Aetna Cutting Technology Jobs

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Aetna is laying off more than 100 information
technology workers and transferring or reassigning other employees.

About 160 workers are affected, spokesman Fred Laberge said.

"The goal is to have a more efficient, high-performing and flexible
organization that is responsive to business needs," Laberge said
Monday.

Aetna said about 50 employees in Middletown and Hartford in Business
Solutions Delivery operations will be laid off, with the rest
occurring in Blue Bell, Pa. The company has about 1,750 employees in
its Business Solutions Delivery unit, which performs non-mainframe
work.

Laberge said there is a possibility of more IT layoffs, although no
numbers or timetable were available.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, watch_your_pension
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "congmc2000" <gmcginn1@t...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IBM pension discussions belong in Court.
> > >
> > > One is an act of stupidity, the other is a criminal act.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What part of the criminal code have they violated?
>
> OK, one is an act of stupidity, the other is an unlawful act.
>
> For 6 Billion dollars in unlawful activity, SOMEONE OUGHT TO GO TO
> JAIL.
>
> (the 6B is what IBM states)
==============================================

    Sounds good to me, Bean.

    Ummmmm, has anybody on this board realized that the 6 bil will come
out of the IBM Pension Trust Fund?  That's where the shortfall was
created when the pension plan lowered its patment to the non-choicers.

Mike.
===================

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, albanyblue2000 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>    Ummmmm, has anybody on this board realized that the 6 bil will
come
> out of the IBM Pension Trust Fund?


But not the legal fees, nor the lobbiest fees, nor the consulting
fees to WW.

Of course we get ours from our own trust.  That's the point of our
trust.

And your point is????

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, albanyblue2000 <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> >    Ummmmm, has anybody on this board realized that the 6 bil will
> come
> > out of the IBM Pension Trust Fund?
>
>
> But not the legal fees, nor the lobbiest fees, nor the consulting
> fees to WW.
>
> Of course we get ours from our own trust.  That's the point of our
> trust.
>
> And your point is????

You didn't ask me, but IBM's personal pension plan will be
$6 billion MORE underfunded.  The pension plan is NOT
guaranteed by the government, it is guaranteed by the
PBGC which could go under.  Is anyone concerned?  Does
anyone know of a link to IBM's 2002 Form 5500?  I found
their 2001 Form 5500 at FreeErisa.com, but no explanation
of why IBM's 2002 Form 5500 was not there.  Anyone wonder
why IBM didn't disclose the pension plans ACTUAL earnings
for the quarter ended 03/31/2004?  Anyone wonder why
IBM doesn't disclose what the actual investments of the
plan are to shareholders and participants in the plan?

Things could come falling down on the PBGC!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/business/02air.html

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, tdcanon <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> You didn't ask me, but IBM's personal pension plan will be
> $6 billion MORE underfunded.  The pension plan is NOT
> guaranteed by the government, it is guaranteed by the
> PBGC which could go under.  Is anyone concerned?

Folks,

Please understand a few facts here.

1. The $6 Billion number is unaudited.  It is a number IBM through
out.  The IBM attorneys also claimed the company would go bankrupt if
they lost the case.  Do you really believe either of these claims?

2. Even if the $6 Billion number is correct, it is over the LIFETIME
of the plan participants, which probably is over the next 20-30
years.  It is not a liability that has to make up immediately.

3. The company contributed $3.963 Billion to the pension fund in 2002
with barely a whimper.  That is the only contribution that the
company has made to the fund since 1995.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, i_be_mad_as_heck <no_reply@y...>
wrote:

> The IBM attorneys also claimed the company would go bankrupt if
> they lost the case.  Do you really believe either of these claims?


Well now that depends on who got which story...

The shareholders got a story that everything is hunky-dory, not to
worry, we will win on appeal, and "no material impact".  (ok, so I
took a little liberty in summarizing, but the "no material impact"
is correct)

The Federal Court got a story that IBM couldn't afford it, of which
Judge Murphy stated "IBM, like many corporate plan sponsors,
proceeded with open eyes and was fully informed of the consequences
of the litigation that was sure to come." and "IBM was aware of the
age discrimination issues that would come with the new CBF"

No one is going bankrupt, except maybe a thousands of retirees that
are living off of less than they legally deserved!

Update 3: IBM Documents Show Oracle's Impact
07.01.2004, 06:53 PM
Full article at:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2004/07/01/ap1442717.html

Rattled by Oracle Corp.'s hostile takeover bid for PeopleSoft Inc.,
IBM Corp. considered making defensive investments in other software
makers and lobbying the government to discourage other mergers,
according to company documents released in court Thursday.

IBM's assessment of Oracle's $7.7 billion bid for PeopleSoft is part
of the evidence that has piled up in a month-long antitrust deal
challenging the proposed combination of business software makers. The
IBM documents had been kept under seal until Thursday, which was
expected to mark the last day of testimony in the nonjury trial.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, i_be_mad_as_heck
<no_reply@y...>
> wrote:

>
>
> Well now that depends on who got which story...
>
> The shareholders got a story that everything is hunky-dory, not to
> worry, we will win on appeal, and "no material impact".  (ok, so I
> took a little liberty in summarizing, but the "no material impact"
> is correct)
>
> The Federa Court got a story that IBM couldn't afford it, of which
> Judge Murphy stated "IBM, like many corporate plan sponsors,
> proceeded with open eyes and was fully informed of the
consequences > of the litigation that was sure to come." and "IBM
was aware of the > age discrimination issues that would come with
the new CBF"
>
> No one is going bankrupt, except maybe a thousands of retirees
that > are living off of less than they legally deserved!



And meanwhile, in the 'trenches', people are being 'redeployed' in
ones and twos, and tens and twelves, with a 'minimized separation'.
Except for the 'hangers on' and the 'jet out of a duck'. And it's
all deliciously, diabolically legal.

And there are less...and less...and less...people in existence who
would vote for a union, THE only recourse left to those who are
being raped without even knowing it.

As Tex Antoine said, 'smile'.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, ignatz713 <no_reply@y...> wrote:

> As Tex Antoine said, 'smile'.

