Retiree Update
                                                                                              By
                                                                       Leroy McKnight
                                                                          May 16, 2016

  1. During the 2016 Detroit 3 contract ratification vote, that included major and extreme changes to the pension plan supplement - Appendix A [outlined below], the IUAW allowed members who were not participants in the Pension Plan to vote on the pension plan. The members who are not in the Pension Plan are members who were hired after the ratification of the 2007 agreement. Again, they are not in the Pension Plan and were not only allowed to vote on it, but were actually incentivized by nearly 80 thousand dollars over the life of the contract to vote yes on the contract. At the time of the election these members represented about twenty percent of the total active membership voting on the contract ratification.

So you know, in ERISA the law that protects retiree benefit plans, its objectives are; “to protect the participants of retiree benefit plans.” Allowing non participants to vote on a Pension Benefit Plan does not comply with that law.

  1. The Changes referenced above include:
    1. Ratified in a contract prior to the 2015 agreement the GM contract reads:
      1. [Excerpt] “General Motors LLC, by payment of contributions under the Internal Revenue Code, including contributions required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 effective for Plan Years on and after October 1, 2008,shall be relieved of any further liability under the Plan.”
    2. The Pension Plan is currently funded at 85%. The new contract language reads:
      1. [Excerpt] if the Plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage for a Plan Year is less than 80 percent, or would be less than 80 percent to the extent described in Section 4(a)(ii) below) but is not less than 60 percent.then the limitations set forth in this Section 4(a) shall apply.
      2. [Excerpt] benefit that is being paid in a prohibited payment does not exceed the lesser of:
        1. (A) 50 percent of the present value of the benefit payable in the optional form of benefit that includes the prohibited payment; or
        2. (B) I 00 percent of the PBGC maximum benefit guarantee amount (as defined in Section 1.436- l (d)(3 )( iii)(C) of the Treasury Regulations).
      3. (A) Less than 60 percent:
        1. (iii) Benefit Accruals Frozen.
  2. Obviously, the language in item 2 above are excerpts from the actual language found in the agreement, but is indeed representative of what is to occur as summarized in below:
    1. The current funding of pension plan is 85%.
    2. As of October 1, 2008… GM has been relieved of any further obligations to the Pension Plan.
    3. A fall below 80% funding in the pension causes a 50% reduction of the VESTED portion of your pension, or 100% of what the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation [PBGC] whichever is the LESSER.
    4. A fall below 60% funding in the pension causes the pension to be frozen. [no payments]
  3. A slight down turn in the stock market could cause the 80% funding cuts to be triggered.
  4. In an effort to prevent this, within 7 days of the ratification by the local unions, on November 5, 2015, I [Leroy McKnight] wrote the following appeal, and several members submitted it.
    1. Due to procedural and other issues one remains and is currently at the 3rd step of the appeal process – The Public Review Board.
      1.  There currently exists a 60-day window that any member may submit their comments or concerns to the PRB at 8000 East Jefferson Ave, Detroit, Michigan. Watch www.workin4alivin.com for current updates.
  5. The Nov 5 Appeal is below, again this was submitted in early November, and is informational in nature. NOT TO BE SUBMITTED NOW:

​


​Date: __________________

To: Recording Secretary, and…
Election Chairperson
UAW Local__________

RE: APPEAL OF 2015 GM-UAW RATIFICATION VOTE

Dear Recording Secretary,

As a UAW member, and under the provisions provided for in the UAW Constitution Article 38, Section 11; on this date, I respectfully and formally appeal – in writing - the UAW ratification vote on the 2015 GM-UAW Agreement.

Whereas during the voting process of this aforementioned election, members hired after the effective date of the 2007 agreement who arenot “Plan Participants” in the GM-UAW Pension Plan (Appendix A & B) were not only permitted, but also encouraged and incentivized to vote in this ratification vote.

It is, therefore, my position that it was improper to permit “Non Plan Participants” of the Pension Plan (Those members hired after the effective date of the 2007 GM-UAW Agreement) to vote on Pension Plan language. It is my further position that it is only proper to permit “Plan Participants” in the Pension Plan (Those members hired prior to the effective date of the 2007 GM-UAW Agreement) to vote on any and/or all parts of the GM-UAW Pension Plan.

I offer the following as foundation for the appeal this ratification vote:
  1. Pension Plan “Plan Participants” are those GM-UAW members hired prior to the effective date of the 2007 GM-UAW Agreement.
  2. The GM-UAW Pension Plan falls under the protections of ERISA, and the following is ERISA’s policy statement on the protection of “Plan Participants:
    1. Title 29 USC 1001 (b) states (in part); “…It is hereby declared to be the policy of this chapter (ERISA et al) to protect interstate commerce and the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries,…”
  3. In the decision of Supreme Court Case “Chemical Workers v Pittsburgh Glass, 404 U.S. 157 (1971) it states (in part): “Moreover, the risk cannot be overlooked that union representatives on occasion might see fit to bargain for improved wages or other conditions favoring active employees at the expense of retirees' benefits.”
  4. The principle of prohibited and separated voting already exists within the UAW’s GM contract ratification process. In that, non-skilled workers may not vote on skilled trades issues. I am further of the opinion that any reasonable person would also conclude that it is only fair, just and proper that Pension Plan voting be separated in the same way. That is, “Non Pension Plan Participants” be prohibited from voting on any and all Pension Plan issues, and that only “Plan Participants” in the Pension Plan be permitted to vote on any and all Pension Plan agreement language.
  5. In my humble opinion, in the near future that it is highly possible that the aforementioned concerns of the Supreme Court in 1971 may become reality in the case of the GM-UAW Pension Plan. That is, if this voting injustice is not corrected by and through this appeal; it is highly possible that future union representatives may see fit to bargain for improved wages or other conditions favoring active employees at the expense of GM-UAW retirees' pension benefits.


It is my earnest desire to do the best for all members, and that this ratification vote appeal is fully representative of those desires

Thank you and the entire membership for your consideration of this appeal.
RESPECTFULLY APPEALLED

_______________________ ____________
Signature Date

_______________________
Printed Name