Why Retirees aren't receiving a basic pension increase (catch up raises) as we did in the 60's, 70's, 80's even up to the 90's.

Allow me to shed some light on ONE reason retirees seem to be forgotten at the bargaining table (while our former employers rake in billions of dollar from the businesses we helped build over the years.

A United States Supreme Court decision, Chemical Workers v Pittsburgh Glass 404 U.S. 157 (1971) Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chemical Division in Case # 70-32.

Argued October 20, 1971
Decided December 8, 1971
404 U.S. 157

The Court held:

Retirees benefits are NOT within the meaning of SS 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act a mandatory subject of bargaining as "terms and conditions of employment." PP. 404 U.S. 165-176.

The Act only requires the collective bargaining obligation to extend to the "terms and conditions of employment" of the employer's employees," and the term "employee" has ordinary meaning, i.e., someone who works for another for hire (which excludes us old codgers who've already retired). PP 404 U.S. 165-171.

Retirees are not members of the unit represented by the Union because they are o longer "working," nor could they be members since they lack employment with the employer of the unit and a substatial community of interests with the active employees in the unit. PP 404 U.S. 171-175.

Although it is argued that an industry practice of bargaining over retiree's rights has existed from the beginning of pensions (which is disputed), it cannot change the law and make into bargaining unit "employees" those who are not employees of the employer. PP 404 U.S. 175-176.

The justices further state, retiree's benefits are not a mandatory subject of bargaining as terms and conditions of employment"  of the active employees remaining in the bargaining unit, although retirement plans for future retirees are. PP 404 U.S. 176-182.

Definition of mandatory v permissive subjects of bargaining!

Mandatory subjects, (wages, hours and other conditions of employment) you can bargain to impasse and enjoin in concerted activities to bring about a settlement (strike). Also, after an impasse is reached, the management has the option of implementing a lockout to bring about a stettlement (a management strike against the workers.)

Permissive subjects, providing both sides agree, you can discuss/bargain the permissive subject, but neither side can bargain to impasse over such issue. Neither sides can be bound by law to bargain nor can they reach an impasse over a permissive subject of bargaining. The true hillbilly definition of a permissive subject of bargaining is . . . find your best set of knee pads and beg the top fat cats to trickle down a few crumbs to us old codgers who've been kicked to the curb after our bodies are spent.

When the court ruled "The Act only requires the collective bargaining obligation extends to the 'terms and conditions of employment' of the employer's employees," what happens to our non-employed dependents when our employers get a tad bit greedier--if that is even possible??

Now I'll dive into the history of bargaining for retiree pensions of the past using info from my collection of old UAW highlight booklets and Big 3 auto contracts. I'm sure you will find it interesting, especially if you are retired or retirement eligible.

Keep in mind, even after the PPG Supreme Court decision of 1971 was issue, retirees still received "catch up" increases in their basic pensions. In fact, the last catch up raise I can track happened in 1996. The last basic benefit raises for future retirees occurred on 10/1/10 and the rate was increased to $54.30 per month per year of service in the GM structure.

So, if strategies utilized from 1971 until 1996 were successful in gaining retiree increases (catch up) in their basic benefit after retirement, why aren't they utilized today?

Since the Big 3 have always held to the principles of pattern baraining, (so far) these figures will fit most working folks in GM Ford and Chrysler. They will also apply to many of the larger Independent Parts Supplier (IPS) plants.

Pensions were first vested in the auto industry in 1950. In 1970, after a nine (9) week strike in GM, "thirty and out" pensions were achieved for the Big 3 auto industry. Our union was financially exhausted after that fight. We were millions in hock to GM for past health insurance payments, we owned the Teamster's millions of dollars and our newly built Black Lake educational center was also in hock. However we survived the fight and even made gains such as lifting the 1967 cap on our Cost of Living (COLA), winning the 30 and out, increasing vacation entitlements from three to four weeks per year and a few other goodies as well.

You might not the date of the PPG pension settlement decision (December 8, 1971). It sure didn't take long for the fat cats to get into courthouses to strip (or severely alther) our gains made as a result of carrying signs while walking up and down the streets in front of their plants. 

1970 Pension rates increased from $500/mo. to $575/mo.
From $575/mo. in 1974 to $915/mo. in 1982
From $915 in 1982 to $1200/mo. in 1987
From $1200/mo. in 1987 to $1500/mo. in 1989
From $1500/mo. in 1989 to $2030/mo. in 1995
From $2030/mo. in 1995 to $2295/mo in 1998
From $2295/mo in 1998 to $3000/mo. in 2008
From $3000/mo. in 2008 to $3170 per mo. in 2010

Today nothing has changed since 2010

There have been a (very) few catch up raises and some of them came with questionable give backs. Retirees used to have a $2 co-pay on prescriptions. No more. No more Christmas lump sum payments (once as high as $700). Loss of certain health care benefits--notably vision, dental, hearing (Some of which have been re-instated). And another big one: The Big 3 used to pay the monthy Medicare cost. No more. Today it takes $134 out of your monthy Social Security check!

What the hell is happening?

There were gains in the past for retirees, but not today. We have lost our place at the bargaining table by design. GM and the UAW have agreed to eliminate defined pension plans. Now they reason that if no defined plan exists for current workers why should they waste time and money on the old-timers. 

My closing advice is this: For both former and future retirees--don't let either party (GM or the UAW) con us into lowering our expectations. Don't fall for proposals that "give" to some but not to others. United we stand. Divided we beg as we fall.

Solidarity forever is not just a song lyric--it is the union way of life.