Tex Antoine was the weatherman on WABC's "Eyewitness News" in the
early '70s. When after a story on a rape attack in NYC,
he "jokingly" said something to the effect of "When rape is
inevitable, relax and enjoy it", and was promptly fired.

http://www.tvparty.com/lostnytex.html

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, ignatz713 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > As Tex Antoine said, 'smile'.
>
> Tex Antoine was the weatherman on WABC's "Eyewitness News" in the
> early '70s. When after a story on a rape attack in NYC,
> he "jokingly" said something to the effect of "When rape is
> inevitable, relax and enjoy it", and was promptly fired.
>
> http://www.tvparty.com/lostnytex.html


Thanks, justa_bean, for the backstory. I keep forgetting that,
although I am psychically young, I am chronologically old. Well, at
least according to IBM.

Funny. If Antoine had lasted until the year 2004, he could have co-
hosted with Howard Stern and gotten away with all *sorts* of
obscenities.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, ignatz713 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, i_be_mad_as_heck
> <no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well now that depends on who got which story...
> >    ---------------   SNIP   SNIP   SNIP   --------------
>
> And meanwhile, in the 'trenches', people are being 'redeployed' in
> ones and twos, and tens and twelves, with a 'minimized separation'.
> Except for the 'hangers on' and the 'jet out of a duck'. And it's
> all deliciously, diabolically legal.
>
> And there are less...and less...and less...people in existence who
> would vote for a union, THE only recourse left to those who are
> being raped without even knowing it.
>
> As Tex Antoine said, 'smile'.

I don't believe that is the exact quote for which he was fired.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "abouthadit" <abouthadit@y...> wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, ignatz713 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, i_be_mad_as_heck
> > <no_reply@y...>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > As Tex Antoine said, 'smile'.
>
> I don't believe that is the exact quote for which he was fired.

Hmmmmm do a Google search on "tex antoine" and you get several hits
but this is the most complete........it seems it was his exact words
and he had another incident more reminicent of our current VP :) too

http://www.tvparty.com/lostnytex.html





TEX ANTOINE - What Happened?!?



Tex Antoine was the weatherman on WABC's "Eyewitness News" in the
early '70s. I believe it was in 1974, when after a story on a rape
attack in NYC, Tex "jokingly" said something to the effect of "When
rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it", and was promptly fired (I
recall watching this on tv during dinner, and my mother's shock at the
remark). I believe he made an attempted comeback a short time before
his death, but his poor judgment in that one instance essentially
ruined the career of what was otherwise a witty and talented newscaster.

- Seth Jerchower

You are getting this from the horse's mouth: There were two incidents.
The first was saying, "If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it."
(I won't go into the whole story behind it here.)

The second incident involved the audience not being able to see his
25th anniversary birthday cake, because a fellow reporter on the show
was blocking it from the camera. Tex said, "...if you'd get out of the
f... away, they can see the f..ing cake!"

Both of these incidents occured not on channel 5, but on channel 7
"Eyewitness News." I know; I was the audio engineer on the board both
times.

- Sincerely, Richard Sloan


When Tex Antoine moved from WNBC 4 to WABC Ch. 7 circa 1967. He
apparently was not allowed to officially plug his new home on his last
Channel 4 broadcast. So, with Uncle Wethbee Magic Marker in hand, he
cleverly said and wrote something to the effect of: "Remember 4 plus 3
equals 7, and that's as easy as ABC".

- Steve Wasserman

Had it not been for old Tex, I would not have pursued a degree in
Meteorology. People seem to remember his being fired immediately after
that comment that cost him his career, but I seem to remember simply
that his contract wasn't renewed when it came up. Not sure how it
really ended. The first time I saw him was c. 1955, when he did a
thing for the NY City Sanitation Department on those Wednesday
auditorium days we used to have in grammar school.

I do know I did enjoy those Uncle Wethbee almanacs he put out every
year, supported by Con Edison. He passed away at age 59 sometime in
the early 80s, I believe (not sure on exact time), and they said he
didn't go out of his house (Park Avenue, I think) for the last seven
years of his life. A real sad ending to what should have been a
greater career. But he stands as the first nationally known weather
personality in any case.

- Vince Biancomano

Born in 1946 and living my life on Long Island, I was a TV junky. The
only weatherman who counted was Tex Antoine with Uncle Wethbee. I
remember returning from the Army to the New York area in the early
'70s and tuning in to the greatest newscast ever made.

A great story that made my wife and I choke on our dinners with
laughter was when he was asked how cold it was going to be one night.
He replied, "You'd better bring the brass monkey off the front lawn."
A real milk through the nose story.

- Parker Sims

I saw some Tex Antoine anecdotes on your site, and perhaps this one is
somewhere, too - but in case it isn't, I will tell you only that it
circulated through the industry in the 70s, and I cannot vouch for its
authenticity, but it has the ring.

Tex, either when he joined ABC's New York outlet or later, was told
that in line with the new Eyewitness News concept, he would be wearing
a jacket - a blazer like the other members of the news team. Tex
allegedly protested that he had always done the weather and drawn
Uncle Wethbee wearing an artist's smock, and how it just wouldn't be
the same, etc, etc. unless he contiuned to wear the smock that viewers
were used to seeing.

The producer, who had invented the Eyewitness News format, reporteldy
silenced him with, "Tex, either we all wear jackets or we all wear
smocks."

- Jim Young

The thing I remember the most about watching Tex Antoine do the
weather was that on the 6pm newcast he was always very smooth, jovial,
and the consumate professional. However there were quite a number of
times by the time the 11pm broadcast came around it was quite evident
that Tex had tipped a few and this was when most of his memorable
comments occurred. The "rape" comment was the one most remembered and
most outrageous, but there were a number of other off the cuff remarks
made by Tex that had the station manager cringing while everyone at
home watched with "train wreck" fascination.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001953498_jobsdoc11.html

Excerpt:
---------
"I'm not sure it's appropriate to find too much humor," he says from
his home in Santa Monica, Calif., where he's editing his self-financed
documentary, "American Jobs," set to be released on DVD on Labor Day.

