The Future of UC Retirement Benefits

In the retiree health benefit changes recommended by the task force & adopted by the Regents, protection & mitigation were given to employees who are ineligible for Medicare as they did not pay into Social Security.Yet nothing was done for employees who do pay SS & yet are penalized for being homosexual by having to pay more for domestic partners benefits (after- tax premiums,tax on the imputed income of UC’s contribution). Where are the much vaunted “Principles of Community”?

This new plan penalizes those employees who decided to pursue their career in the UC system right out of college and favors those who decided later in life to apply for work. It discriminates against the younger, loyal employees. As an example, I started working for UCSD while still in college. I have now worked as a permanent staff member since 2000. When this grandfather provision hits, I will have worked at UCSD for 13 years but will only be 34. Therefore I don’t make the greater than or equal to 50 cutoff. Someone who was hired only 5 years before the cutoff and was 45 at the time does. I will have to work over 40 years to obtain the same benefits that they can collect in 5. Sounds like a problem to me!!

To the young and loyal UCSD employee. I am in the same boat as you… and I think it is worse than you think. Since you don’t qualify to be grandfathered in, if you both retire at 65, the person who is grandfathered in will get 100% health coverage and you will get “100%” of 70% health coverage.

That is how layman’s eye is reading it.

It discriminates against the younger, loyal employees. As an example, I started working for UCSD while still in college. I have now worked as a permanent staff member since 2000. When this grandfather provision hits, I will have worked at UCSD for 13 years but will only be 34.

Result of All Indian Exam

i agree with ucsd not being fair to their young loyal employees. it does not make sense. in 2013, I’ll have 11 years of service and I’ll be 37. so I’ll miss the mark by 2. who came up with that magic number of 50?

I’m another one who just misses the cutoff. On July 1, 2013, I will have 12.5 years service and will be about to turn 38. However, because partial years of service don’t count, I will just miss the “50″ cutoff (37 + 12 = 49). Very frustrating.

The Regents applied to participate in a Federal Program Called ERRP,
to help Early Retirees with health care costs. They are listed as being accepted in the program as of 2011. My understanding is that this is a substantial amount of funding to be used for the benefit of early retirees . Why is it not reflected in the health care costs for Retirees? Where is this funding going, and how is it being used to lower costs?

Yet another employee here who just missed the cutoff here. I’ll be 41 with 8 years of service credit on the cutoff date. If months of age and service credit were included in the calculation, I’d actually make it, but I called HR and was informed that “only whole years are counted.” No joke, I will have to work more than a decade longer to get a worse version of the coverage I would have gotten if I were seven weeks older or had stared working for the university 8 weeks earlier.

Yes, of course, I’m personally upset that I will have to work 10 years longer than someone with exactly the same service credit who was born in June rather than July, but suppose the formula did include my months of service credit or age? All that would mean is that I’m now in the favored group, and someone else just barely loses out and has to work an extra decade or more than I do in order to subsidize my vastly better benefits.

I truly understand that UC needs to control retirement costs, and that health care is a big part of it. The real problem here is that UC created a completely arbitrary line that splits the existing workforce into two groups, one with vastly reduced benefits compared to the other. And these aren’t just new hires, this action excludes many mid career UC employees with a decade or more of work history.

Was there really no way to create a more balance, tiered system? Was it impossible to reduce benefits by a percentage based on service credit and (if we must) age at a cutoff date, rather than creating an all-or-nothing system? That way, people who just barely miss a cutoff would only lose out on a year, rather than a decade or more – and it would also mean that people above the cutoff would still share a bit in the sacrifice. Even if a tiered system wouldn’t be completely equal, it seems that this would be preferable to a single dividing line through the workforce with one half sacrificing vastly more than the other.

I’m in the same boat. When the July 1st deadline hits, I will be 32 and will have been with UC, Irvine for 14 years. I started here when I was 18, fresh out of high school.

I’m putting my name on this one. I want them to know who I am and that I’m upset.