|
TelCo Retirees Association, Inc. Disclaimer: I looked up TRA,Inc in Google and amazingly got sent to this site... this is not the Official TRA, Inc site. (as of 7/13/2004 this is their new site: http://www.telcoretirees.org )This is just a site I put up when TRA was getting started and folks were asking me questions... I am going to delete all the stuff I put up here... if you want to know what's going on please go see their site.
Latest Epistle from SK rec. 1/27/07 from Gary Ireland
|
February 1, 2007
TELCO RETIREES ASSOCIATION, INC.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING
LA MESA WOMAN’S CLUB
5220 WILSON STREET, LA MESA, CA
FEBRUARY 8, 2007
9:00 A.M.-12:00 NOON
Election of Directors/Officers
Review/approval of annual budget
AT&T shareowner proxies
Membership plans - 2007
"The new Bell System"
Telephone Concession Class Action lawsuit - current
status
AT&T Retiree Coalition Yellow Page retiree death
benefits
Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell
Retiree Benefits
As we begin our
5th year as an incorporated, non-profit Pacific
Bell/Nevada Bell retiree organization, I am reminded
of our Mission Statement, "TO PROTECT, ENHANCE AND
ASSURE THE CONTINUATION OF RETIREES’ PENSIONS AND
OTHER BENEFITS PROMISED BY THE COMPANY AT THE TIME
OF THEIR RETIREMENT."
The Officers and Directors are totally committed to
our Mission Statement and AT&T’s recent decision to
arbitrarily reduce the basic death benefit for
Yellow Page retirees was unprecedented and without
conscience. The association has challenged this
arbitrary decision by AT&T and the following
correspondence provides ample evidence of AT&T’s
unwillingness to modify their corporate position.
|
Dear Sue,
I had planned to call you this week in order to
resolve the continuing concerns relative to
AT&T’s announcement of Summary Changes to
Pacific Bell’s Yellow Page Advertising retirees
but because alarm bells have been ringing
throughout the TelCo Retirees Association, Inc.
from Rhode Island to California and from British
Columbia to Hawaii, I felt a formal letter would
be more appropriate.
The abruptness of the announcement to the
changes in the Supplementary Life Insurance
benefit and the limited time permitted for
retirees to evaluate the full impact of this
Quality of Life Decision was inexcusable.
…And now, your December 6th letter making
reference to the "Reservation of Rights" clause
contained in the Pacific Telesis Summary Plan
Description (published 1996) calls into question
the "right" of AT&T to modify or terminate "All"
benefits promised to Pacific Bell retirees at
the time of their retirement. (Medical, Dental,
Disability, Group Life Insurance, Death
Benefits, Pension and Supplemental Retirement
and Savings) mandates a full explanation.
I call your attention to the following paragraph
which appears in the opening page of the Benefit
90’s Summary Plan Descriptions published July
1996:
"This book describes features of the pension
plans in effect as of January 1996 and the
current savings, health, life insurance and
disability plans. Information you receive at
retirement regarding your pension, long-term
disability and life insurance was based on the
plans in effect at that time. Those plans will
continue to govern the pension, long-term
disability and life insurance benefits you
receive."
(The merger of Pacific Telesis with SBC became
effective April l1, 1997, almost a full year
after the publication of the Benefits 90’s
Summary Plan Description.) Were all "rights"
transferred to SBC effective with the April 1,
1997 date?
Because your December 6th letter was declarative
in nature and all encompassing, I would like a
clarification of the following issue:
A. Medicare Part B reimbursement …Medicare
reimbursement varies by the retiree’s date of
retirement. (PTG managers who retired prior to
January 2, 1991 receive full Medicare Part B
reimbursement, for the retiree and their
dependent spouse.
Former PTG managers who retired between January
2, 1991 and December 31, 1998 are eligible for a
$45 a month Medicare Part B reimbursement for
the retiree and their dependent spouse.
Former PTG managers who retired on or after
January 1, 1999 have a Medicare Part B
reimbursement capped at $45 a month for the
retiree only.
These changes were announced by SBC as a "cost
savings initiative" and were put in place
beginning in 1999 and continued as SBC merged
with other regional companies. Why the
discrepancy in reimbursement for PTG retirees
based upon their date of retirement?
B. Medical Expense Plan (Flexible) …Why do PTG
retirees with the Medical Expense Plan
(Flexible) have the right to choose any of
AT&T’s Medical Expense Benefit Plans and return
to the Medical Expense Plan at any time when
other PTG retirees do not have this privilege?
Why?
C. Special Supplementary Life Insurance
Enrollment Opportunity …The Benefits 90’’s
publication (page 111) describes the"reduction
in the retiree’s Supplemental Life Insurance
beginning at age 66 from 90% to 50% at age 70
and older."
