Sign in to follow this  
Guest Josh

New hires at Nissan won't get pensions

20 posts in this topic

Guest Josh

People hired at Nissan North America after Jan. 1 won't have a company pension when they retire.

And Nissan employees and retirees who didn't reach age 65 by the end of last year won't be included in a company-sponsored medical plan once they reach 65.

Nissan says the changes are part of an effort to keep its retirement plan viable and to remain competitive in the automotive industry.

"While Nissan sales and profitability remain strong today, strong sales do not necessarily equal success tomorrow," the company said in a letter to retirees.

The soon-to-be Nashville-based automaker has changed its retirement plan for new hires, going from a traditional pension with a guaranteed payout to a 401(k)-type plan that's at the mercy of each employee's investment strategy.

Starting next year, the company plans to pay retirees an annual stipend to supplement Medicare coverage to people who were younger than 65 at the end of last year, rather than offer a standalone insurance policy.

The changes weren't unexpected in light of what has happened with other automakers, said David Gore, 61, a retired Nissan manager and a manufacturing professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

Gore received an informational packet in the mail last week outlining the changes.

Full Story: http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll...388/1297/MTCN02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People hired at Nissan North America after Jan. 1 won't have a company pension when they retire.

And Nissan employees and retirees who didn't reach age 65 by the end of last year won't be included in a company-sponsored medical plan once they reach 65.

Nissan says the changes are part of an effort to keep its retirement plan viable and to remain competitive in the automotive industry.

"While Nissan sales and profitability remain strong today, strong sales do not necessarily equal success tomorrow," the company said in a letter to retirees.

The soon-to-be Nashville-based automaker has changed its retirement plan for new hires, going from a traditional pension with a guaranteed payout to a 401(k)-type plan that's at the mercy of each employee's investment strategy.

Starting next year, the company plans to pay retirees an annual stipend to supplement Medicare coverage to people who were younger than 65 at the end of last year, rather than offer a standalone insurance policy.

The changes weren't unexpected in light of what has happened with other automakers, said David Gore, 61, a retired Nissan manager and a manufacturing professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

Gore received an informational packet in the mail last week outlining the changes.

Full Story: http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll...388/1297/MTCN02

This is what GM should do. At least the new hire's part. No New Pensions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what GM should do.  At least the new hire's part. No New Pensions

it would be 30 years before GM would even see anything of benifit to that...

but... no companys these days offer good retirement program...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be 30 years before GM would even see anything of benifit to that...

but... no companys these days offer good retirement program...

They would see some, albeit small, benefit at the begining. They wouldn't have to contribute as much to the current pension fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People hired at Nissan North America after Jan. 1 won't have a company pension when they retire.

And Nissan employees and retirees who didn't reach age 65 by the end of last year won't be included in a company-sponsored medical plan once they reach 65.

Nissan says the changes are part of an effort to keep its retirement plan viable and to remain competitive in the automotive industry.

"While Nissan sales and profitability remain strong today, strong sales do not necessarily equal success tomorrow," the company said in a letter to retirees.

The soon-to-be Nashville-based automaker has changed its retirement plan for new hires, going from a traditional pension with a guaranteed payout to a 401(k)-type plan that's at the mercy of each employee's investment strategy.

Starting next year, the company plans to pay retirees an annual stipend to supplement Medicare coverage to people who were younger than 65 at the end of last year, rather than offer a standalone insurance policy.

The changes weren't unexpected in light of what has happened with other automakers, said David Gore, 61, a retired Nissan manager and a manufacturing professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

Gore received an informational packet in the mail last week outlining the changes.

Full Story: http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll...388/1297/MTCN02

GEE....no wonder Carlos is not worried that over 50% (some estimates even much higher) of the California-based employees are rumored NOT to make the move to Tennessee......

I always guessed that he was banking on that so that he could repopulate the employment of Nissan with lower-cost workers.....(many probably from GM and Ford.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what GM should do.  At least the new hire's part. No New Pensions

Who says they don't already do that for their white collar staff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GEE....no wonder Carlos is not worried that over 50% (some estimates even much higher) of the California-based employees are rumored NOT to make the move to Tennessee......

Yup - that is already figured into the plan.

I always guessed that he was banking on that so that he could repopulate the employment of Nissan with lower-cost workers.....(many probably from GM and Ford.)

Yup - There is recruitment going on right now. As for lower cost workers, I do not think so. I have seen the package they are offering.

Edited by evok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to California wages??

I can not speak for every position, but what I have just seen, YES!

Edited by evok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe everyone is all for raiding the middle class, in order to make them poorer.......all in the attempt to compete with unfair (government subsidized) foreign competitors.

This country is sick.....and you people are sick! Way to go government......one of the only things we really need them for, and where are they??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, its just the auto industry needing to/coming into line with every other industry in the country. in this case too its Carlos breaking out the hatchet and saying, 'here's your job, take it or leave it'

i know of no one who gets 'pensions' and fully paid for health care.

not that i condone cheap ass nissan for doing it, but i am just saying that for anyone to think that 100% health care, and a pension is typical employee benefits for most of AMURCHA is pretty out of touch.

Really, the whole source of the massive anti union sentiment in America is because

-the average middle class person does not get full health care or a pension and its hard for them to sympathize with anyone who thinks they are entitled to it, when they don't have it themselves

-therefore, the average middle class person without this stuff feels they are subisdizing a substandard company and feeding an inefficent and uncompetitive machine and in return are not getting maximum customer value out of it because the company is giving it all away to the employees.

Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting scheme. Move your head office out of sunny California and you know you'll loose a good chunk of your workers and then you can replace them with new ones with lower pay and no pensions.

Sorry but you really do not know what you are talking about. Yes, I am sure for entry level positions salarys will drop at HQ, but for the most part they will be the same or to fill the void they will go up in the short term. I have seen some of the packages they are good.

Second, for Nissan's salary staff, they have not offered pensions for new hires in years. The same goes for the US big 3.

Nashville will give Nissan a good central location between Japan and Paris.

And I am sure the property taxes that will be saved has a lot to do with with. Is it really worth millions to have a HQ in CA with todays electronic infrastructure.

Edited by evok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but you really do not know what you are talking about.  Yes, I am sure for entry level positions salarys will drop at HQ, but for the most part they will be the same or to fill the void they will go up in the short term.  I have seen some of the packages they are good.

Second, for Nissan's salary staff, they have not offered pensions for new hires in years.  The same goes for the US big 3.

Nashville will give Nissan a good central location between Japan and Paris.

And I am sure the property taxes that will be saved has a lot to do with with.  Is it really worth millions to have a HQ in CA with todays electronic infrastructure.

Your right I don't know what I'm talking about. I was being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be 30 years before GM would even see anything of benifit to that...

but... no companys these days offer good retirement program...

Actually, due to accounting rules, GM would see a rather sizeable benefit, as shown on the books, right away. Of course, the benefit in an operational sense is small, but the reduction in future liability (which is supposed to be carried on the balance sheet) is large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting scheme. Move your head office out of sunny California and you know you'll loose a good chunk of your workers and then you can replace them with new ones with lower pay and no pensions.

That is a very well known scheme and Nissan has no patent on it. I work for GM Powertrain, we have been consolidating since 1992. Every single consolidation has, as a side benefit, a reduction in workforce that simply "won't move". It is known, understood, and planned for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this