Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > February 2006 > Verizon Retirement









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Verizon Retirement
John Kapili

2006-02-23, 5:48 pm

John Kapili announces www.johnkapili.com/PensionER.

If you were an employee of GTE Wireless (now Verizon) that was sold to
AllTel on 6-29-2000, you need to become a member of this website. Your
pension benefits may not be what you thought they were going to be. GTE (now
Verizon) told their employees that their "Deferred Vested" benefits would be
available to them when they retire. If you are like most employees you
thought this meant that you would be able to collect your full GTE pension
(based on your years of work at GTE) when you reached early retirement age.
The truth is you cannot get 100% of your money until you reach age 65.


Agent_C

2006-02-23, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:33:59 GMT, "John Kapili" <John@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>The truth is you cannot get 100% of your money until you reach age 65.


So what's the big deal? That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

A_C
Notan

2006-02-23, 5:48 pm

Agent_C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:33:59 GMT, "John Kapili" <John@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> So what's the big deal? That seems perfectly reasonable to me.


Isn't it that way with most companies?

I'd say, be happy Verizon even offers retirement benefits, as a large number
of companies, these days, are just dropping them!

Notan
Dean

2006-02-27, 11:48 pm

If your company established a plan where you could invest money, and that
you could get the money out when you retired, and that you could retire at
55 (at a reduced pension), then changed the rules and told you you'd have to
wait until 10 years after you retired to get the money, that wouldn't bother
you?

Whether a company offers a pension, or No pension, or tells you they'll TAKE
money from you when you retire, isn't the issue. What's at issue is
fairness. It's unfair in any game to change the rules to one side's
advantage once the game has started. People chose to accept employment in
certain companies because of the benefits offered.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, companies are cutting and eliminating pensions. If it were
due to the company losing money to the point that the execs lost their
multi-million bonuses and golden parachutes, that would be one thing.
Instead, the fat cats are getting fatter by playing these pension games.

Don't start remedying the situation by cutting the throat of the little guy
who built your company. In the end, it's bad business.

Dean
____________________
____________________
___
"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lvorv11fh3c062q
4ikb7hsr0om1qfjo5ei@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:33:59 GMT, "John Kapili" <John@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> So what's the big deal? That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> A_C



Agent_C

2006-02-28, 5:48 pm

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:44:01 GMT, "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If your company established a plan where you could invest money, and that
>you could get the money out when you retired, and that you could retire at
>55 (at a reduced pension), then changed the rules and told you you'd have to
>wait until 10 years after you retired to get the money, that wouldn't bother
>you?


20 years ago; yes, but in today's world, one has to accept economic
realities.

It's very unlikely Verizon violated the law when they amended their
retirement plans. Too many lawyers on staff for that... More likely
you didn't read the fine print in one of those many notices they send
out.

A_C

LinkBot





Other Archives: Real Estate forum archive | Web Design archive | Software support archive | PC Hardware reviews archive | Medical topics archive

Copyright 2004 - 2008 cellphonetopics.com