GM World HQ in Detroit

GMRA slaps GM for latest salary pension actions

Advertisement
In a scathing letter to GM Chairman and CEO, Daniel Ackerson, the GMRA which represents salaried retirees expressed absolute consternation and disgust with GM's decision.

Who knew? Finally the General Motors Retiree Association (GMRA) came out swinging on behalf of the 118,000 salaried retirees of General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) in a major way for its decision to trash the retirement plan.

Now before you go boo-hoo on me, be apprised of the reasons. First, the end of the retirement program does more than just shift risk from GM onto an insurance company; mainly Prudential for those who do not take the lump sum. It is still a form of double jeopardy.

For example, the present retirement program is protected by the U.S government. However, the moment it is shifted to Prudential or to some other option, that guaranteed protection dies.

Is GM compensating retirees for that level of loss? No. According to GMRA, “By eliminating this large class of salaried retirees from the pension plan, you are abandoning the hard-earned benefit of an ERISA-protected pension promised to thousands upon thousands of GM retirees in return for their commitment and loyalty. This surpasses basic unfairness; indeed, it is sheer irresponsibility and greed.”

For the record, salaried retirees are being offered two choices: a lump sum or a movement to Prudential which is a group annuity. According to GMRA, “in either case GM wins and retirees lose. Taking a lump sum places the retirees plan assets at risk in the financial marketplace while reducing GM's liabilities and temporarily props up the company balance sheet.”

Pages

Share on Facebook submit to reddit Share on Google+

Advertisement
Sign-up to our email newsletter for daily perspectives on car design, trends, events and news, not found elsewhere.

Comments

Dan Akerson is an Obama man, and the GM bailout is the only item Obama can brag about after one term in office. In retrospect, the GM bailout was more about saving UAW health benefits, wages, and retirement than saving GM. As the president demonstrated time and time again, he could care less about corporations’ (even automotive corporations) unless there was some nice caviar in the bailout for the administration. With unlimited taxpayer money at the president’s disposal, saving 99% of the UAW brothers’ (a large organized voting block) wages and benefits was a no brainer. The icing on the bailout cake, is that the bailout of GM would help Obama carry the northern industrial states. With GM bragging about record profits, the possibility of billions in losses to taxpayers has been an thorn in the Obama administration’s side. Especially after published news reports regarding the exceptional treatment of the UAW. The cost (or potential loss) to the taxpayers for GM bailout, per a study by the Heritage Foundation, is just about equal to the bailout of benefits and wages of the UAW. Now the Obama administration is under election year pressure to reduce the loss of the GM bailout. The best way to begin limiting the taxpayers loss from the GM bailout for voting taxpayers is to pick off the low hanging fruit of salary and retiree benefits and wages. Therefore, I suspect that Obama’s marching orders to Dan Akerson is to reduce the taxpayer loss and taxpayers criticism of the GM bailout by increasing the value of the stock. What could be a better way to increase the value of GM’s stock then by gutting the benefits of an unorganized and frighten group of salary retirees and employees.
Frank -- I appreciate your article but would like to make a couple of points regarding the GMRA to you and for your readers. To your point: "Who knew? Finally the General Motors Retiree Association (GMRA) came out swinging on behalf of the 118,000 salaried retirees of General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) in a major way for its decision to trash the retirement plan." The people who founded GMRA came out swinging at the time of the bankruptcy when they tried to get retirees a seat at the table with other unsecured creditors, but the bankruptcy judge ruled against them after huge effort on a few individuals and GMRA's part. Many, many hours and emotions were spent on that attempt. From then on, GMRA tried to be a voice to GM but it was an uphill battle that could not be won. To your point: "With all respect, I have to ask where was the GMRA when the original retirement plans were laid out? Never heard them complaining except when it was underfunded. No mention of indexing for growth." Not sure what you mean, as GMRA was formed during the bankruptcy and did focus on the pension fund and expended efforts behind the scenes helping individual retirees and tried to make a difference for the group of retirees. Not sure you have enough information about the activities of GMRA to be making such bold statements... Thanks.

Pages