TelCo Retirees Association, Inc.
April 29, 2005
Members:
Much has been happening during the past weeks that warrant your immediate attention. This message will serve as a compendium of issues critical to both our membership and all former Pacific Bell employees.
Letter to Mr. Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. relative to a recommendation for improvements to our monthly “SBC Update” for retirees.
March 30, 2005
Mr. Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.
Chairman/CEO, SBC Communications
175 E. Houston St.
San Antonio, TX 78205
Dear Mr. Whitacre:
Way back on March 7, 2003, during your meeting with approximately 400 former Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell retirees at the Elks Club in Carmichael, California, I had the honor of addressing you and your staff members on the subject of “communications” (or the lack of) with SBC.
The point of my presentation, “Retirees never received meaningful communications from SBC. And, oh yes, we did receive notification regarding specific state or federal legislative issues and “would we write to our representatives to express our support (or lack of) depending upon the Bill’s impact to SBC.”
I also commented, the 400 management retirees in the audience were articulate, knowledgeable, loyal and many involved in a number of civic activities bringing considerable credit to our former company (Pacific Bell) and now to SBC. I concluded by stating, “Your retirees represent a million dollar corporation…but you don’t fund us! And by “not funding us,” I meant not communicating with us!
You responded by acknowledging that SBC hadn’t been doing a good communication job with its retirees and you would change that. (Approximately 3 months later, retirees began receiving the SBC Update.) Thank you for this effort.
However, I must now tell you that the thousands of retirees making up the TelCo Retirees Association, Inc. find the SBC Update (for retirees) is a marketing tool for SBC and of little value in keeping retirees updated on more critical issues.
Retirees are concerned about SBC’s future acquisition of AT&T, threats represented by UNE-p, VOIP, cable companies encroachment to P.O.T.S., regulatory agency issues, the EEOC’s decision that permits employers to create, adopt and maintain a wide range of retiree health plan designs without violating the ADEA Act of 1967, rising pharmaceutical co-pays, frustrations with United Healthcare, the decline of reimbursement of Medicare Part B for retirees and dependents and uncertainties surrounding the Medicare Part D legislation.
SBC retirees, for the most part, have already “upgraded” their communication services (including DSL access). Those living within an SBC service area now enjoy telephone concession service far exceeding our expectations. However, retirees living outside an SBC serving area receive a monthly stipend that barely covers their basic exchange service and is not in keeping with the CPUC filed tariff (Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A5 ), which suggests “the retiree choose Pacific Bell service, if possible!”
Your External Affairs organization needs to recognize its retirees do indeed represent a million dollar corporation that is still not being “adequately funded by SBC!”
Let’s truly “UPDATE” the SBC Update for Retirees!
Sincerely,
Sumner K. Emery, President
(Just received my April issue of the “Update”…no significant changes in format.)
Quarterly Membership Meeting
We have finalized plans for a Quarterly Membership Meeting in the greater San Francisco area for Wednesday, June 8, 2005. The meeting will be held at the Hilton Oakland Airport Hotel.
We have also made final plans for a Quarterly Meeting in the greater Sacramento area for September 28, 2005. This meeting is scheduled to be held at the Elks Lodge, 5631 Cypress Avenue, Carmichael, CA.
Both meetings will commence at 9:30 A.M. with adjournment scheduled for 12:00 noon. Because a number of members have expressed the desire to “socialize” with other retirees, the conference facility will be “open” at 9:00 A.M. to accommodate early arrivals. (Refreshments will be available.)
We ask that members (and guests) confirm their attendance plans two weeks in advance in order to make the necessary seating arrangements. A notice to this effect will be made in advance of our scheduled meeting.
A Pension Increase
The last pension increase for retired Pacific Bell managers (and non-bargained for employees) was granted in May 2000! It is the opinion of your Officers and Directors that in view of the ongoing salary increases (and bonuses) being granted to employed managers and executives and the pension increases granted to bargained-for employees of the CWA Union, January 1, 2005, 3.0%, January 1, 2006 , 2.5%, January 1, 2007, 2.5%, January 1, 2008, 2.25% (plus a cost of living adjustment) January 1, 2009, 2.25% (plus a cost of living adjustment), that THE TIME HAS COME FOR OUR ORGANIZATION TO DEMAND CONSIDERATION OF AN AD HOC PENSION INCREASE. WHILE OUR PENSION “CONTRACTS“ DID NOT INCLUDE PERIODIC PENSION “ADJUSTMENTS,” RETIREES HAVE RECEIVED A FEW PENSION INCREASES FOLLOWING DIVESTITURE..
