AT&T is not the only large company to change the direction of retiree plans. Coca-Cola, IBM, Pepsi, Emory University and many others have felt the pain of funding retiree coverage and moved to control costs by changing to an HRA.
There is no such thing as lifetime benefits. In the case of union employees your benefit plans are subject to change everytime the CBA comes up for negotiation.
At least you get to vote on the new agreement. Non-union employees have no say.
My biggest complaint with these arrangements is the way the corporations outsource retiree advice and counsel to consultants like Aon. The consulting firms are paid big money to handle retiree coverage then hire frontline advisors for $18/hour to "advise" you on your options. You are forced to pick from a stable of (mostly) overpriced plans that generate additional revenue back to the consulting firm.
In many cases if you don't use the consulting firm you forfeit your HRA benefit. These "handcuffs" (tie in arrangements) are not just unfair but most likely illegal. Yet no one has dared to challenge them.
On one hand the corporations are doing a favor by allowing retirees to have a choice vs the one-size-fits-all approach of corporate retiree health insurance. It could have been improved by removing the tie in and allowing true free market choices.
There is no such thing as lifetime benefits. In the case of union employees your benefit plans are subject to change everytime the CBA comes up for negotiation.
At least you get to vote on the new agreement. Non-union employees have no say.
My biggest complaint with these arrangements is the way the corporations outsource retiree advice and counsel to consultants like Aon. The consulting firms are paid big money to handle retiree coverage then hire frontline advisors for $18/hour to "advise" you on your options. You are forced to pick from a stable of (mostly) overpriced plans that generate additional revenue back to the consulting firm.
In many cases if you don't use the consulting firm you forfeit your HRA benefit. These "handcuffs" (tie in arrangements) are not just unfair but most likely illegal. Yet no one has dared to challenge them.
On one hand the corporations are doing a favor by allowing retirees to have a choice vs the one-size-fits-all approach of corporate retiree health insurance. It could have been improved by removing the tie in and allowing true free market choices.
