Originally Posted by
pipe
It's not reverse age discrimination - it's just age discrimination (AGAIN!) And, at this point, I think it could easily be proven that it's a pattern of behavior.
Pipe
The amazing thing is the guys that are eligible for the cash bump, or whatever you want to call it are complaining because it's not enough. They say it's not even close to the 2006 "bump".
So which is it...age discrimination or not enough?
I think the intent of it, beginning with the 1999 contract and repeated in the 2006 contract was a bump to address the inability of the older demographic to maximize the time value of the DC contribution, which was intitially 6% and later raised to 7%.
I don't think either side of this argument would ever see eye-to-eye on this issue and always claim an unfair balance. Well perhaps what it comes down to is greed and the next time around when you are on the receiving end of the bonus...your argument magically disappears.
I'm not at the "bonus" age either, but I do understand that the adjustment is necessary to help balance the overall benefit of the plan for [I]everyone[I] on the seniority list.