CFN – Nearly a dozen city employees of Cornwall Ontario are peeved as they are not getting benefits due to being over the age of 65.
Since the Federal Government did away with mandatory retirement more and more seniors are working longer and as one councilor put it today:
We’re lucky enough to have experienced people willing to work after 65. They shouldn’t be penalized!
Andre Rivette stated:
Is it fair for two employees working side by side to not be getting the same benefits? Council was not notified of this issue until last night via email. I can assure you that if council had known about this it would have been taken care of and the employees would have their coverage.
Apparently the issue surfaced near Christmas but was not discussed during the budget process for 2013. The root of the issue is the insurance company and needing a ryder for those over the age of 65.
Dail Levesque, HR managers for the City of Cornwall commented:
The City is not in violation of any Human Rights code and is meeting the obligations of all of our collective agreements. We will be addressing the issue in the future.
In the meanwhile no word on Dental or other benefits that may be needed by those City employees affected.
The irony is that councilors Denis Thibault, Denis Carr, and Glen Grant who sit on the Personnel committee are all seniors themselves!
What do you think Cornwallites? Should those working over 65 for the city get their benefits too? You can vote in our poll below or post your comment.
Tell me something, did Paul Fitzpatrick get HIS with his retirement package? Did others, particularly with management stripes get theirs ‘after’ they retired?
This is not about retirement benefits, however, one would assume extension of work would preclude mean extension of benefits.
If these are benefits they had up to 65 and now age of retirement has changed to 67 AND they are not duplicated with OHIP, which covers drugs at 65 and perhaps other health needs, then I would say it is a fair process to carry on as they did prior to age 65…..now on through to 67.
Fairness and duplications considered are determining factors then aren’t they.
If these employee’s were to be replaced upon their retirements at age 65, would any replacements be allowed the same benefits?
If so then it would be a ‘no brainer’ to simply carry on the benefit cost wouldn’t it, until age 67, after which the replacement staff would simply have the cost rolled over to them.
I think that this is more the fault of their Union. My benefits ended at CCH when I turned 65 last year,however,I think that they should be allowed to keep those benefits OAS does not pay enough,cover enough & leaves seniors on the edge of poverty sometimes
People do realize that “their” benefits are paid by “our” taxes right? I say…tough luck, your too old, higher risk, and frankly…your benefits do not benefit our community as a whole, therefore…feel free to purchase your own benefits with your higher income, again paid for by people providing real value/service in the private sector.
Jason, you not know or realise this unique situation, The Federal Government changed the rules, not the city of Cornwall, by adding 2 more years to allow full retirement. Since these fine dedicated employee’s have had thee benefits up to 65 they should have deemed benefit carryover as approved as well.
Anyway, you, as I are entitled to your opinion.
My understanding is that it would be very costly to change all the existing benefits policies with the insurance company to cover those over age 65.
Has Councillor Gardner declared a confilct of interest on this subject?
Actually, ve3ydi, aren’t there a few more councillors over 65É Would they be in conflict if voting on this issue was required. Would they have a quorum. Just sayin………
Sorry, I was actually referring to his wife who the last time I checked was a city employee over 65 and should she receive benefits he could also have access as her husband.
I don’t believe councillors receive benefits because they are not full time employees.
Point to ve3ydi.