Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
I don't really see why. It's a question of spreading out your payments over x remaining years vs. y remaining years. If someone retires at 55, they're taking a pension for about 50% longer on average than someone who retires at 65. So why shouldn't it be reduced on that basis? Any pension plan that wants to remain solvent needs to reduce payouts for early retirements.
And that's the worst-case scenario for that system. If the 20-year person worked to 57, they'd only have their pension reduced by 18% (vs 24% for the other person) and if they worked until 60, they'd have an unreduced pension (vs. 15% reduction for the other person).
If anything, the points system favors people in that situation. A lot of DB pensions have moved away from that and just have hard cutoffs for age and service. For the BC teacher's plan for instance, if you have fewer than 35 years service, you lose 4.5% for each year you retire before age 61. So a 55 year old with 30 years' service would have the same 27% reduction as a 55 year old with 2 years' service. The points system on the other hand would give the first person an unreduced pension.
|
I think individuals with tenure just feel that it's unfair that someone could get a 27% reduction after spending 2 years there vs they spent 30 years there to have the same grind down. They aren't focusing on the fact one is probably tinkering with $2K before grind down vs the other is at $20-30K or whatever the number is prior to grind down. Many other companies consider you gold after about a decade and multiple decades, but the 85 point system doesn't care.
Add in some organizations where they'll slot older people in higher roles with little to no tenure to the organization, it's part of many moving parts for those below to feel that it is unfair, whether that is a valid sentiment objectively or subjectively.
I've seen some scenarios on a widespread scale where I feel it is objectively unfair. But I will agree with you that there are some other scenarios and in a vacuum the 85 point system isn't completely unfair. But I've seen some orgs loosely use it as almost like a KPI and that IMO is moronic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InglewoodFan
My wife works for AHS and it seems this thread is making the rounds in some circles. I haven't really kept up on what y'all are saying but some of your "expertise" is pretty amusing to the folks who actually know what the rules are.
And no, I ain't saying **** because I respect confidentiality of my wife's job. But as one tip, the UNA contract is available on line if you really want to comb it for the details.
|
I think most of us are just saying we agree the system is broken. But there is a lot of misunderstandings that occur within the system and those outside of the system trying to understand it.
Curious if I can ask, what are the thoughts on the article? Reasonably accurate or full of drivel? After a ball park running of the numbers, it seems like it's plausible, but also completely insane from a reality POV perspective.