One-third GE Shareholders Backs Pension Proposal

April 26, 2000 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - For the second time in as many days, a significant number of shareholders registered their concern with large company retirement plan policies. On Wednesday it was General Electric's turn.

A  proposal protesting the gap between GE’s rank-and-file benefits and those offered to its directors, garnered the support of a full third of shares voted, according to a report by the Associated Press. The proposal was put forward by the GE Retiree Justice Fund and the Communications Workers of America Pension Fund, with just over $1 billion in assets.

While the proposal was defeated for the second year in a row, support grew from 29% at last year’s annual meeting. The GE vote came one day after 28% of IBM shareholders threw its support behind a resolution that would have given IBM’s workforce a choice in pension plans.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

In GE’s case, the union proposal that would have required shareholder approval of retirement packages for the board of directors was intended to protest the lack of comparable cost of living increases for regular employees, at a time when the GE’s $43 billion pension fund enjoys a surplus.

Getting there

Carrie Biggs-Adams, an NBC editor who spoke on behalf of the union proposal at today’s annual shareholder meeting, said she was pleased that the proposal gained more support than a year ago. “We’re getting there,” she said.

A group of GE retirees protested outside the annual meeting. They claim that GE’s pensions lag the industry, a claim GE denies.

The company recently announced increases in pension benefits for 134,000 eligible retirees effective May 1.

editors@plansponsor.com

Sen. Edwards Lashes Out at Frist-Breaux Draft

March 14, 2001 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Senator John Edwards (D-NC) has lashed out at a new patient's bill of rights from Senators Frist (R-TN) and Breaux (D-LA), still in the draft stages.

Edwards called the bill an “HMO Bill of Rights”, according to CongressDaily/A.M., and said the terms of the draft “appear to have multiple problems”, including:

  • A provision that would allow states to opt out of having to adopt the federal patient protection standards if a governor could show that it would raise health care costs in the state by 2% or more
  • A requirement that most new cases be tried in federal court, which Edwards said don’t have the resources to handle the cases

The Frist-Breaux bill would also let a state opt out if it could establish that:

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

  • It has a state protection that is essentially the same or
  • It has low HMO enrollment

In its current form, the Frist-Breaux bill ( Employers Might Find Patient Protection in Frist Bill ) would:

  • Allow employers to designate a third party that will have “clear and exclusive” authority to make determinations that give rise to a cause of action
  • Require patients to exhaust administrative appeals before going to court
  • Bar punitive damages
  • Limit non-economic damages to $500,000.

– Nevin Adams       editors@plansponsor.com

«