It could be the first feature-length documentary to chronicle the
outsourcing trend, which appears to be quickening. Forrester Research
recently revised its estimates on the number of U.S. technology jobs
being sent overseas. The firm now figures some 830,000 white-collar
jobs will move abroad by 2005, compared to the 588,000 it projected
two years ago.
----------

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, tdcanon <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>>Anyone wonder why
> IBM doesn't disclose what the actual investments of the
> plan are to shareholders and participants in the plan?
>

Plan participants should be able to request of list of assets in the
plan.  They can request it along with the most recent Form 5500.

pbs org/now/politics/congbenefits

Last nite's broadcast of "MORE" with Bill Moyers on PBS stations had
a segment on Bernie's victory over Cash Balance conversions, IBM
courtroom outcome, and an IRS respite after 15 years.  There was
stock footage of an IBM logo marble-faced building and of IEBAC
sidewalk protesters at a shareholders meeting.  It didn't look like
this was a repeat episode because there was reference to an IRS move
that happened a few weeks ago.

They introduced the segment as a peek into some well hidden perks
Congress gives itself, most offensive of which might be the 1988
legislation that automated both their annual salary increase along
with a pension increase indexed to a CPI formula.  That spared them
embarassing public votes to improve their own situation at public
expense.  A curent salary of ($158K) puts them among the top %5 of
Americans, probably capable of handling HMO deductibles and caps.

In contrast to what's available to military veterans, Congress
provides for themselves onsite medical services, access to military
hospitals, and full retirement coverage after 20 years.  Monthly
participant's cost was around $245 for a family of four.

This unwelcomed publicity of their benefits package comes at an
inopportune time since one of the presidential campaigns made
reference to opening up Congressional plan health care to the
general public as one way to fix the problem caused when health
insurance is only available through employers.

Can anyone here explain this to me? My Plant was sold in Endicott in
Nov.2002 and I was with IBM for just under 30 yrs. I stayed with the
new company until laid off in the last month, I got a cobra
statement form the new company that I could keep my insurance for
278 per month. I went with the same exact insurance with IBM
retirement and it's cost was 84.00 a month.IBM states that they pay
7000 per year of my benefits and I have to pay anything over
that.Now the cost to me isn't all that terrible but it seems that
IBM is saying they're paying 8000 dollars for the same thing a
company with less than 2k people are getting for 3400 a year.Is it
some kind of funny math they're using?

Judge allows collective Age Discrimination case against Sprint
Posted on Sat, Jul. 03, 2004
By DIANE STAFFORD
The Kansas City Star

Up to 6,800 workers over age 40 who were dismissed in Sprint Corp.
work force reductions may join a collective action alleging age
discrimination by the telecommunications firm.

U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum in Kansas City, Kan., on
Friday granted provisional certification of the collective action.

The case stems from layoffs Sprint made between October 2001 and
March 2003.

To date, 119 former Sprint workers have joined plaintiff Shirley
Williams in alleging that Sprint engaged in a "pattern and practice
of age discrimination" in lowering performance ratings and moving
over-40 workers into positions targeted for layoffs. Williams was 61
when her job was eliminated in 2002.

The company believes the allegations are without merit and Sprint "is
vigorously defending this case," said Jennifer Bosshardt, a
spokeswoman at Sprint.

Sprint also denies the "policy or practice" allegation that hundreds
of individual Sprint managers engaged in "an intentional and
systematic" discrimination against over-40 workers, she said.

The collective action approval in labor law is similar to the
granting of a class action in that it allows a large group of
plaintiffs to join in a combined action.

In discovery, Sprint has supplied a list of about 6,800 former
employees who may be "similarly situated" to Williams and thus
eligible to participate in the case. Attorneys will now send notices,
and recipients may file consents to opt into the case.

"We look forward to diving into the second stage of discovery," said
plaintiffs' attorney Dennis Egan.

Egan, of The Popham Law Firm, and attorneys at Klamann & Hubbard, The
Meyers Law Firm, and White Allinder Graham & Buckley are representing
clients already involved in the case.

Williams' lawsuit is the named case in connection with the collective
certification, but six other former Sprint workers have filed age
discrimination cases in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan.

Williams filed a complaint in April 2003, alleging violations of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She contended that before
Sprint announced its large reductions in force, the company lowered
the performance evaluation ratings of over-40 workers or moved over-
40 workers into jobs that were targeted for elimination.

Also, she contended, the spreadsheets that management used to make
termination decisions included age information.

The case is expected to attract national attention because of its
references to "forced ranking" appraisal systems, a version of which
Sprint implemented before its reductions in force.

Forced ranking systems, which gained fame under Jack Welch at General
Electric Co., fell into the spotlight again when used — and
subsequently abandoned — at Ford Motor Co.

In forced rankings, managers must evaluate their employees on a bell
curve. Generally, as the system has been practiced, a certain
percentage of workers each year must be given the lowest rating and
targeted for dismissal.

Advocates say forced rankings keep workers on their toes, help
companies get rid of "deadwood," and provide employment opportunities
for new workers who might bring in innovation.

Critics say that forced rankings may work as intended for one or two
years but that if companies hire well, there shouldn't be any
deadwood left to cut. In the meantime, they say, teamwork and morale
are hurt.

Bosshardt said Sprint believes the evidence will disprove the age
discrimination allegations.

"In fact, during the period of time in question, the median and
average age of the Sprint employee base increased, and the percentage
of employees over the age of 40 also increased," Bosshardt
said. "This is certainly not the trend that would result if Sprint
were purging its older work force as the plaintiffs allege."

Since October 2001, Sprint has eliminated more than 20,000 jobs. It
now has about 65,000 employees, including about 18,000 in the Kansas
City area.

The judge decided that the allegations contained in Williams'
complaint "are more than sufficient to support provisional
certification."

The judge said the future discovery may, as Sprint contends, show
that all potential plaintiffs are not similarly situated to Williams.
But, Lungstrum wrote, "such differences are simply not relevant at
the notice stage when plaintiff, as here, has set forth substantial
allegations that all plaintiffs were subjected to a pattern and
practice of age discrimination."

He rejected Sprint's argument that collective action wasn't warranted
because the over-40 employees who were dismissed "worked in markedly
different circumstances and positions."

Sprint attorneys have until Wednesday to file any objections to the
content of the proposed notice submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Lungstrum's order unsealed most of the records pertaining to
Williams' motion for provisional certification.

