In nearly every case, those close to retirement are protected from harm. But while the benefits for those closest to retirement may be protected, it is the treatment of mid-career workers under the average CBA conversion that represents the cruelest injustice. After 15 or 20 years of loyal service, with every intention of remaining for the balance of their career, these employees find that the human resource professionals and compensation planners are suddenly focused on attracting new employees, rather than on insuring that current employees receive the benefits they have been counting on. We understood that some members might face layoffs and might wish they had been able to take their pension benefits with them when they left the payroll. But we were also concerned that we not pay for that benefit with the future benefits of other members.
Negotiations necessarily mean trade-offs, but that was too large a price to pay.
We fully expected to see another CBA proposal, and the company did not disappoint us. After our previous experiences, we made it clear that unless our problems with the concept were addressed, our members would have no interest in changing their pension plan design. It would not be sufficient to offer portability to those on the verge of leaving. Nor would it be adequate to protect the benefits of those closest to retirement. Instead, our agreement increased the value of pension benefits for employees at every stage of their careers.