November 2, 2005 The Honorable Paul Tagliabue
Commissioner
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Gene Upshaw
Executive Director
National Football League Players Association
2021 L. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: NFL Pension Plan
Dear Commissioner Tagliabue & Gene:
The purpose of this letter is to request that you re-visit an issue I raised before the last collective bargaining negotiations: raising the benefits for the approximately 325 former players who made the Social Security Election, thus condemning themselves, in many instances, to not being a position to have a livable existence.
I fully appreciate that a simple response, and one not without some merit, is that this group (“the Group”) made their choice of their own free-will and should live with the consequences. However, to take such an unforgiving position is to ignore reality:
1. The Social Security Election was an ill-advised provision that defeated the concept of what a pension plan is to achieve: security in retirement;
2. The transition from football to a post-career is often difficult;
3. Many, if not most, of the Group made their election because of financial hardships that come with divorce, illness (chronic illness of my wife), need for extra money to meet obligations (Herb Adderley: college education for children), job loss, and mistake (my Charger teammate, Paul Lowe, thought that his pension would be reduced by $50.00, not become $50.00);
4. The past pension increases were designed to improve the retirement income of all retired players; yet, the members of the Group were left behind.
When the pensions were initially increased, and with each subsequent increase, a structure could have been included to address the Group that was less punitive than using their $50.00 a month pensions as a base.
I would urge you to consider an increase of pensions for the Group that is not limited to a percentage of their current pensions. For instance, I, and many others, am currently receiving pensions of less than $150.00 a month. Those current figures could be increased 100% and still leave the Group wanting. I would like to suggest a program that will take into consideration the fact that the members of the Group made the election and received a larger pension amounts than they normally would from the ages of 45 to 62 (for instance, if I recall accurately, most received an extra $70.00 or $80.00 a month).
The suggested program envisions that the pensions of the Group would be raised to the same dollar amount as other retirees with the caveat that all extra monies received by the members of the Group during their election period would be recovered by the Plan by withholding Fifty Percent (50%) of the improved pension until the Plan recovers all advanced monies plus interest.
As an alternative, the pensions of the Group could be improved to $125.00 a month per year of service. This would be, of course, a less desirable course but that is an amount, when coupled with a Group member’s Social Security, might give him and his family a livable existence.
I can tell you that I have spoken to many former players who did not make the Social Security Election, and some current players; not one of them were concerned with how the Group members reached this unenviable position (their own election); they were more concerned that the current problem be addressed.
Your respective consideration is requested and needed.
Sincerely,
Ron Mix
0 comments:
Post a Comment