Conference 7.286::digital

    
    All WC will submit for sick days?  As a secretary, this one ought to be
    REAL interesting.  It's hard enough to get WC4s to submit for vacation
    days.....sick days ought to be even harder!
    

    
    
      I, for one, think ALL employees should be accountable for their sick
    days and limited to twelve a year. At the very least they should have
    medical proof of sickness for taking excessive sick days. I've seen
    too many of the same people, year after year, take more sick days and
    very frequently on Mondays and sunny days (especially if it's a sunny
    Monday!). 
      Then again, I average maybe three/four sick days a year. I remember
    that in 1986 I had NO sick days whatsoever and nobody in at Digital
    seemed to notice that!
    							-John R-

    Back when DELTA first began, I sent in an idea for WC4 to track sick
    time. I argued that the company had no idea how much this was costing
    them. I received an arrogant, condescending reply from some manager
    high in personnel. 
    
    After speaking with someone in the DELTA office, I resubmitted the same 
    idea for reconsideration. This time the reply was courteous, but I
    was told how creating a bureaucracy to track it at this time in the 
    company wasn't the thing to do. 
    
    Here we are, several years later, doing what I suggested. Of course, 
    someone else is getting the credit. 
    
    Linda

    Well, I also think companys should recognize "mental health" as a
    reason for taking a sick day.... BUT we all know that'll never happen.

    There are times when the stress had been just unbearable, and a
    impromptu "sick day" would most often have releaved that stress, and
    bring a person back to a reasonably calm/relaxed state... ready for
    work again.
    
    But, back to the subject.... The cost of "health care" is continuing to
    increase..... BUT the paycheck hasn't increased in over three years...
    
    I will wait for some formal announcement before passing judgement on
    this.... It could possibly be a regional thing... NO..???
    
    Bob G. 
    

How come I never see anyone propose the other side of the coin, namely that
employees note all the extra hours they put in for free and from which a
company benefits...? (I'm not just talking Digital here.) 

I always understood that salaried folks worked the hours needed to do the job.
Sometimes you go over, sometimes under, but over time it more or less balances
out. 

Gavin

    Re: .5 It was October 9, 1990 that your idea was submitted to DELTA.
    Your idea dealt with the abuse of sick time and requiring all WC4's
    to enter sick time so it could be tracked from a productivity
    perspective.  This is a very constructive approach to an issue that
    you clearly felt strongly about.
    
    Twenty-two other folks have also sent in ideas around sick time, at
    least 5 before you sent in yours.  
    
    You felt that the response that you got to your idea was appropriate at 
    the time.  
    
    Changes in the STD policy mean a change in sick time process. 
    
    So your good idea is being implemented but for a very different reason.
    Your contribution to DELTA is very valued.
    
    
     
     

        Re: .4

>      I, for one, think ALL employees should be accountable for their sick
>    days and limited to twelve a year.

        I think that limits on sick time are counter productive.  I
        have seen many people come in when they were sick and try to
        work--they stay sick longer because they aren't resting and
        spread their illness to coworkers.  These two practices result
        in even more time lost to illness.  Limits on sick time just
        apply more pressure to come in and spread diseases.

        I do agree that each employee should be accountable for their
        sick days.  For the people who abuse `sick days', manager should
        pay attention to the frequency and pattern of sick days for
        their employees and investigate if there appears to be abuse. 
        Time cards are neither necessary or sufficient for preventing
        abuse.

        And, as with many problems, a key to preventing abuse is to
        motive employees--give them interesting jobs that can have a
        positive effect on the corporation.

        					B.J.

     
    re: .4. You think people should be limited to 12 days a year? 
    Sick time, as it currently works, is accrued at so many hours
    per week as a WC2, up to 12 days. As a WC2 new hire, you are 
    required to accure this time - it is not automatic. 
    
