There is currently an information and comment
gathering process in progress at the Retiree's web
site,<br><a href=http://www.members.home.net/rewind2/
target=new>http://www.members.home.net/rewind2/</a><br>This site has no IBM
company affiliation and is funded
and managed by volunteers. We have over 500 members
and many are concerned that no "ad hoc" adjustment
has been received since 1992. We have added a link to
this site as of to-day.

You may have noticed that if you already have
significant "catastrophic" expenses (such as high Rx
expenses) and you accept the new HCSA option, you are
effectively excluded from ANY dental, vision, hearing
coverage (except as a tax deduction). This is because it
makes most sense to use the HCSA for the catastrophic
expenses first and minimize the deductible. Since Dental,
hearing, vision are not covered under the catastrophic
coverage...you have to choose.<br><br>Staying with the modified
existing plan may be a better option (but then you are
being asked to trade off the future...lower life-time
limit, erosion of dental benefits, and possibly further
"take-aways")<br>Further comments and observations welcomed.

New address for Retiree's web site <br><br><a
href=http://www.members.home.net/rewind22
target=new>http://www.members.home.net/rewind22</a>

I'm having trouble making up my mind as well.
During my 33 years I always thought the message was we
would be looked after but apparently the message
changed at some time. I'm also curious why people who
retired ealier are not having their benefits attacked. I
have several friends that retired a few years ealier
and they have received no notification of change to
the old plan or offer of a new. Is this just a try
out on us and they're next? or divide and concuer?
What do the lawyers in the group think? Do we not have
some implied coverage after 30 years of don't worry
you'll be looked after or do we just meekly sit around
till we have no coverage at all?<br>Oh well still have
a couple of days before deciding.

I suspect (with no evidence to back it up) that
those who retired before 1994 will also be affected by
the changes to the old plan ... i.e. capping Dental
rates and increased deductible. Maybe there is someone
out there who can comfirm or deny this. Those of us
who retired after Oct. 1/94 are being given the
option of the new plan which might be beneficial to some
(though not to me).

Well if they are being affected they haven't yet
been told. Like I said I have a few friends that
retired<br>before 94 and they have heard nothing, which says to me
they're dental plan etc must continue to<br>upgrade.

The IBMers that retired before 1994 have had a
totally different retirement plan than the post-94
retirees...different percentages paid...different
deductibles...different limits.<br>This new "option" requires some very
serious thought since what might be good planning today
can change overnight with a change in your health
situation.<br>I find it incredible that this "irrevocable" option
was sent out by regular mail (not registered), so if
it was not received by the retiree they would be
stuck with the old plan.<br>I wonder how long it will
be before IBM arbitrarily starts cutting back on our
pension?

IBM has always had dental fees below the current
marketplace. It appears that when I retired in March 1992,IBM
froze the fee scale for me (and probably others), so as
time goes by more and more of the dental costs are
born by myself. Personally I refuse to buy anything
produced by IBM. Some reward for helping build this
company huh !!! As for ad hoc - - what ad hoc??? I am in
my 9th year of retirement and haven't seen one cent
increase !!! Gotta love the company huh !!!

So Dennis are you saying your dental plan is
actually based on a year prior to 92? ie. you have had no
upgrades? This sure sounds like I should go for the yearly
cash no health/dental plans option.<br>This list is a
bit of a pain in that you can't just do a reply. We
need a list server for better interaction. ...Wray

Wray: I can't tell you what year my fee scale is
at, all I can say is that my dentist keeps raising
his fees and the reimbursement I get remains the same
as at first retirement so the gap steadily
increases. Keep in mind I took a package "Transition 1992"
that may folks took as well. We were told we would get
medical coverage and ad hoc pension adjustments. Well no
ad hoc after almost 9 years and dental cost are
escalating.