The AT&T "Special Supplementary Life Insurance
Enrollment Opportunity" letter to Pacific Bell
Yellow Page Advertising retirees states,
"Effective January 1, 2007, employer-paid
retiree "basic life" insurance under the AT&T
Medical and Group Life Insurance Plan-Group Life
Insurance will change from one times rounded
annual basic pay to $15,000 with no age based
reductions."
Page 108 of the Benefit 90’s Summary Plan
Descriptions (Basic Life Insurance) states, "The
amount of your "basic life" insurance coverage
is equal to your base pay, differentials paid
for night hours, differentials paid for
temporary work in a higher classification,
lump-sum merit wage payments, incentive
compensation (if you are a Directory or
Marketing management employee, area
differentials, team awards, commissions and
bonuses and residuals which are identified as a
permanent part of your compensation. The "basic
life" benefit will be paid to your beneficiary
whether your death is caused by disease, illness
or accident."
On the adjacent page (109) entitled
"Supplemental Life" states, "The amount of your
Supplemental Life Insurance is equal to 1, 1 _
or 2 times your basic life insurance while you
are working. When you retire, you can elect to
continue the supplemental coverage in effect at
your retirement."
On page 111 of the Benefits 90’s Summary Plan
Descriptions it states, "If you retire on a
service or disability pension, your "basic life"
insurance coverage continues at no cost to you.
"Supplemental life" insurance coverage will
continue during your retirement until age
65. When you reach age 66, your "basic life"
coverage will begin to be reduced according to
the following table:
Age 66…90%, Age 67...80%, Age 68…70%, Age
69…60%. Age 70 and older..50%
"As a retired employee, this percentage applies
to the ‘basic life’ insurance coverage on the
day you retire."
Obviously, AT&T’s Special "Supplementary Life"
Insurance Enrollment Opportunity has created a
massive state of confusion throughout Pacific
Bell’s retiree body. The descriptions of "Basic
Life" Insurance (provided to us by the company
and equal to our base pay plus various
differentials) and the "Supplemental Life"
Insurance, paid for by employees during their
employment years appears to indicate AT&T plans
to further reduce Yellow Page retirees’
"Supplemental Life" Insurance.
The descriptions of "Basic" and "Supplemental"
have created a massive misunderstanding. A
succinct explanation of this dubious life
insurance issue is essential if we are to
resolve this critical retiree benefit
controversy.
Sincerely, Sumner K. Emery, President
|
|
|
January 5,
2007
Susan M.
Colburn Vice President, Benefits
105 Auditorium Circle Room 12-F-7
San Antonio, TX 78205
Dear Sue,
My
December 18, 2006 letter to your office
graphically outlined the imbroglio brought about
by AT&T’s corporate "Supplementary Life
Insurance Enrollment Opportunity" for Pacific
Bell’s Yellow Page retirees remains unanswered
as of the date of this letter.
You and members of your staff need to realize
the negative impact this arbitrary corporate
ruling limiting retirees’ promised life
insurance for their dependents is having upon
TelCo Retirees Association members in the 39
states where they reside. The sheer volume of
emails, telephone calls and letters reaching our
offices from Pacific Bell retirees has been
astronomical.
Indeed, a substantial number of these
communications are from non-Yellow Page retirees
who sense yet another take-away of the benefits
promised at the time of their retirement from
Pacific Bell. (Telephone Concession for retirees
living "outside of an AT&T serving area,"
radical increases in health benefit co-pays and
deductibles for a large number of retirees,
ongoing difficulties of obtaining United Health
Care’s portion of medical expenses, and
Fidelity’s convoluted communication systems for
processing retirees’ claims involving death
benefits, ESOP and pension payment issues.)
A corporate response to my December 18th letter
is respectfully requested.
Sincerely, Sumner K. Emery, President
|
|
|
On January 12, 2007 I
received the following letter from Mr. Thomas R.
Giltner (General Attorney and Assistant General
Counsel, AT&T).
Mr. Sumner K.
Emery, President
TelCo Retirees Association
P. O. Box 600067
San Diego, Ca 92160-0067
Dear Mr. Emery:
Sue Colburn, Vice President-Benefits for AT&T,
Inc. asked that I respond to your recent
correspondence dated December 18, 2006 and
January 5, 2007 regarding changes to life
insurance benefits for certain Yellow Pages
retirees because your inquiry questions the
company’s legal right to change these benefits.
As your correspondence notes, company provided
retiree life insurance for formerly
bargained-for Yellow Pages retirees has been
capped at $15,000, and these retirees were given
a one-time opportunity to purchase additional
life insurance benefits under the company’s life
insurance plan.
