Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Ok so now the company is dropping AON for a new plan supposedly that will be better for the retirees.
Believe that? Very little information is being given to retirees and based on current information AT&T is in financial trouble, ya sure. Will we lose the HRA? Management employees get no health coverage except the HRA money. I currently pay BCBS $748 quarterly and the same for the wife. Hopfully the plans will be less but I’m not holding my breath

Many of us lost our Retirement Medical Benefits long ago. Join the club.

Anyone saying no law is broken or your not being harmed is working for AT&T legal or social media to Challenge any logical argument and silently save millions on your dime. Go forth and sign a contingent council and don’t sign away your right to sue. You have a long life to live after AT&T and they have made promises since 1997 that should be upheld. You shouldn’t have to cover their bad investments . Good luck !

What Is Promissory Estoppel?
Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment. Promissory estoppel is intended to stop the promisor from arguing that an underlying promise should not be legally upheld or enforced. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is part of the law in the United States and other countries, although the precise legal requirements for promissory estoppel vary not only between countries but also between different jurisdictions, such as states, within the same country.

Lol att taking away benefits while the company I work for is adding medical health coverage. Sounds about right glad I left on my own so many better companies.

Retire health coverage after age 65 is a thing of the past. Obamacare wiped it out, except where it applies to grandfathered programs. AT&T does not administer Medicare or supplemental coverage. The AON program requires use of preferred insurance providers in order to qualify for this subsidy. Feel free to pay legal fees for nothing.

@2akc "I agree with the post indicating no law is broken."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg44563/html/CHRG-110hhrg44563.htm

" Mr. Macey. I guess I don't know the specific situation, but there is a rule in ERISA that has been endorsed by the Supreme Court. That is, under the fiduciary provisions of ERISA, communications are considered, when you talk about the plan, they are considered in general terms to be a fiduciary
function. And the Supreme Court says you can't lie to your employees. So companies have been held liable at the Supreme Court level for making intentional misstatements and misleading representations to employees. And that is under current law."

Sorry, but the company represented that long term employment would result in retiree health coverage. Such communications will be considered by a court. AT&T flapped their big mouths in the breeze ─ a reversal can be challenged in court. They were saying that employees hired before a certain date were eligible, and hired after a certain date missed the boat. And I've seen that coded in certain Union contracts as well.

I'm not saying that a lawsuit would be a 100% guarantee, but I am saying that a lawsuit is well north of a 0% guarantee.

Now there could be the argument about business circumstances. But, these dopes hiked the dividend. If they have some kind of business circumstance, the first symptom would have been a lack of a dividend hike.

Point is, there is stuff that a lawyer can say. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

I agree with the post indicating no law is broken. If you retire by the deadline you receive the benefit. If you choose to stay longer, then the benefit is unavailable. In legal terms the judge will require proof of real harm, not potential future (what if) damage. For example, a judge will ask are you retiring today? If the answer is no, case dismissed. On January 1st 2021, the question is why you waited the extra day knowing the benefit changed?

I will join any lawsuit. I also have some good evidence of att wrongdoing and am thinking of providing to the attorneys in NJ age discrimination lawsuit.

@-iyj
I think you are confusing pre-Medicare health coverage with coverage once the retiree is on Medicare. AT&T doesn't provide Medigap insurance at all. They give money to AON, and you get the policy there.

This discussion is about retirees enrolled in Medicare, who access an AON reimbursement account. Something tells me, that ain't you.

Now, pre-medicare ... that's a different can of worms. That will vary depending on whether the retiree is occupational or management. You could easily be talking $10K.

@-iyj Using the rates for AT&T headquarters of Dallas, TX for Medicare gap insurance as an example.

Pulling quotes that provide decent benefits for married couple, $350-450 per month/per individual. ($700- 900 a month couple). No dental or nursing home facility that’s a given.

10k a year. The tougher part is out of out of pocket spends those are more difficult to compare.

1kwj Had the benefit change affected all ages of employees you would be right no laws broken. Current proposed change however, targets specific management employees within an age bracket that is in a Federally protected class of employees, no other group is impacted. Targeting benefit reductions on older workers may be violating workers in this protective class. That’s for a federal judge to determine not At&T’s hired social media team.

In order for a lawsuit to be filed, a law has to be violated. I can understand people's disappointment but I don't think a change in medical benefits breaks any laws. It happens all the time

@1pvq - don't worry I am sure they will take away something that was promised in return for employment. good luck to you

I would request that AT&T promise in writing they won't take that away before I would elect to leave before 12/31/21. Remember when management retirees insurance was no cost...yeah.

@-1pvq
Of course there would be a suit. Why not? If formerly, one has $2700 and now has nothing, why not accept a lawyer who will get me $1800 and keep $900 for himself (one-third)?

You do believe in capitalism, don't you? So yeah, they'll be a suit, since if one can't get 100%, then 66% still beats 0%. What could we say? It's all in the company's representations. They represented that they would provide retiree benefits if one pursued long term employment with the company.

But, these id–ts made other representations too. From the Code of Conduct: "We are honest and act with integrity. This statement applies to everything we do at AT&T". And everyone in the company is supposed to subscribe to the Code of Conduct. So, if they communicated post-retirement benefits in order to induce employees to pursue a long term career with AT&T, with no intent to fulfill that representation, this failure in conjunction with the Code of Conduct hypothesis that everyone deals with everyone else at AT&T with "honesty" would be something I would love to bring in front of a jury.