Sprint had requested in mid-April — a few days before its annual
meeting — that all supporting materials in the Williams case be filed
under seal.

Lungstrum granted that request, but said in the order released Friday
that Sprint had not demonstrated "a public or private harm sufficient
to overcome the public's right of access," except in a small handful
of documents.

To reach Diane Stafford, call

(816) 234-4359 or send e-mail to stafford@....

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/retire/basics/6994.asp
Many employers are paring benefits and changing other provisions in
their retirement plans, spurring retirees to organize and ask
Congress for help.
By Ginger Applegarth

A lot of retirees aren't happy. In fact, a growing number of them
are, as the old movie said, mad as hell. And they're not just taking
it quietly anymore. Check out your options.

The issue is retirement benefits that many employers are trimming
back or eliminating entirely to meet Wall Street demands for
increasing profits. When retirement benefits are cut, retirees'
plans and budgets can be thrown into disarray.

The people who are angry aren't just retirees and current employees
of small businesses, who tend to have less structured and less
comprehensive retirement benefits Some of the country's biggest
companies have been accused of breaking their promises to retirees,
including General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Sears Roebuck,
Textron, the old Bell Telephone companies, Walt Disney and other
household names. Add one more to the list: troubled Polaroid Corp.,
which filed for bankruptcy protection on October 12. The day before,
the company announced it was eliminating health and insurance
payments to retirees.

What's going on, and what's going away?
The chopping block
Companies are trimming cost-of-living increases and converting
pension plans from defined-benefit to cash-balance plans that often
result in lower monthly payouts for existing workers.

But the hot issue right now is health benefits. Employers are
cutting benefits that include free, subsidized or merely available
lifetime medical coverage. Employee benefits consulting firm William
M. Mercer says the number of companies with 500 or more employees
offering medical plans that cover current and future retirees shrank
substantially -- 4% -- in just one year alone. The percentage
for "early retirees" (not yet eligible for Medicare coverage) shrank
from 35% to 31% from 1999 to 2000, and the number for "regular
retirees" (Medicare eligible) fell from 28% to 24%.

In many cases, these benefits were promised, and employees relied on
those promises when they made their retirement plans and budgets.
But between 5 million and 10 million retirees are paying more for
medical coverage, have lost it altogether or find themselves doing
the "medical plan shuffle" -- moving in retirement, then having to
travel long distances to find a doctor who is part of their medical
plan. The problem is especially acute for early retirees who aren't
yet eligible for Medicare, because they may have a hard time finding
other medical insurance. Continued coverage is often available, but
it is very expensive. And federal Medicare coverage, which retirees
must pay for, covers most, but hardly all, of the costs for those
who are eligible.

Protection years away
Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., is pushing the Emergency Retiree Health
Benefits Protection Act of 2001 (H.R. 1322). The main provisions of
the bill, which has 75 co-sponsors, are designed to prevent
companies with more than 100 group health participants from reducing
or eliminating promised retirement health benefits and to force
those that have already made these cuts to reinstate the benefits.
It provides an exemption for business hardship and creates a $5
billion loan fund for companies to borrow from so they can meet
their obligations.

It may take time for Tierney's bill to make headway. For one thing,
few if any Republicans are co-sponsoring Tierney's bill. Plus, it
has no support from big business.

Aren't employers required to come through with their benefits
promises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)?
Not always. ERISA, the landmark 1974 law that governs retirement,
doesn't cover promises about health benefits. Court decisions have
been contradictory and often seemingly backward in their
conclusions. For example, a letter outlining your retirement medical
benefits may not be considered binding if the retirement plan
document gives your employer the right to change or terminate your
benefits.

Even "vested" retirement health benefits under a collective
bargaining agreement may not be protected. If your union routinely
renegotiates retiree benefits with your company, those vested health
benefits may not be "contractually conferred." Bankruptcy may also
provide a way for the company to get out of its promises to you,
even if it emerges intact.

Protect yourself
So what do you do to try to protect yourself if you are a retiree,
or if you're even thinking about retirement?

Gather the right retirement medical plan documents. This may take a
little time because there are different documents, and a promissory
letter from your company isn't enough. Here are the documents you
need to check out:
The Summary Plan Description of your retirement health plan. The one
that matters is the one that's valid on the date of your retirement -
- not the current one if you're already retired, or the one in
effect now if you're still working. You can go to your employee
benefits office and read it yourself, or ask your employer or the
Department of Labor for a copy. You have to receive it within 30
days by law. (You may have to pay a small fee for it). But here's
the catch: the Summary Plan Description may not mention that, in the
plan itself (a document that can weigh several pounds at times),
your employer may have reserved the right to reduce or terminate
benefits at any time. If that's the case in the Summary Plan
Description and the plan itself, you may have to fight it out in
court.
The collective bargaining agreement between your union and your
employer when you're retired. But remember, as I noted, if your
union routinely renegotiates retiree benefits, even your "vested"
retirement health benefit may not be guaranteed.
Any insurance contract provided to you under a special arrangement
with your employer, such as a special early-retirement buyout.
Letters, brochures, explanations, early retirement offers, etc.
directly from your company that describe what your retirement
medical benefits will be.
Any notes you have made on your own of meetings with your employee
benefits office, union, insurance company, etc. to discuss your
retirement medical benefits. (If you haven't made any notes yet,
start now!) You can also ask to record telephone and in-person
conversations, but don't do so without permission because you might
be violating the law.
Check the language in those documents. You are looking for very
concrete and specific promises about how long you are guaranteed
benefits, who will pay, what those benefits will be, what happens if
you move, etc. But there can be holes in even the most reassuring
promissory phrases, as I mentioned above.

The U.S. Department of Labor has guidelines for documents to check
and language to check for. (Check the link for "Can the Retiree
Health Benefits Provided by Your Employer Be Cut?" at left.)

In addition, if you have questions or need assistance in obtaining
these documents, contact the Department of Labor's Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration Division of Technical Assistance and
Inquiries. The address is U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave., N.W. Rm. N-5625, Washington, DC 20210. The phone number is 202-
219-8776. The Publication Hotline phone number is 1-800-998-7542.

