Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Kodak moves to end health coverage for retirees 65 and older [View all]WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)65. As with any financial contract, if you cannot or will not make payments than you
file for bankruptcy or otherwise forfeit property. No clause needed, that's just a fact. Labor contracts aren't exempt from financial realities.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thank you for that. I found this to be misleading. If it's about medigap policies,
cbayer
Feb 2012
#25
Some employees can be Medicare eligible but with younger, non-working spouses who would go uncovered
cyberpj
Feb 2012
#38
as I suspected, Kodak began robbing their retirees in the form of underfunding pension plans...
mike_c
Feb 2012
#19
You are aware that the Federal government did essentially the same thing
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2012
#36
If these are binding contracts, then why do employees always lose their pensions?
Canuckistanian
Feb 2012
#46
Kodak is in bankruptcy-- their retirees just became another class of creditors...
mike_c
Feb 2012
#53
I agree. Are they going to cash them out for the value of the insurance. No, of course not.
IndyJones
Mar 2012
#56
Is (was) Kodak paying for FULL insurance as part of the retirement pkg. or was it supplemental?
Hassin Bin Sober
Feb 2012
#21
Good question. If it's about the supplemental, then that's a whole different story.
cbayer
Feb 2012
#22
And people thinkg pre-funding the USPS pension funds is a BAD thing?!?!? nt
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#13
The amount required is far beyond what is actuarily required, even by the most stringent
rfranklin
Feb 2012
#14
The prefunding of the USPS pension fund was applauded by the union and smartly so.
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#16
Prefunding or not they're going to be losing money. Might as well prefund. nt
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#55
Or end up like Kodak employees. There is a reason that pre-funding is required for pensions. nt
Snake Alchemist
Mar 2012
#58
Is there a reason to prefund over a 10 yr span 80% of future retiree benefits?
brentspeak
Mar 2012
#59
GAO: USPS prefunding for retiree health benefits should be eliminated or restructured
brentspeak
Mar 2012
#61
Most private companies were extremely careful for decades to not contract for retiree health care
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#27
Please note that the Federal government did much the same thing...
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2012
#37
It's safe to assume that all those demanding Kodak honor contracts they agreed to when they
WestSeattle2
Feb 2012
#35
Giving up the home to foreclosure if you cannot or will not make payments is part of the contract..
Fumesucker
Feb 2012
#48
As with any financial contract, if you cannot or will not make payments than you
WestSeattle2
Mar 2012
#65
Because of ballooning pension costs, I suspect we are going to see a lot more of this
Yo_Mama
Feb 2012
#41
Could this turn out to be a GOOD thing in the long run, as more workers see the need for
CTyankee
Feb 2012
#42