Homestead mailing list

["Toni Hawryluk" <tonihawr AT msn.com>]

> I approve of the local recall bit, though if it fails you can expect 
some pretty severe reprisal by the recallee---remember the old saw about 
if you try to kill the king, you better be successful.

Not that I'm bloodthirsty or anything (some ole ladies
aren't) but "we've" done it before - what's keeping our 
"solution" from happening ?

Toni
>From tvoivozd AT infionline.net  Wed Sep 22 20:44:02 2004
Return-Path: <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net
        [207.69.200.57])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA652000B
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:44:01 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from sdn-ap-027dcwashp0049.dialsprint.net ([65.177.80.49]
        helo=[127.0.0.1])
        by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
        id 1CAHiK-0000Z7-00
        for homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:44:01 -0400
Message-ID: <41524A69.8000808 AT infionline.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:00:41 -0700
From: Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [Homestead] This is easy enough
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: homestead.lists.ibiblio.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:44:02 -0000


Make every company contracting with employees for retirement benefits,
fully-fund their promises so the money  is there, denying the company
the option of reneging---makes the law-of-contract a joke.




*washingtonpost.com* <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>
*Lucent Cutting Retiree Benefits Again*

By Linda A. Johnson
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 21, 2004; 6:50 PM

TRENTON, N.J. -- For the second time in a year, telecommunications
equipment maker Lucent Technologies Inc. is reducing benefits promised
to thousands of its retirees.

The Murray Hill-based company, which reported billions of dollars in
losses during the telecommunications industry slump, notified employees
by letter it will no longer provide free health insurance for dependents
of management workers who retired on or after March 1, 1990, at a salary
of $65,000 or more. Instead, those dependents will have to pay their own
premiums.

Last September, Lucent announced identical cuts for managers who had
retired during the same period but had a base salary of at least
$87,000. That change took effect on Jan. 1.

The latest cut affects the dependents of 5,400 management retirees, a
total of 7,400 dependents - spouses, disabled children and children age
23 or younger living at home. It takes effect Jan. 1, 2005.

The prior cutback affected about 9,000 dependents of 7,300 retirees.

"We're astounded that the Lucent executives would continue to take
benefits away from dependents of retirees, since many retired based on
Lucent's promise to provide health care benefits for them and their
dependents," Ed Beltram, spokesman for the Lucent Retirees Organization,
said Tuesday.

Lucent spokesman Bill Price said the company had no choice.

"We have to ask for some cost sharing, as we did last year, with our
retirees in order to remain competitive," he said, noting dependents
could stay in the retirees' health plan by paying their own premiums.
The premiums range from $220 per month to $386 per month, which Price
said was about half the cost of comparable coverage elsewhere.

Management retirees' costs for dental coverage also are being increased,
with premiums rising roughly one-third to $32 per month for single
people and $85 a month for family coverage.

The new changes should save Lucent about $16 million annually, Price
said. The prior cuts are saving about $75 million a year.

About 40 percent of Lucent's roughly 50,000 management retirees - those
who retired before March 1, 1990 - do not pay premiums toward their
health insurance. The rest pay on average $90 per month, if single, and
$226 per month if they have dependents, according to Price.

Two weeks ago, Lucent said it also would try to reduce future health
care costs for its retired union workers when it begins negotiating a
new contract with their unions. Bargaining is set to start in early October.

Ken Raschke, president of the Lucent Retirees Organization, said it was
hard to justify the cuts when Lucent's chief executive officer, Patricia
Russo, received a total of $44 million in compensation in 2002 and 2003.

Price said the compensation figure is deceptive because it is based on
how Russo's stock options are valued. He said Russo's compensation for
her first two years at the helm actually was $35.6 million and includes
$18.2 million in hiring incentives to make up for money she lost by
leaving Eastman Kodak to join Lucent.

According to Lucent, Russo has only received $5.8 million in salary and
incentive bonuses for those two years. Other incentive payments will be
made next year, and her stock options are worthless because they are
priced higher than Lucent shares have been trading.

On the New York Stock Exchange, Lucent shares rose 7 cents to close
Tuesday at $3.36.

© 2004 The Associated Press