    As you take a day, you accrue time back. Employees do have the
    potential to use more that 12 sick days per year, and get paid for
    them. To relate a personal experience this year, I was out 1 entire
    week due to flu and sinus infection, in January. I was then out another 
    7 days in March and April (non-consecutive days) with a bronchitis 
    and another sinus infection. Of course, I had doctor's notes to
    back me up. Are you telling me I should not be allowed another 
    sick day this year? I surely have the time if I need to take another 
    one - thank goodness. The accrual benefit ensures I do have some
    available if I need it, beyond what I have taken. 
    
    I happened to have a very unfortunate year - you are very lucky 
    you did not get sick. You know, as a veteran DECCIE of 14 years, I
    had years like you did, with no sick time taken. So are you saying 
    I'm a bad employee now? Are other employees in my situation 
    bad as well? You can't make blanket statements about sick people - 
    the situations are far too unique to make judgements. 
    
    Only management can deal with those who abuse the system - it 
    is their responsibility to track and ensure employees have 
    back to work notes when out, and to discuss problem situations. 
    That's why we pay manager's huge salaries - to deal with problems
    such as these. Making a 12 day limit does not solve a situation
    with a problem employee, it only penalizes a person who genuinely
    need the time, and the pay. 
    
    

    re .8:
    
    Good question.
    
    In my experience, it has *never* balanced out. I've been working 45-50
    hours a week average for as far back as I can remember.
    
    The bean counters who want to put a handle on sick time never seem to
    realize that it's the implicit trust placed in each one of us to
    use only what's necessary that prompts us to do whatever it takes to
    get the job done.
    
    A sad but obvious response to this demand to be meticulous in our
    accounting of sick time, would be to just as meticulously account
    for work time -- 40 hours, and not a second more.
    

    .10
    
    Another amen! :-)
    
    I was one of those people overjoyed to see the ban of smoking in
    work areas because breathing smoke aggravates a bronchial condition
    that otherwise would not be of much concern.  This same condition
    will cause problems for me when co-workers do come to work when they
    are obviously sick.  I'm a WC4 who is penalized at PA time if I
    miss 5 days in a six month period (even though I could produce a
    copy of a doctor's receipt for each outage).  The gal across from
    me gets a very bad cold but continues to come into work; a few
    sneezes in my direction and it never fails - at the very least
    bronchitis - a few times pneumonia.  A lot of my co-workers do not
    suffer to the same extreme, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist
    or someone with a medical degree to make a connection with obvious
    "bugs" working their way through an entire unit. In most cases, the
    people who are sick come into work because they are made to feel they
    are letting the "team" down if they stay home.
    
    I've heard of mental health days being discussed by folks who work
    in other areas of the company, but in a telephone support center if
    there are people taking them they don't advertise it.
    
    As far as limiting sick time to 12 days a year; that's a bit
    unrealistic IMHO.  My ex-husband worked in DEC field service for years.
    On the whole he was a very healthy individual; but one time after
    putting in several 110 hour weeks he caught a cold that quickly turned
    to pneumonia and had to be hospitalized.  His time out - almost 4
    weeks....if we go by the growing sentiment today, he would have been
    penalized....just as surely as all those hours put in leading up to
    the time he got sick would be forgotten.
    
    For those of you who enjoy good and robust health, more power to you;
    I envy you.  Just as "individuals" who abuse STD should be dealt with
    on an individual basis, I think the same should apply to sick time.
    Abuse it and you'll be called to task for it; but I'm tired of blanket
    "rules" applying to everyone.  We are not clones.
    
    It's amazing how accurately management is able to track outage, but
    conveniently forget the extra hours and lunch hours I've worked
    through.....cynical, you bet I am!
    
    

    
    Management responsible for getting time cards for sick time?  I know
    how it would work here.  My manager would ask me to remind so-and-so
    that a time card for the sick day was needed.  Then, I would be asked
    it I had gotten the time card.
    
    One other question came to mind.  WC4s don't have a "limit" on sick
    time currently.  With this new procedure, will there be a "limit" for
    the WC4s like there is for WC2s?
    

At Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), they encourage you not to take any sick
time by giving you a  $$ bonus at the end of the year if you go through the 
whole year without any sick days.  I think it was $100.00. Not much, but better
than nothing.