Boy that sucks the big one! It really frost me
after hearing for 25 or 30 years that we had a good
pension and health care and not to worry. Looks like we
are getting our reward. Kinda reminds me of that
picture of the guy with the big wood screw in his belly
and the caption " work diligently, with integrity and
you will get your reward".<br> Oh well lots of fresh
blood out there to fill the ranks. Guess they have the
advantage though that they know they have to look out for
numer one first ...non of that company first stuff.
Kinda makes ya feel a little dumb in retrospect.

First time I have seen this site and since I
retired in 1992 I have not seen the new plan(s). A
neighbor of mine recently passed away, Jim Horsburg, and I
have found out from his widow that her benefits have
changed. A recent hospital stay cost her dearly for
semi-private coverage as she had to pay $70.00 per day over
and above the Great West Life coverage. There are
other changes as well and you may want to review the
survivors benefit package.

Would anyone on this list object if the URL for
this site be sent to the leading provincial parties
and the newspapers. We seem to work(ed) for a company
that has no concern about the well being of its
employees or those who have retired, and this should be
seen in the eye of the public.

Hi Chuck:<br>I think anything that could embarrass these money grubbing
companies, would be most benefitial to current and retired employees. GO FOR IT
!!!

I recently received a letter from IBM benefits,
and they state that my dental fee scale is frozen at
1993. Sounds like they are getting us primed for some
more cuts to our retirement benefits.They say,"your
existing coverage under IBM Supplemental Health and Dental
plans will remain unchanged for the 2001 plan year."
Gotta love em huh !!!

The December 2oth letter to retirees looks like a
"knee-jerk" reaction to the US announcement. The US changes
are effective January 1 whereas, we will not even
know until March. Expect less than 3%.<br>The
capping of benefits appears to be a strategy that is long
underway. e.g. there was a cap on double-dipping so that
50% was the maximum on dental regardless of other
coverage. In my case, this means that my Pacific Blue Cross
pays first and there is nothing left for Great West to
pay because a)it is capped at 50% and b) the rate is
1993 so is always less than Blue Cross.<br>I
really feel sorry for the IBMers that stayed after the
packages to max out on their defined benefit pensions.
They will get hit the worst.

For IBM employees who have to fill out TRS (Time
Recording System) to report their hours worked during the
week, you will now see that you are no longer getting
paid a shift premium for Saturday and Sunday shifts
worked. The shift premiums for being scheduled to work on
Saturday and Sunday have been eliminated by the latest TRS
template active Jan 03-2001. This affects me to the tune
of 120 hours pay per year!!!!

Heated reaction to the reduction of weekend shift
premiums has revealed that there is a way for Customer
Service Representatives who do not work weekends on a
regular schedule to claim for weekend shift premiums.
<br><br>It was stated that failing to notify employees on
how to claim these premiums was an oversight by the
company. <br><br>Sad to say, this oversight was not a
morale booster.

With the recent cut backs in benefits it might be
an idea to check out this web
site.<br><a href=http://www.grosman.com/legalinfoindex.html#employment
target=new>http://www.grosman.com/legalinfoindex.html#employment</a><br>One of
the things to look at is "constructive
dismissal". If action is to be taken against IBM is should be
done as quickly as possible. So far the only legal
action taken against IBM is from employees that realized
that they have been wrongfully dismissed, and not by
the others like current workers and retirees. Ontario
still has some good labour laws that can protect the
worker and retiree.

A recent article in R.O.B. Magazine listed the
top 35 Canadian companies, with over 300 employees,
to work for. It was not a surprise to note that IBM
was not mentioned. Even the trade magazines and press
know what has happened to our company.

Are there any retirement packages open now? Rumor or fact? Has the ISM package
finished now?<br><br>Thanks!