Basic, or company paid life insurance, is
provided under the AT&T Medical and Group Life
Insurance Plan - Group Life Insurance.
Supplementary, or retiree paid life insurance,
is provided under the AT&T Supplementary Group
Life Insurance Program. Both of these plans are
successors to the basic and supplemental life
insurance plans described in the "Benefits 90’s
Summary Plan Descriptions" document that you
referenced in your correspondence. When Pacific
Telesis Group and Pacific Bell merged with SBC
Communications, Inc. (now, AT&T, Inc.), the
administration and design of these life
insurance benefits is determined by the merged
entity.
Your correspondence accurately re-states the
description of the basic and supplemental life
insurance benefits in the "Benefits 90’s Summary
Plan Descriptions" document. However, these
provisions only describe the life insurance
benefits as they existed on the date the
document was published. As we previously pointed
out, the "Benefits 90’s Summary Plan
Descriptions" document also includes a statement
that the company reserves the right to change
these benefits even during retirement. The
company has exercised this right.
We have evaluated plan documents, summary plan
descriptions and communications materials, and
we are not aware of any promise to continue
these life insurance benefits at a specified
level for any retirees. However, if you are
aware of any written commitment to continue
retiree life insurance benefits at a specified
level, we would be happy to evaluate and
consider that documentation.
While the company did make a decision to cap
company paid retiree life insurance at $15,000,
the company contemporaneously agreed to modify
the supplemental, or retiree paid, life
insurance benefit so that affected retirees are
able to purchase additional life insurance to
make up for the reduced basic life insurance.
In your correspondence, dated December 18, 2006,
you also inquired about the different level of
Medicare Part B reimbursement for various groups
of retirees and a provision of the Pacific
Telesis Group Medical Expense Plan that is not
available to all retirees. In exercising its
discretion to amend these benefits, the company
has elected to make changes prospectively.
Accordingly, these benefits are different for
separate groups of retirees dependent their date
of retirement.
We regret that there has been a misunderstanding
regarding retiree basic and supplementary life
insurance benefits and the company’s right to
amend these benefits. Retirees did have the
opportunity to maintain their level of life
insurance coverage by purchasing additional
supplementary life insurance. The company is
acting consistent with the terms of the life
insurance plan.
Signed: Thomas R. Giltner General Attorney and
Assistant General Counsel
|
|
(As a result of Mr. Giltner’s letter, I held a lengthy
conversation with the lead attorney in the telephone
concession Class Action lawsuit against AT&T. The
purpose of the conversation was to explore merger
agreements between SBC and Pacific Telesis Group
relative to retiree benefits. Mr. Barton is currently
researching this issue to determine if a reasonable
cause exists to legally challenge AT&T’s arbitrary
decision to radically change Yellow Page retirees’ death
benefits.)
We currently await a response from Mr. Barton.
|
January 17,
2007
Mr. Joe Barton
1100 New York Ave.,
Suite 500 Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Joe,
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday relative
to AT&T’s decision to radically alter Yellow
Page retirees’ death benefits, I am enclosing a
number of documents challenging that issue.
Included in the documentation are copies of the
Pacific Telesis Group Summary Plan Descriptions
dated January 1991 and July 1996.
I have also included copies of correspondence
with AT&T officers requesting justification for
the decision.
My primary interest in this issue is to
ascertain if AT&T (SBC) is in violation of
merger agreements with Pacific Telesis Group.
I sincerely appreciate your interest in this
issue and would be grateful for your advice and
counsel.
Sincerely,
Sumner K. Emery President
|
|
(Speaking as President of your TelCo Retirees
Association, Inc., may I tell all of you that your
Officers and Directors are meeting the challenges laid
before them by the "new" AT&T Corporation…and are
resolved to "ensure the continuation of the benefits
promised to you at the time of your retirement!")
Sumner K. Emery’ President
|
|
|
|
|
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/648 - Release Date: 1/23/2007
SBC pulls a fast one
SBC Internet subscribers have been swamping me with calls and e-mail lately, complaining about the company's heavy-handed tactics in forcing a switch to the new high-speed SBC Yahoo service.
"It looks like I've been left with no choice at all," said Carla Ruff, a San Francisco publishing consultant. "Is this legal?"
It is, because SBC is indeed allowing customers to choose whether to make the change. You wouldn't know that, though, from the correspondence people are receiving from the company.
"Your current Internet service has been replaced with SBC Yahoo DSL," SBC's letter to customers begins. "You need to take action now to keep your account current."
