. Lets just say it was a learning experience. Thanks again.
Ron Friend
Why 60-30 became reality
We need to understand how contracts and issues like the campaign for early retirement get settled by our rail union leaders.
The strategy is always to find a group within the body of eligible members who have a more immediate interest in a less than ideal outcome.
In the case of the 55-30 campaign, a large group of rail workers were very close to retiring. Once the carriers evinced support for 60-30, these members in the 55-60 age range lost all interest in anything better, because they found the carrot of 60 and 30 just too tempting. I saw it happen in my shop and knew very quickly that for the time being 55 and 30 was done for.
I have seen this strategy in action several times since, in the case of the last IAM contract that passed, where older workers jumped at a big back pay settlement, since the health insurance payments really wouldn't be an issue for them.
Then there was the recent Amtrak settlement, where this time, younger active workers threw retirees under the bus for a back pay deal.
So it goes, until EVERYONE wises up to this.
I must say it is getting harder to find a large enough group to do the "under the bus routine." Hence the fact that the last IAM tentative was voted down overwhelmingly.
Jon Flanders