Get help if you think you've got a problem. Here are your best
sources, other than retirees and employees in your company who have
joined forces.
The Coalition for Retirement Security is an umbrella organization
that has started a grass-roots effort to help groups of retirees
obtain their benefits. Founded in 1996, the coalition now has about
1.5 million members. There are a number of specific company retiree
groups, including those representing retirees of most of the large
companies mentioned above. A great example is the Association of
BellTel Retirees.
The Pension Rights Center. The group acts as an advocate for
retirees and has local pension information and counseling projects
in some geographic areas, partly funded by the federal
Administration on Aging, as well as information if you don't live in
one of these areas. The site has links to local pension and
information counseling projects and to other resources.
The Administration on Aging, a clearinghouse of information about
aging and retirement issues.
Your union. You have paid your dues (literally and figuratively);
your union should be fighting for you, too, and not leaving your
benefits on the bargaining table in favor of current workers. If you
have to, try to organize retired members of your own union to get
more political clout within your union.
A pension lawyer. You don't want just any lawyer, but one who
understands the special laws of pensions, ERISA, and health-care
plans. This can get pricey, so be sure and check the free resources
above first. And in shopping for a lawyer, ask for referrals and
guidance from any of the organizations listed above willing to do so.
Get mad, get vocal, get creative and funny about it, and get as much
press as you can. Just witness what happened at General Electric's
April 25 annual meeting -- the final meeting for longtime CEO Jack
Welch, who is retiring this year. Two retired GE workers who co-
chair the GE Retirees Justice Fund confronted Welch -- with good
humor -- with the fact that he could collect as much as $9.6 million
a year as his retirement benefit (based on his 2000 salary and bonus
of $16.7 million). Some GE retirees get as little as $6,700 from the
company. Would Welch like to be treasurer of the group, they asked,
so he could fight for retirees' rights? He might need help if his
$9.6 million a year proves not to be enough. The group offered to
charge dues to run the organization of 1% of the monthly pension
benefit. Welch's dues alone, which would run to $8,000 a month,
would cover all the group's costs. It was great press, and it made a
great point. (Welch declined to join.)

Retirees have every right to be angry over promises they believe
have not been kept by companies they were loyal to. Current
employees have every right to be afraid about future promises and
what will and will not hold up in a court of law.

While Tierney's bill won't likely pass, the growing grass-roots
movement to protect retirement health benefits means that the issue
will not go away quietly, if at all. And that's good news for those
of us who haven't yet reached retirement, because perhaps by then
the laws will be clearer and we will know whether a promise is a
guarantee or simply well-intentioned wishful thinking.

Do what hunderds of has tried to do - get an accounting from IBM as to
how our benefit dollars are  spent, I tried for a year - all the way
up to Sam P. and got nothing.   If ANYONE can come up with a scheme
to force IBM to disclose the REAL costs, LET'S HEAR IT!!!!!!!!
BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fairfax2 wrote:
> Can anyone here explain this to me? My Plant was sold in Endicott in
> Nov.2002 and I was with IBM for just under 30 yrs. I stayed with the
> new company until laid off in the last month, I got a cobra
> statement form the new company that I could keep my insurance for
> 278 per month. I went with the same exact insurance with IBM
> retirement and it's cost was 84.00 a month.IBM states that they pay
> 7000 per year of my benefits and I have to pay anything over
> that.Now the cost to me isn't all that terrible but it seems that
> IBM is saying they're paying 8000 dollars for the same thing a
> company with less than 2k people are getting for 3400 a year.Is it
> some kind of funny math they're using?

To find out what IBM 'costs' really are, ask for the most recent
copy of the Summary Annual Report  for YOUR  IBM  company
"heallth and welfare benefit plan  fro retirees  "  or Similar
wording  which is filed with  the pension ande welfare Benefits
administration.  Typically these plans are filed about 9 months
after the close of the year- so the most recent one would
probably be for the year 2002.  the number will be something
like EIN XX- yyyyyyyy , Plan no zzzz


Every year in oct- nov the company is required to send you a
summary of all the plans - and how to get a copy.- use that to find
the plan that applies - and whom to contact . There  may be a
dozen or so plans by region  etc.

The charge may  be up to  15 cents per page - and can easily be
$60 to $100.   that report will cover all the carries involved in
YOUR plan- the premiums and the commisisons, etc.- so take
the time to find out  the number of the plan that applies to you

You do have a right to that info under ERISA- its basically a form
5500

Normally, if you call and ask- you can find out the price - and on
receipt of the $$ they will send it to you

  Document Don Shuper

===

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, The Snodgrass Family
<bsnod@e...> wrote:
> Do what hunderds of has tried to do - get an accounting from
IBM as to
> how our benefit dollars are  spent, I tried for a year - all the way
> up to Sam P. and got nothing.   If ANYONE can come up with a
scheme
> to force IBM to disclose the REAL costs, LET'S HEAR IT!!!!!!!!
> BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> fairfax2 wrote:
> > Can anyone here explain this to me? My Plant was sold in
Endicott in
> > Nov.2002 and I was with IBM for just under 30 yrs. I stayed
with the
> > new company until laid off in the last month, I got a cobra
> > statement form the new company that I could keep my
insurance for
> > 278 per month. I went with the same exact insurance with
IBM
> > retirement and it's cost was 84.00 a month.IBM states that
they pay
> > 7000 per year of my benefits and I have to pay anything over
> > that.Now the cost to me isn't all that terrible but it seems that
> > IBM is saying they're paying 8000 dollars for the same thing a
> > company with less than 2k people are getting for 3400 a
year.Is it
> > some kind of funny math they're using?

