Should Workers Retire at 62?

Labor Relations Union Bargaining Power during a Recession The PBS News Hour reported that the "great recession" that hit the U.S. And much of the world beginning in 2008 there were companies that cut salaries in order to stay solvent during those financial hard times. "The current recession has severely undercut the bargaining power of labor unions," the PBS program explained (Solman, 2010).

As an example of what businesses have done to stay afloat during the recession, the Mott's juice and apple sauce factory in New York State simply cut wages in a union shop so the 300 workers went out on strike. No problem, said Mott's (owned by Dr. Pepper / Snapple), we'll just hire non-unionized workers ("scabs"), and they did, cutting back their costs to one-half of what they were paying union workers.

Because so many people have been put out of work during the recession, there are plenty of potential employees to work for less than the union workers were making, Solman explains. The unfairness for many union workers that either have been laid off or have gone on strike -- and for the millions of Americans who were looking for work during the recession -- is that "at the top of the corporate ladder, CEOs are making more than ever," Solman explains.

A recent study by the pro-labor Institute for Policy Studies reflects that "…of the 50 firms that laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis took home 42% more than the CEO pay average at S&P 500 firms as a whole" (Solman, p. 1). Meanwhile, in Labor Notes the writer urges unions to "Start now" to hammer out a better contract because management is apt to use the recession "…as an excuse to come after your collective bargaining agreement" (Blackadder, 2009).

Also, the article urges union leaders to "inoculate your co-workers" because the media is going to show stories of how workers across the country have accepted cuts in salaries; and moreover, the article urges unions to "turn it around on your employer…take the offensive" by going over the books and the administration costs "with a fine-tooth comb" (Blackadder, p. 2).

Discussion #2 -- Retirement at 62: Decline in pre-retirement standard of Living? What do people think about when it comes to decisions about retirement before the age of 65? An article in Benefits Pro-reflects a survey of 4,143 full and part-time workers, who were asked if they expect their living standards to improve or decline if they retire early. About 33% of those polled expect their living standards to "decline when they retire," based on a survey by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (Barron, 2014).

In that survey, 41% said they think their living standards will "stay about the same," and 9% are not certain as to what will happen (Barron, p. 1). The study polled the opinions of baby boomers, and learned that 65% of boomers actually wanted to work longer, and 41% are attempting to keep their job skills updated in case they need to continue working (Barron, p. 2). The math that is associated with early retirement tells a powerful story.

Assuming that a worker has a small pension coming after retirement, and has some savings but not enough to sustain him financially, retiring early makes no sense. Why? First of all, retiring at 62 years of age means that the person's Social Security benefits are reduced by 20%; so if the retiring worker had expected about $1,000 or so monthly from Social Security, instead he would be getting $800. If he retires at 63, the benefits are cut by 13.5%; and at age 64 benefits are cut by 6 2/3% (Epstein, 2006). Moreover, there are great concerns being expressed.