The rest of the three-paragraph missive spells out the procedure for making the switch, which SBC is presenting as an "upgrade." Nowhere is there even a hint that this isn't a forced march to the telecom giant's new marketing partnership with Yahoo.
Indeed, visiting the SBC Yahoo Web site and clicking into the question-and- answer section leads to a bold-face reiteration that "SBC Yahoo DSL is replacing your existing Internet service."
You have to scroll deep into the text to finally learn that subscribers do not in fact have to become members of the SBC Yahoo family (and open themselves up to unforeseen privacy issues, but we'll get back to that).
"If you do not upgrade your account to SBC Yahoo DSL, you will still have your high-speed Internet connection," the company admits, "but you will eventually lose your SBC home page and portal."
There, at last, is the truth: You don't have to make the switch, and, if you choose not to, all you'll have to do is pick a new start page for your browser. Otherwise, nothing changes.
"They're trying to deceive people into signing up for something that they might not want," said Stan Kaufman, a San Francisco physician and Web developer. He told me he was originally convinced by SBC's messages that the changeover was mandatory.
"It's unethical," said Skip Gosser, who runs a Mill Valley phone- installation service. "Most people will see what SBC's saying and be afraid they'll lose their Internet access if they don't do something."
He added: "Marketing is trying to lead customers where you want them to go. This is not legitimate marketing."
So what does SBC have to say for itself? I had a little chat with Marc Bien,
a company vice president. It went like this:
Me: Why are you making this seem like it's something customers have to do?
Bien: We want to lead people to a better product.
Me: But shouldn't you tell them up front that they have a choice?
Bien: They have a choice, but we want to lead people to a better product.
Me: Yet you're not telling people that a choice exists. Customers have to go searching for that information.
Bien: We want to lead people to a better product.
We went around and around like that until I couldn't take Bien repeating SBC's mantra anymore.
The upshot was that SBC doesn't dispute it's using hard-sell techniques to get Internet subscribers into the SBC Yahoo fold. But the company also believes the switch is in its customers' best interest.
Mind you, it's also in SBC's interest. Bien acknowledged that the company's deal with Yahoo essentially means that SBC will deliver Internet subscribers and Yahoo will deliver the online experience.
"We're in the transport business," he said. "Yahoo is in the content business." Neither SBC nor Yahoo will disclose financial terms of the deal.
The catch -- and you knew there'd be one -- is that SBC and Yahoo have separate privacy policies, and, as I've written before, customers had better read the fine print of both to know what they're getting themselves into.
According to Yahoo's privacy policy for DSL subscribers, the Sunnyvale company will make use of "information about you that is personally identifiable, like your name, address, e-mail address or phone number, and that is not otherwise publicly available."
Yahoo says it will track DSL subscribers' Internet browsing and share personal information with "trusted partners." Such info will be used in part "to customize the advertising and content you see."
For its part, SBC's privacy policy says the Texas company, which purchased Pacific Bell in 1997, strives to protect customers' personal information.
But it notes that "Yahoo has its own privacy policy and may use your personal information in ways which are different than SBC's policy contemplates."
You don't get a price break from the current $49.95 if you're already a DSL subscriber and go with SBC Yahoo, but new subscribers would pay $34.95 for the first year.
And if you make the switch but aren't happy with the result, SBC says it's possible to uninstall Yahoo's software. Nevertheless, computer-savvy types told me they still found some mysterious files on their hard drives.
Steven Johnson, a Marin County telecommunications consultant, said it took him about an hour to load the SBC Yahoo software onto his computer. Once he was done, he said he immediately started seeing ads pop up on his screen.
"I'm paying for an Internet connection," Johnson said. "I'm not paying to be marketed to."
His advice for others contemplating the switch: "Leave it be. It's not worth the hassle."
Gee, and I heard it's a better product.
From Jack:
Mr. Lazarus has a hard-on for SBC, is how a friend of mine puts it (he means he hates SBC, tho’ I swear I don’t get the metaphor — you’d think a hard-on would mean otherwise...) -- he’s run bunches of articles about how awful SBC/Whitaker is. But in my humble view, SBC ain’t no different than any other Big Company. For example, in the UK they’ve “privitised” directory assistance, so they had to retire “192” (the code to dial) and now you must dial 192XXX or some such, confusing oldies the nation wide, of course. So lots of companies are competing with BT for that — it’s causing mass confusion — I just got back from the UK, so I got to read about it in their local newspapers — and of course the first thing BT did to save money on their version of the service was to ship
their live-operator duties to a company in India...
Apparently SBC also off-shores its internet e-mail customer service to India (that was another Lazarus article). But they give their e-mail correspondents phony ‘merican names (like “Kevin”) instead of having them use their Indian names.
Golly.
|