“Cost of living expenses” have risen substantially since May of 2000.
The Bureau of Labor statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 0.2 % in January 2005. The January level of 190.7 was 3.0 % higher in January 2005 than in January 2004.
We are reminded daily of increases when we “gas-up” our automobiles, pay for our needed pharmaceuticals (in May of 2000 our pharmaceutical “co-pays” were $4.00/$8.00). And for our members who utilize an HMO for their medical provider, they have witnessed substantial monthly increases in their “co-pays.“ Many of us now find pharmaceutical expenses have increased more than tenfold. A quick review of your personal expenses (food, utilities, health, house and automobile insurance) gives ample credence to the need for a pension increase.
To place the full force of our TelCo Retirees Association, Inc. behind a request for a pension increase, I would like each of you to write a personal letter to SBC’s Chairman of the Board (whose full name and address are shown on the letter at the beginning of this message). The letter may be typed or handwritten and should be mailed to our Post Office Box 600067, San Diego, CA 92160-0067.
Upon receipt of all your letters, I will compose a covering letter from our Association and mail your correspondence to Mr. Whitacre in San Antonio, Texas (priority mail overnight).
(So that our 700 members without internet access can participate in this effort, copies of this message will be sent to them by U.S. mail.)
I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT YOUR INDIVIDUAL LETTERS WILL BE TO THIS EFFORT, ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR MEMBERSHIP NOW EXCEEDS 2000 AND RESIDE IN 38 DIFFERENT STATES!
National Retiree Legislative Network
The NRLN is forming a massive effort to secure passage of Senate Bill S.334. This bill known as the PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET ACCESS AND DRUG SAFETY ACT. This legislation was introduced on February 9, 2005 by Senator Byron Dorgan (D - S.D.) along with senators Olympia Snowe (R - ME), John McCain (R - AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D - MA).
This legislation (if passed) would allow U.S. licensed pharmacies, drug wholesalers and American consumers to import safe, FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada, European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan at lower prices. The bill stipulates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be authorized to approve prescription drugs from other countries to be exported to the United States when they meet statutory and regulatory requirements.
The bill includes the following safety features to ensure safe, FDA-approved prescription drugs.
(1) Pharmacies and drug wholesalers would be required to register with the FDA and would be subject to frequent, random inspections,. (2) only FDA-approved medicines with a “chain of custody” that can be traced back to an FDA-inspected manufacturing plant could be imported, (3) anti-counterfeiting technology to identify safe, legal imported medicines would be used to protect American prescription drug consumers, (4) provides the FDA resources and authority necessary to ensure the safety of imported drugs, (5) maintains the provision in current law that allows the HHS Secretary to immediately suspend importation if a product violates the law.
This bill, which is receiving bipartisan support, includes provisions to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry cannot thwart the law and prevent consumers from reaping the benefits of prescription drug imports.
THIS BILL IS ALSO THE SENATE COMPANION TO H.R. 2427, WHICH PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY A WIDE BIPARTISAN 248-186 VOTE ON JULY 25, 2004.
PLEASE WRITE OR PHONE YOUR U.S. SENATORS TO URGE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS PRO-RETIREE LEGISLATION. SAMPLE LETTERS FOR SENATORS CAN BE VIEWED AT THE NRLN WEBSITE (WWW.NRLN.ORG) AND TYPING IN YOUR ZIP CODE INTO THE “CAPWIZ BOX.”
THE S.334 BILL’S LANGUAGE IS ALSO POSTED IN THE NRLN LEGISLATIVE DIRECTORY AND THE NRLN WEBSITE.
Investigation of SBC Telephone Concession Plan On Behalf of SBC Retirees and Employees By Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (Washington, D.C. Law Firm.
We have just been made aware of this legal issue and are informed that this law firm attempted to intercede in the Class Action lawsuit filed by the US West Retiree Association against Qwest (their effort resulted in a delay of the settlement).