The article is available online at <a
href=http://www.robmagazine.com/html/35best1.html
target=new>http://www.robmagazine.com/html/35best1.html</a>

I wonder if anyone is interested in sharing the
recent increase percentages so we can establish a
pattern. To me, the key potential impacts are:<br>Date
retired<br>Date pension payment started<br>Joint Survivorship: 0
80% 100%?<br>Pension split due to
separation<br>Pension increase %<br>If participants are interested in
sending me this info, I will summarize and return the
summary to all participants.<br><br>Here is my
contribution:Date retired<br>Date pension payment started May 1,
1992<br>Joint Survivorship: 0 80% 100%? 100%<br>Pension split
due to separation 54% to me<br>Pension increase % 9%
to me<br><br>Cheers...Keith

Date retired: June 97<br> Date pension payment
started? July 97<br> Joint Survivorship: 0 80% 100%?
66.6<br> Pension split due to separation<br> Pension
increase % 0.4%<br><br><br>Hans DeBruyn

Keith, how are you calculating the increase? I
would assume the increase is based on the Post 65
amount listed in the letter we received. Is this the way
you did it? <br><br>Date pension payment started
March 1, 1992<br>Joint Survivorship: 0 80% 100%?
100%<br>Pension split due to separation <br>Pension increase %
6%<br><br>By the way, I called the Towers Perrin number to
find out how the increase was calculated. They did not
know. A real waste of time. Anyway, they were quick to
point out that ad hoc increases are not guaranteed. I
take offence at this statement.<br><br>As far as I am
concerned, the Transition 1992 package we received, clearly
states we are eligible for ad hoc increases. By
accepting what was in the package, we basically signed a
contract with IBM to receive what was provided by them in
the retirement package. Ad hoc is part of the
package.<br><br>Based on Stefan Shader's not March 15, 2001 "The new
proposed plan has a specific item that states
(paraphrased) that "There is no scheduled pension increase"
while the old plan B states that "Pension increases may
be granted by the employer if cost of living
increases.". IBM is starting the process to emilinate ad hoc
increases. What has happened to the great, caring company we
used to work for? <br><br>I looks like it's time to
start writing Mike Harris as Bob Compton has suggested.
I for one would like to see legislation protecting
retirees from money grabing companies. The legislation
should provide protection against benefits being
decreased, assuming the company had a practice of increasing
benefits from time to time. If legislation is not brought
about this could mean a long and costly court battle
with the Retiree vs IBM.<br><br>Hopefully, I should be
sending my letter next week and, I'll copy
Wetmore.<br><br>Ralph...

Date retired: June 1, 1991<br>Date pension
started; June 1, 1991<br>Joint survivorship:
100%<br>Pension split due to separation<br>Pension increase:
6%<br><br>These numbers reflect my current pension; there was a
small increase in my original pension back in 1992 or
93 but I don't recall the details.<br>Bob Schindler

Just to clarify my number. It is based on me only
getting 54% of the original pension owing to a separation
agreement. So it is really 4.9% of the total including the
bridge to 65 and 5.6% without it.

Here are the results of the
survey:<br>http:/members.home.net/beachis/home.htm<br>There appears to be some
dependence on factors other
than Retirement Date as was indicated in the letter
from IBM announcing the increases. <br><br>One source
of error in this data is that the only accurate
percentage increase is from your after 65 numbers. Prior to
that, for those retiring in 92/92, the monthly amount
is topped up with the Bridge to Retirement (to
replace the Canada Pension payment that does not take
effect until 65). This amount was not changed, so the
pre-65 numbers are lower percentages and not accurate.
Just calculate the right percentage and see how you
stack up in the table.

Corrected link<br>Here are the results of the survey:<br><a
href=http://members.home.net/beachis/home.htm
target=new>http://members.home.net/beachis/home.htm</a>

I would suggest that those planning to retire in
the near future obtain their pension income
information from HR. It seems that IBM will not be
calculating overtime and VPP into the pension. Those that
received statements last spring indicating how much their
pension would be will notice a considerable drop. The
information released last spring included overtime and VPP.
IBM claims that it had made an error.