DirecTV guy here - so excuse my ignorance since Ma Bell doesn't talk to us.
I understand the Rule of 75 (if years of age plus years of service equals 75 then eligible for full retirement).
But what is this Rule of 70 you guys are talking about?
Thanks in advance.
Count on vacation, 60 days notice and if able FMLA. If surplus happens, talk to HR about adding +1 to your years of service and retire with severance. HR sometimes comes thru to avoid a law suit.
I am within a year of the 75 rule and my Manager had a conversation with me to say, this is not working and would I be interested in transferring or resigning? Could not give specific examples, I truly think a personality conflict. Not in a sales role and just had stellar review. I absolutely believe that I am on a “list” for reduction. I am staying for the opportunity to have the health insurance at a reduced cost, though no ones knows how much it actually will cost. 361 days cannot come soon enough.
About the only mention of that rule (outside of the context of investing) is on this website. Some companies have posted that their management was using the rule of 70 for layoff lists. So if you met the rule of 70, you were likely toast. Once again, if you google it, all references come back to this website. Pepsi might be the source of it all. I don't think there is any universal rule. Would not be fair to have a rule of 70 and also have a rule of 75. That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.
i've never heard that rule either, but i think some people within 2 years of 75 can opt into the "MTP" ( manager transition plan ? ) if laid off where you get a portion of your full pension every month and maybe a few nickels for your health insurance. it's a lot less than the full pension i believe.there seem to be a big pattern of people falling into this area during these "financial exercises" - does not seem to be a coincidence.