And if I did the below, would it tell me what MY costs are for MY
insurance?  Not a pool of somebody somewhere getting some kind of
benefits, I want a receipt for MY $7000.  Why don't I have a right
to a full disclosure at MY level?  BS?????????????????

donshuper wrote:

>
> To find out what IBM 'costs' really are, ask for the most recent
> copy of the Summary Annual Report  for YOUR  IBM  company
> "heallth and welfare benefit plan  fro retirees  "  or Similar
> wording  which is filed with  the pension ande welfare Benefits
> administration.  Typically these plans are filed about 9 months
> after the close of the year- so the most recent one would
> probably be for the year 2002.  the number will be something
> like EIN XX- yyyyyyyy , Plan no zzzz
>
>
> Every year in oct- nov the company is required to send you a
> summary of all the plans - and how to get a copy.- use that to find
> the plan that applies - and whom to contact . There  may be a
> dozen or so plans by region  etc.
>
> The charge may  be up to  15 cents per page - and can easily be
> $60 to $100.   that report will cover all the carries involved in
> YOUR plan- the premiums and the commisisons, etc.- so take
> the time to find out  the number of the plan that applies to you
>
> You do have a right to that info under ERISA- its basically a form
> 5500
>
> Normally, if you call and ask- you can find out the price - and on
> receipt of the $$ they will send it to you
>
> Document Don Shuper
>
> ===
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, The Snodgrass Family
> <bsnod@e...> wrote:
>  > Do what hunderds of has tried to do - get an accounting from
> IBM as to
>  > how our benefit dollars are  spent, I tried for a year - all the way
>  > up to Sam P. and got nothing.   If ANYONE can come up with a
> scheme
>  > to force IBM to disclose the REAL costs, LET'S HEAR IT!!!!!!!!
>  > BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>  >
>  > fairfax2 wrote:
>  > > Can anyone here explain this to me? My Plant was sold in
> Endicott in
>  > > Nov.2002 and I was with IBM for just under 30 yrs. I stayed
> with the
>  > > new company until laid off in the last month, I got a cobra
>  > > statement form the new company that I could keep my
> insurance for
>  > > 278 per month. I went with the same exact insurance with
> IBM
>  > > retirement and it's cost was 84.00 a month.IBM states that
> they pay
>  > > 7000 per year of my benefits and I have to pay anything over
>  > > that.Now the cost to me isn't all that terrible but it seems that
>  > > IBM is saying they're paying 8000 dollars for the same thing a
>  > > company with less than 2k people are getting for 3400 a
> year.Is it
>  > > some kind of funny math they're using?

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, The Snodgrass Family <bsnod@e...>
wrote:
> Do what hunderds of has tried to do - get an accounting from IBM
as to > how our benefit dollars are  spent, I tried for a year - all
the way > up to Sam P. and got nothing.   If ANYONE can come up with
a scheme > to force IBM to disclose the REAL costs, LET'S HEAR


It's no mystery if you carefully read the information IBM sends you
for the so called benefits, especially if you're retired. For almost
all plans that IBM offers IBM is self insured, that means they use
the plan as an adminstrator of the service with the company sending
IBM the bill and IBM pays the "insurer" the cost plus a fee for
managing the program.

Why does IBM do this this way you might ask? Well stop and think
about it If I go out and buy an insurnace policy from a company they
compute the chance that I'll be sick and what my history is/was and
I'm given a cost figure per month to cover their bet on my not
getting sick. IBM does the same thing by being self insured, They
are betting that a whole bunch of you don't need any costly services
in the year so rather than buying a policy on you and paying that
premium they make a deal with a medical group to provide services if
something happens to you and they'll pony up the bucks themselves
rather than the insurance company doing it for a premium.

So for most of you IBM never pays a premium of a set ammount to any
of its health providers such as you do hence that $7,000 or $7,500
that IBM says it pays towards your medical costs is the aggregate
cost of all the medical costs of all the employees divided by the
number of employees. Now as medical costs go up for the aggregate
group above the $7,0000 or $7,500 IBM allocates for its health care
benefit you pay that difference as a sur charge to IBM. As I found
out being a retiree with Medicare coverage I could get the very same
coverage with Secure Horizons on my own for $58 a month rather than
paying IBM $131 a month sur charge for my so called $3,000 a year
benefit that IBM was "paying" towards my health cost with Secure
Horizons thru IBM. Anyway when I saw that a $3,000 "benefit" from
IBM was costing me about $80 a month more for not taking
that "benefit" I dropped IBM coverage and went on my won cheaper for
the same program. And while I recognize I don't fit everyone's
circusmstance, in my case the savings was almost $1,000 a
year.

With the new economy and benefits all I'll say is: "Caveat emptor!"

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, The Snodgrass Family <bsnod@e...>
wrote:
> And if I did the below, would it tell me what MY costs are for MY
> insurance?  Not a pool of somebody somewhere getting some kind of
> benefits, I want a receipt for MY $7000.  Why don't I have a right
> to a full disclosure at MY level?  BS?????????????????

A little something for you to read about: "self insured medical
plans".

What you think you have coming to you in the manner that you think
it should will only be true if everything is as you assume it is.
IBM does not hire high priced lawyers to do their legal work on the
benefit plans just because they want to give jobs to law school
graduates. What you think you have and what you legally have might
be two different things in regards to your benefits unless you
understand the law.

RUSSELL B. KOROBKIN
University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law


February 12, 2004
Abstract:
One of the most perplexing consequences of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act's (ERISA) preemption provisions is the
differential regulatory treatment afforded to employer-sponsored
health care benefits provided directly to employees by the
employer's "self-insured" plan and to benefits provided by a third
party that sells an insurance policy to the employer.

  Under ERISA's savings clause, states may regulate insurance
contracts, thus allowing regulators to guarantee "insured" employees
a menu of state-mandated health-insurance benefits. But under
ERISA's deemer clause, self-insured plans are immune to such
requirements.

  Since ERISA's passage three decades ago, there has been an
explosion in the number of employers choosing to self-insure their
health benefits plans and then purchase "stop-loss" insurance for
the plan in order to avoid both state mandates and insurance risk.
Critics cry foul at the use of this regulation-avoidance tactic.

This Article defends employers' exploitation of the "deemer clause
loophole" on the grounds that it is consistent with ERISA's clear
language, structure, and delicate balance of underlying goals. But
it argues that ERISA contains a complementary "savings clause
loophole" that state regulators can exploit by regulating stop-loss
insurance companies, thus using a self-help remedy to close the
deemer clause loophole substantially. One good loophole deserves
another.

SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS
Some employers do not contract with an insurance company to insure
their employees, but they have enough employees to do risk pooling
like an insurnace company would.  These employers are called "Self
Insured."  During the past couple decades, the number of employers
who have switched to self insurance has increased dramatically,
starting with employers with many employees and spreading to those
with fewer employees. For employers with few employees, risk pooling
does not work very well and the employer still has significant risk
for high health care expenses.  Smaller employers have an option
that larger employees do not; they can offer their employees Medical
Savings Accounts (MSAs) that we will discuss later.
Since self insurance does not involve a contract between an
insurance company and an employer, it is not subject to state
insurance regulations (by federal ERISA legislation). Avoidance of
state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self
insurance.
There are various degrees of self insurance. Some employers do
everything themselves. Other employers fund losses as they occur,
but pay a "Third Party Administrator (TPA)" or "Administrative
Services Only (ASO)" organization to administer claims processing.
Contracted services performed by a TPA or ASO can include: claims
processing; marketing; premium collection; claims review;
accounting; computing; and consulting. The organization providing
ASO services may happen to be a traditional insurer, but there is no
insurance involved without transfer of risk.  Pure self insurance
leaves the employer with all the risk of possible losses. One way of
reducing the risk of very high losses is insurance for very high
losses called "Stop-Loss Insurance."  Stop-loss insurance for
employers is similar to catastrophic insurance for individuals.
Some advantages of self insurance for an employer include:
avoiding state premium taxes on the difference between the full
premium and the stop-loss premium;
avoiding state insurance regulations concerning specific mandated
benefits;
avoiding contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools;
avoiding insurance reserve requirements; access to their own funds
between the time premiums would have been collected and the time
bills are paid (particularly during the first year)
lower health care costs if a firm's expected costs are lower than
those reflected in past insurance premiums;
no longer pay insurer's profit; greater control over costs; better
access to data on workers' utilization and costs; and more
flexibility in plan design.
Some disadvantages of self insurance include: unpooled risk; less
incentive for a third-party administrative to control costs compared
to an insurer since they are not liable for risk; less economy of
scale if the employer is relatively small compared to the volume of
people pooled by an insurer; higher health care costs if a firm's
expected costs are higher than those reflected in past insurance
premiums; the risk that the employer will lose reasonably-priced
stop-loss insurance; and no cushion from irate employees (no
insurance company to blame for problems).
Labels can be misleading. Some employers that are labeled "Self
Insured" or "Uninsured" are effectively insured because they have
stop loss insurance with a deductible that is lower than the lowest
likely amount for their expected health care costs.  On the other
hand, some employers that are labeled "Insured" are effectively
uninsured. To the extent that this year's premium is experience-
rated and will be retroactively adjusted based on this year's costs,
their premium is not really fixed.  In the extreme, if this year's
premium is retroactively adjusted to reflect this year's claims
dollar for dollar, then there is no risk transfer and no insurance.
The supposed "insurer" is really providing ASO, not risk protection.
Although this extreme situation is unlikely, many real-world
phenomena such as one-year lag insurance can come very close to it,
especially when evaluated over several years.
Thus, an organization that may look insured at first may be
effectively self-insured.

Self-insured plans
Instead of contracting with a health insurer to provide group health
insurance, you may wish to consider a self-insured health plan. Self-
insured health plans are also called employer-based health plans.

About 50 million workers are covered with self-insured group health
plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

A self-insured plan is a health insurance plan you set up to pay
health care expenses for your employees. Unlike a group health plan
that requires you to pay premiums, a self-insured plan requires you
to pay health care expenses as you incur them. You can still require
employees to contribute to a self-insured plan by making payments to
a custodial account.

A self-insured plan means that you bear all the financial risk.
Still, if you have a relatively young and healthy workforce, it may
be cheaper to self-insure than to pay an insurer. In order to cap
the maximum amount you might owe for health care expenses, you may
wish to acquire stop-loss insurance.

A third-party administrator (TPA) can help you to obtain stop-loss
insurance and administer a self-insured group health plan. Employers
routinely hire a TPA to manage their employee benefits or retirement
programs. For additional information on obtaining stop-loss
insurance, see the Web site of the Self-Insurance Institute of
America (SIIA).

Another reason you may wish to self-insure is that the timing in
which your employees incur health care expenses is different from
when the premiums are paid. By self-insuring, you retain control
over the use of funds until you have to pay a health care provider.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law
that protects employees' retirement income and benefits, regulates
self-insured health plans. If you have a dispute with your self-
insured plan, contact the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) instead of
your state insurance department. The federal agency is responsible
for ensuring compliance with ERISA.

Self-insurance can also be used for workers' compensation (workers
comp) insurance in some states. Check with your state insurance
commission. The Web site of the National Association of Insurance
Commissions maintains a directory of state insurance commissions.

The SIIA estimates about 6,000 employers nationwide use a self-
insured plan for workers' compensation. Like a self-insured group
health plan, a major advantage of a self-insured plan for workers'
comp is that it allows you to have better control over payments.

Major drawbacks of a self-insured plan are the additional
administrative cost of operating your own health plan and the
uncertainty of when employees may use their benefits. You should
weigh any potential savings with these additional costs to determine
whether a self-insured plan is the right solution for your business.

A self-insured health plan requires you to have enough cash flow to
pay employee health-related expenses. Having enough in cash flow is
likely to be more of a factor for small businesses than for more
established firms. However, the SIIA argues that small businesses
with as few as 25 employees have been successful in using self-
insured plans.

The above information is educational and should not be interpreted
as financial advice. For advice that is specific to your
circumstances, you should consult a financial or tax adviser.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Archangel" <tenosce9@p...> wrote:

>
> A little something for you to read about: "self insured medical
> plans".
>
> What you think you have coming to you in the manner that you think
> it should will only be true if everything is as you assume it is.
> IBM does not hire high priced lawyers to do their legal work on
the > benefit plans just because they want to give jobs to law
school > graduates. What you think you have and what you legally
have might > be two different things in regards to your benefits
unless you > understand the law.
>
>


And stay tuned. Wait, just WAIT until those who retire (if they are
allowed to do so) with the FHA report back with how THAT abomination
works. You think the current retirees are being hosed with THEIR
retiree medical?

Just...wait.

I left IBM in 1999 after the change to the Pension plan.  Will
anyone please give me a brief update on the status of class action
law suite?

