Thread regarding Verizon Wireless layoffs

@OP They have every right to be upset about rising costs, but the facts show that neither the union nor Verizon “broke” a promise here; the higher premiums are the result of an old, jointly negotiated cap formula finally getting hit, not a new decision in this contract. 1. The caps and cost‑sharing were agreed to years agoIn 2008, Verizon and the unions signed a memorandum of understanding that created fixed annual “caps” on how much Verizon would contribute toward pre‑Medicare retiree medical coverage, and explicitly said that when plan costs go above the cap, retirees pay the excess as premiums. In 2012 and 2016, those caps were modified and in fact increased (using higher COBRA rates as the cap), but the basic rule stayed the same: the company pays up to the cap, and anything above that is the retiree’s responsibility. So the current increases aren’t a surprise change; they flow from a cost‑sharing formula that was bargained and accepted many years ago, when everyone agreed that if health care inflation outran the caps, retirees would pick up the difference. 2. The “breach of caps” is math, not a new decisionBeginning January 1, 2026, the cost of the pre‑Medicare MEP HCP plan for pre‑2008 retirees is projected to exceed the cap by thousands of dollars per year (for example, about a 2,764 dollar excess for retiree‑only coverage), which automatically triggers higher retiree premiums under the old agreements. Verizon is still paying up to the capped amount (over 15,000 dollars a year for retiree‑only coverage for certain groups); what changed is that medical costs have risen beyond that level, something no union or employer can fully control. The anger is really about national health‑care inflation and how expensive the underlying plan has become, not about Verizon “taking away” something that was guaranteed beyond the cap. 3. The union did push on this issue and won some protectionsUnion bargaining over the years hasn’t ignored retiree health care; in 2016, the union locked in higher cap levels using 2014 COBRA rates specifically to improve the company contribution limit, which delayed or reduced retiree premiums for several years. The Advisory Committee on Health Care (ACHC), a union–company body created by the contract, has repeatedly negotiated alternate plan designs to keep options under the caps (for example in 2020, 2021, and again for 2026). In the most recent agreement in principle, the union also secured an increase in the annual retiree health‑care subsidy for many post‑2008 hires (to 772 dollars per year of service, up to 15,440 dollars a year), which can be taken as an HRA to help buy coverage. 4. Retirees are still getting substantial company money and new choicesFor many pre‑Medicare retirees, Verizon’s annual contribution toward health coverage is still in the mid‑five‑figure range; for example, certain pre‑2008 retirees have caps such as 15,447 dollars for retiree‑only coverage and higher for retiree plus dependents. For 2026, the union negotiated three alternative options for affected pre‑Medicare retirees, including the ability to opt out of Verizon coverage and receive an HRA equal to the company’s cap to purchase coverage on an exchange or pay eligible out‑of‑pocket costs. Those options and subsidies exist only because the union put them on the bargaining table; without that, retirees would be facing the same high underlying medical costs with fewer ways to manage them. 5. A constructive way to frame it to retirees You can acknowledge that the increases hurt while still being fair to the union and the company:The higher premiums are the result of long‑standing, jointly negotiated cap language that everyone signed off on years ago, not a sudden betrayal in this extension. Verizon is continuing to pay up to the agreed cap, and the union has used bargaining to raise that cap in the past and to create subsidies and alternative plans that soften the blow now. The real driver is the rising cost of health care itself. The union can negotiate how costs are shared and push for better options, but it cannot unilaterally erase medical inflation or force Verizon to write an unlimited blank check, especially when that would jeopardize wage, job security, and active employee benefits that also matter to the membership.

@OP are you surprised…the union doesn’t care about it’s paying customers let alone the ones that aren’t paying.

Limitation on Strikes: Because negotiations for retirees are not mandatory, unions cannot legally strike or bargain to impasse over retiree benefits.

So ya not to say a union cannot force negotiations of retirees related items but it would really be under the terms of bargaining a new contract which under a extension I don’t believe the company is required to even discuss what is already decided on for retirees in previous agreements if that is not a negotiated item.In which we all know the union was not going to push the strike button in the climate we are in for retirees benefits .Its stinks but it’s what I believe I have ready unless someone can shed some light on the subject with any actual knowledge

I don’t believe anything was done .I actually think since it was an extension the company was not required to bargain the retirees .The court case The foundational U.S. Supreme Court case stating that companies do not need to negotiate retiree benefits with a union is Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971).
C G A - Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
C G A - Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
+2
Key details regarding this and related rulings include:
Retirees are not "Employees": The Court ruled that retirees are not members of the bargaining unit, and therefore, their benefits are not a "mandatory subject" of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).