I'm bargained for, and my contract addresses retirement welfare benefits, but that said, I think that all have something to say, and say in court. Specifically, the company had previously articulated a "2020" plan. Are any circumstances different today than when they articulated that plan? No. So, at the point that they articulated this 2020 plan, they should have addressed the post-retirement benefit plans then, and not led people on to believing that continuing employment at AT&T would lead to retirement benefits. It is this leading on of people with the promise of retirement benefits that is at issue.

The company can change the benefits at anytime for non-bargained for employees. And no I’m not in the union but I’m tired of the boomers complaining. Get used to it... go ahead and sue..

@-iyj
Yes, you missed the fine print. Medigap policies are regulated by the individual states. And the price varies, depending on whether the insured is subject to underwriting (pre-existing conditions taken into account). And, depending on when one applies, there can be no guaranteed issue, meaning that one won't get a Medigap policy at any price.

A good Medigap plan is G and in my state runs around $220/month. Then one needs to deal with dental and vision, so the $2700 can be eaten right up, before any deductibles.

An alternative, which I'm pursuing is $0/month Medicare Advantage. When one is first eligible for Medicare, they can try Medicare Advantage for a year, revert back to traditional Medicare and get guaranteed issue of Medigap without underwriting.

There is a lot of fine print. But, that print is printed by the state.

I see lawsuit material here because AT&T dangled the carrot of retiree welfare benefits in front of their employees in order to induce people to pursue a long term career with the company. Absent such inducement, people could have switched employers years ago.

Now, looking at some of these contracts, I see changes that depend on an employee's start date, and that is fine because the deal is known ahead of time, before the employee embarks on their career. But making the change well after the employee fulfills their part of the deal, and their career is nearly complete ─ I think it calls for a lawsuit.

Ok boomer.

Oh poor baby. No one even gets retire medical - and you're complaining about a lousy cut!

I see the impact as being much higher than the stated dollar amount AT&T is paying, but perhaps I missed the fine print. As an individual buying medicare gap closure insurance, it’s unlikely you would be able to get the insurance at the group rate of $4200 a year. Maybe it’s 10k? That’s another consideration. Are you allowed to pay the $4200 yourself, or, do you need to buy the policy at individual rates. If so, the loss of benefit then becomes, the cost it will take for individuals to buy the insurance at individual rates, plus the $4200. So if you were to live say another 20 years, has anyone planned on taking 200k ( 10k for married couple- per year for gap insurance x 20 ) of their savings to divert to pay this benefit? Another factor is, given your not working, medicate gap coverage, may get prioritized last in your budget, after food rent, college tuition, then you get slammed with a cancer diagnosis or heart surgery, and your suddenly bankrupt. Good news for AT&T unpaid medical bills for dormer retirees, will fall to Americans to cover, thus increasing everyone else’s group insurance rates.

For people who have been let go, are deemed "retired" by AT&T, but not yet eligible for Medicare, this is in effect for current "retired" people until 2023 -that's the year I will turn 65 & if they don't renew it, I'll be screwed too.

Just work until you fall over dead and you can keep your company insurance.

Great post. One additional comment regarding strategy concerning this development. For a married employee with M-75, it is worth $350/month. That is not insignificant but how a 55-year-old and a 62-year-old, or older, should react to this change should be quite different (in my opinion). A 55-year-old should protect their salary since they have a number of years to work and if worse came to worse and they got cut or later left the company they would still have company-sponsored health care through age 65 and maybe severance. The 62-year-old or older may want to consider leaving next year to maintain that future $350/month income stream, especially if offered with a severance.

For the company, the $350 monthly expense is small compared to salary. They are trying to force a decision by employees in order to reduce headcount and salary expenses and are using the $350/month elimination after 1-2021 as bait. Do not get s—ered in if you have more than a small amount of time until retirement - especially if you have to re-enter the workforce. Staying and then getting cut and getting six months of severance that may be needed for immediate expenses may be a better deal than locking in a future benefit (that could be changed at any time in the future).

I do give T some credit - very devious - offering to maintain a small potential future expense to them in order to eliminate a much bigger current expense. This may be a winnable age discrimination class action lawsuit.

“A total of 91 corporations in the Fortune 500, many worth billions of dollars, paid no federal taxes last year, the Washington Post reported Monday.”

Don’t know if att is one of them and don’t care. The whole system is broke and corporations calling the shots has got to stop.

+1 on this is just another way for Stinky and Randy to line their pockets with more $. What did you expect?

And per the current SMM for this program, it goes away in 2023 for everyone else and those of us who are eligible or participating.

Thank you. I agree with your post. The company is in such financial trouble, the bean counters and lawyers are looking to retain revenue however possible. So, now they are targeting the retiree benefits. They won't stop there. AT&T can continue pull back any retiree benefits back at any time in the future, including the promised company-paid subsided funds to cover Medicare after 2021. So, anyone thinking that retiring now only to retain that "benefit" should truly look at all angles of this latest news. Everyone should look at their own financial situation and crunch the numbers. I also believe there is an extremely slim chance any long-term employees (or any employees at all as contractors move into every project) will retain their jobs for a long length of time. So, the rug is getting pulled as we try to plan for our future lives. Stay alert, do research, ask questions, and plan as best as you can. Good luck, everyone.

Great post and I am sure someone will come and defend the company. Don’t worry though randy & Stankey will be covered whether they are working or not and no matter how much they bankrupt the company morally and monetarily.
Once again how anybody defends this company needs to seriously consider a career change or do some looking in the mirror.