Dennis

> I left IBM in 1999 after the change to the Pension
> plan.  Will anyone please give me a brief update
> on the status of class action law suit?

There is an FAQ about the lawsuit available at:
   http://www.allianceibm.org/pensionlawsuitfaq.htm

At the moment, we are still waiting on a final ruling
from Judge Murphy -- there is no way to predict how
long that will take.  At the last hearing, he
expressed hope that he would have the case wrapped up
and ready to be sent on to the appeals court by the
end of summer, so maybe we will hear something soon.

When we do, it will likely be the beginning of a long
appeals process -- don't count on seeing a settlement
within the next several years...

Janet Krueger
Rochester, MN

I have the Beta RSS selected for 'my yahoo'  I then added the RSS
feed for this group.  What I got was Brad Delong's Diary ! ?  Anyone
else see this ?

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, blue_in_pok <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I have the Beta RSS selected for 'my yahoo'  I then added the RSS
> feed for this group.  What I got was Brad Delong's Diary ! ?
Anyone
> else see this ?

Yes.  The RSS is a beta version and I would guess that 'Brad' busted
into it.  I removed it from my Yahoo selections.  When it goes gold,
then I'll go back to it.

> >    Ummmmm, has anybody on this board realized that the 6 bil will
> > come out of the IBM Pension Trust Fund?
>
> But not the legal fees, nor the lobbiest fees, nor the consulting
> fees to WW.
>
> Of course we get ours from our own trust.  That's the point of our
> trust.
>
> And your point is????

    Bean, I believe that my point has been made by the intervening
posts.  The shortfall will be financed over a long period (if need be)
through the Trust Fund, and the hit on IBM's earnings will be minimal.
  FYI, IBM carries insurance that covers a good amount of its
litigation fees, and the rest of those costs would be so small as to
be rounded off in IBM's annual reports.

    My best bet is that the next 5500 to be published will show that
the Trust Fund is again over-funded.

Mike.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29807-2004Jul5.html
By Warren Buffett
Tuesday, July 6, 2004; Page A19

Until now the record for mathematical lunacy by a legislative body
has been held by the Indiana House of Representatives, which in 1897
decreed by a vote of 67 to 0 that pi -- the ratio of the
circumference of a circle to its diameter -- would no longer be
3.14159 but instead be 3.2. Indiana schoolchildren momentarily
rejoiced over this simplification of their lives. But the Indiana
Senate, composed of cooler heads, referred the bill to the Committee
for Temperance, and it eventually died.

What brings this episode to mind is that the U.S. House of
Representatives is about to consider a bill that, if passed, could
cause the mathematical lunacy record to move east from Indiana.
First, the bill decrees that a coveted form of corporate pay -- stock
options -- be counted as an expense when these go to the chief
executive and the other four highest-paid officers in a company, but
be disregarded as an expense when they are issued to other employees
in the company. Second, the bill says that when a company is
calculating the expense of the options issued to the mighty five, it
shall assume that stock prices never fluctuate.

Give the bill's proponents an A for imagination -- and for courting
contributors -- and a flat-out F for logic.

All seven members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, all
four of the big accounting firms and legions of investment
professionals say the two proposals are nonsense. Nevertheless, many
House members wish to ignore these informed voices and make Congress
the Supreme Accounting Authority. Indeed, the House bill directs the
Securities and Exchange Commission to "not recognize as 'generally
accepted' any accounting principle established by a standard setting
body" that disagrees with the House about the treatment of options.

The House's anointment of itself as the ultimate scorekeeper for
investors, it should be noted, comes from an institution that in its
own affairs favors Enronesque accounting. Witness the
fanciful "sunset" provisions that are used to meet
legislative "scoring" requirements. Or regard the unified budget
protocol, which applies a portion of annual Social Security receipts
to reducing the stated budget deficit while ignoring the concomitant
annual costs for benefit accruals.

I have no objection to the granting of options. Companies should use
whatever form of compensation best motivates employees -- whether
this be cash bonuses, trips to Hawaii, restricted stock grants or
stock options. But aside from options, every other item of value
given to employees is recorded as an expense. Can you imagine the
derision that would be directed at a bill mandating that only five
bonuses out of all those given to employees be expensed? Yet that is
a true analogy to what the option bill is proposing.

Equally nonsensical is a section in the bill requiring companies to
assume, when they are valuing the options granted to the mighty five,
that their stocks have zero volatility. I've been investing for 62
years and have yet to meet a stock that doesn't fluctuate. The only
reason for making such an Alice-in-Wonderland assumption is to
significantly understate the value of the few options that the House
wants counted. This undervaluation, in turn, enables chief executives
to lie about what they are truly being paid and to overstate the
earnings of the companies they run.

Some people contend that options cannot be precisely valued. So what?
Estimates pervade accounting. Who knows with precision what the
useful life of software, a corporate jet or a machine tool will be?
Pension costs, moreover, are even fuzzier, because they require
estimates of future mortality rates, pay increases and investment
earnings. These guesses are almost invariably wrong, often
substantially so. But the inherent uncertainties involved do not
excuse companies from making their best estimate of these, or any
other, expenses. Legislators should remember that it is better to be
approximately right than precisely wrong.

If the House should ignore this logic and legislate that what is an
expense for five is not an expense for thousands, there is reason to
believe that the Senate -- like the Indiana Senate 107 years ago --
will prevent this folly from becoming law. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-
Ala.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has firmly declared
that accounting rules should be set by accountants, not by
legislators.

Even so, House members who wish to escape the scorn of historians
should render the Senate's task moot by killing the bill themselves.
Or if they are absolutely determined to meddle with reality, they
could attack the obesity problem by declaring that henceforth it will
take 24 ounces to make a pound. If even that friendly standard seems
unbearable to their constituents, they can exempt all but the fattest
five in each congressional district from any measurement of weight.

In the late 1990s, too many managers found it easier to
increase "profits" by accounting maneuvers than by operational
excellence. But just as the schoolchildren of Indiana learned to work
with honest math, so can option-issuing chief executives learn to
live with honest accounting. It's high time they step up to that job.

The writer is chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a
diversified holding company, and a director of The Washington Post
Co., which has an investment in Berkshire Hathaway.