It is the current opinion of your TelCo Retirees Association that until we have resolved the formal CPUC complaint, we not consider the institution of any legal action to rectify SBC’s action in denying full telephone concession service for those retirees living “outside an SBC serving area.” In addition, if legal action eventually becomes necessary, we will explore using the legal firm that successfully litigated the concession issue against Qwest Corporation.
Dependent Eligibility
If you have not completed the necessary procedure to confirm your legal dependents with SBC’s Health Benefit group, please do so. For more information on this critical issue, contact SBC at 1-877-722-0020. (This service is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Service Associates are available Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Central Time.)
CPUC Complaint
Our formal complaint to the CPUC was executed on August 17, 2004. On December 27, 2004 we wrote President Michael Peevy requesting the status of the complaint. (As of this writing, we are not in receipt of a response.)
April 29, 2005
President Michael Peevy
California Public Utility Commission
155 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear President Peevy:
On December 27, 2004, I wrote to you requesting information as to the status of our formal CPUC complaint (filed August 17, 2004). Since I have not received a reply from your office at this writing and hundreds of former Pacific Bell employees (retirees) are being deprived of their promised telephone concession benefits, I have elected to write to you again seeking confirmation of our formal hearing date.
This formal complaint by the TelCo Retirees Association, Inc., representing former Pacific Bell employees, was brought about by the refusal of the SBC Corporation to provide telephone concession service to Pacific Bell retirees living “outside of an SBC serving area.”
Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A5 tariff (filed November 20, 1998 and approved January 1, 1999) makes no provision for the reduction of telephone concession service for retirees living “outside of an SBC serving area.” Indeed, Section 3, Paragraph A states, “TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONCESSION, ALL RECIPIENTS MUST SELECT PACIFIC BELL AS THEIR TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER WHENEVER THERE IS A CHOICE.”
Since many of these Pacific Bell retirees were receiving full concession service at the time of their retirement, only to have their concession reimbursement reduced arbitrarily by SBC, they are seeking reimbursement for their losses and equal treatment of their telephone concession services.
Would you be kind enough to provide me with any information you may have relative to a possible schedule for a hearing date.
Sincerely,
Sumner K. Emery, President
(A final settlement was reached by the US West Retiree Association against Qwest for their failure to provide full concession service for approximately 4,000 US West retirees living “outside of a Qwest serving area.” The settlement requires Qwest to send each of the impacted retirees a check in the amount of $300 for the time retirees were without telephone concession service and to provide them with toll concession service similar to SBC@home.)
SBC Pioneer Organizations
The President of the Verizon retiree organization (BellTel Retiree Association) through their research association provided us with a listing of all Pioneer groups in the SBC West area (Pacific Bell). We are now in the process of providing these groups with information about the TelCo Retirees Association, Inc. (Hopefully, we will acquaint a number of “Life Members” about our retiree organization and our ongoing efforts to ensure the continuation of their company benefits.)
President’s Closing Comments
When we accepted our retirement plans from Pacific Bell, little did we realize what the future held for all of us. While there is much to be criticized about SBC’s treatment of its retirees, their callousness towards our promised benefits, their reluctance in granting cost of living adjustments to our pensions and their astronomical increases in our health benefits, I must say I have serious doubts that the “Pacific Bell” we “grew up” in could have survived in today’s competitive world of communications. “Our world” was one governed by a “monopoly” and rigidly controlled by the CPUC. “Competition” was a “foreign issue.”
As we look at the demise of AT&T, the current financial conditions at Qwest and Lucent, perhaps the merger with SBC was a “blessing in disguise.”
During the NRLN Board of Directors Meeting in Washington, D.C. in January, the President of Southern New England Tel Retiree Association (SNET) and the Vice President of Ameritech Retiree Association sought my counsel in forming a major “SBC Retiree Association” in order to bring the full force of all SBC retirees under the same umbrella. (And yesterday Mr. Kolderup-President of Ameritech retirees contacted my office and suggested we have a conference call to discuss this “merger.” (Our individual Associations would retain incorporated autonomy, but band together on issues germane to all “SBC” retiree organizations.)
While such a decision must be approved by our Officers and Directors, I would greatly appreciate your views on this issue. (We plan to discuss this possibility during our future scheduled Quarterly Membership Meetings.)
S. K. Emery, President
Click here for print friendly version of this Newsletter.
Click here for MS Word version of this Newsletter.
