Originally Posted by
Freddriver5
I regretfully agree with your assessment. However, your last sentence sums up my disdain for how it was implemented. Specifically, it was implemented to do "the least damage" to those bumping up against age 60. They received a "do over" on the backs of the bottom 25% of EVERY seniority list.
I regretfully agree with your statement. Unfortunately it was done as the lesser of the choices. Imagine where we would all be if those over 60 when the law was changed were allowed to come back to work at their original positions? Like it or not (and I don't) this was the better deal.
Of course chatting with a guy the other day he said he has to stay past 60 in a few months not because of the contract and retro but because he has a kid finishing college and another one entering college next year. And they weren't going to do that BEFORE age 65 passed four years ago? Or did age 65 all of a sudden mean they could now definitely go to college because daddy can work to pay for what he didn't plan for?