Raley’s scraps health coverage for some retirees
By Darrell Smith, Sacramento Bee
Raley’s will stop providing health coverage to its retired hourly employees 65 and older in July 2012, the supermarket chain said in a letter to retirees.
The letter, dated Oct. 24 and signed by Michael Teel, Raley’s president and chief executive officer, said the chain is struggling to maintain profitability amid a down economy, increased competition and escalating health costs.
“Unfortunately, due to the economic downturn and increased competition we are struggling to sustain our business,” the letter read. “We have … determined that Raley’s can no longer cover the cost of this benefit.”
Raley’s declined to comment Friday, but Jerry Landers, its senior director of human resources, issued a written statement reiterating the reasons for the change given in the letter.
The statement also noted, “We are continuing to provide generous medical coverage for our retirees under the age of 65, which is the most expensive time for individuals to purchase their own plans.”
But retired hourly workers over age 65, like Shirley Kinnett, 75, of Sacramento will have to pay for the coverage out of pocket starting July 1, 2012, carving out cash from a fixed income.
“I know retirees are going to be distraught by this. They’ve got to be,” Kinnett said.
We, too, have the same issues in the teaching profession.
Most of our recent LTUSD retirees return to school sites for several days (approx 15?) to either substitute and/or test students for correct CELDT levels to pay for escalating health coverage.
I believe most retirees choose to do this for the first few years after retirement to assist in paying the high health care premiums until the age of 65.
It is unfortunate, indeed, that retirees need to return to the work force to afford coverage.
This is a direct result of our poor economy.
Why does it make sense for an employer to purchase health insurance?
As an educator, withough health insurance and retirement benefits, who could afford to go into this field?
John It makes sense if you wish to keep good employees. In this day and age some corporations,city and states could care less.
John, when you apply for a job, you don’t just negotiate for salary, but also for benefits — including health and retirement.
It’s disturbing to me that corporations are allowed to go back on the deal after their people retire.
I do give Raley’s credit for continuing to pay for benefits for younger retirees who do not yet qualify for Medicare. However, the last I heard, the Raley family was living very comfortably indeed, and I wonder what their top executives have sacrificed in hopes of avoiding this cut in retiree benefits.
Knowbears, I understand that people negotiate for health care. I do not understand why anyone would want an employer to pay for health care and not groceries or clothing. It makes no sense. I understand this is a byproduct of wage controls started during WWII and then enshrined in the tax code in 1954, but it makes no sense that we hold on to this.
Medicare Part E … Health care for all at a great price. We could be just like every other industrialized country in the world. The insurance companies are stealing from us.
Haven’t you noticed that Europe is BROKE from such entitlements?
Seems to me like our entire healthcare system is dysfunctional and bankrupting everyone.
As a nation we pay more and get less.
Look at every measure of the health of our nation. We are at the bottom.