At New England Telephone, they allow you only three sick 'incedences' in your
career.  An incendent can be as short as one day or as long as several months.

The first one you are just reminded that sick time is not allowed at the Phone
Company, its in effect, a slap on the wrist.

The second one, your are given a verbal warning by your supervisor.

The third one, you get a written warning and could could be suspended.

This includes every type of absence from work, such as being out on maternity 
leave.

You could be out one day or 3 months to them its an incedent.

Certain groups in the phone company reward employees for have perfect attendance
records.  They, for example, give them a nice 'Telephone Company' decorative 
plate for your fireplace mantle.

You abuse it, you lose it.  We all know someone who takes advantage of the 
current situation, wc2 & wc4 people.


/Bryan

.15>  At New England Telephone, they allow you only three sick 'incedences' in 
.15>  your career.  An incendent can be as short as one day or as long as 
.15>  several months.

.15>  This includes every type of absence from work, such as being out on 
.15>  maternity leave.

    Could this be why my friends who work for NET are militant union
    supporters?
    

    I saw the phamphlet that Corporate Benefits sent to my manager
    regarding this issue.  The benefits people are doing this to "value
    difference"| and I, for one, am so glad.  Now, instead of three
    separate disability and sickness plan (each one getting more "perks"
    the higher up the ladder you get), there will be ONE, across the board
    for all wage classes.
    
    There will be no such thing after Sept. 28 as "accrued" sick time. 
    Now, sick time won't be earned (for WC2's).  It will just be tracked, at all
    levels.  That's it. 
    
    My manager puts in incredibly long hours, so I totally understand those
    people who think being out sick is wrong.  But as a WC3, since all the
    cutbacks, I too, have been putting in brutal hours, at low pay and no
    overtime.  I am also a person who has poor health, and have had several
    operations in recent years.  In no way should or do I feel guilty for
    my illness.  I put in the time and work just as hard as anyone else in
    DEC.  No one should be penalized for poor health.
    
    Tammi 

How does this (e)affect maternity leave?  Am I correct in understanding that 
maternity leave is considered STD at this time and there is no official 
"maternity leave" plan at this time?

Thanks,
Donna

    Maternity leave doesn't change as far as this booklet I saw goes.
    
    

>    
>    There will be no such thing after Sept. 28 as "accrued" sick time. 
>    Now, sick time won't be earned (for WC2's).  It will just be tracked, at all
>    levels.  That's it. 

'just tracked'.  When someone tracks such things, it is for a reason.  While a
use of the information might not exist now, would you care to bet how long it
will be before a use is found for it?

    re: all
    
    	Look at the history in this country of republican administrations
    and it has always been "when republicans are in office the workers
    take the brunt of it because they favor business over people..."
    
    
    	the history of democratic administrations has always been "when
    democratic are in office the workers take the brunt of it because of
    special interest and hence higher taxes in one form or another"
    
    	sad but true, this is what we're seeing now...nothing new and
    nothing that will ever change so be happy have a good day...in
    100 years no one will care...

    
      RE: .11 & .13 response to .4
    
      It was never my intention to impose a 12 day restriction on sick days.
    But I do feel (like I entered) that anything more that that should be
    accountable and repeated patterns should be looked into. Granted that 
    any of us could have a bad year and truly need, and be justified on
    using, the sick days that we have accrued/allowed.
      
    							-JR-

    My father worked for New York Telephone for 36 years.  He once went
    for 7 years without missing a day -- sick or otherwise.  They gave
    him a pen -- a good pen but a pen nonetheless.
    
    After that, he stayed home when he was sick.
    
    Larry
    
    

RE: .22

Sweeping generalizations aside, would you like to document your over
simplisitc statement?  Nothing is guaranteed in life, I think this includes
sick time.  What you are seeing with all of the cost containment policies
going into place (this is the beginning of one of them) is CYA.

Do some businesses dump on workers?  Yes.
Do some workers dump on businesses?  Yes.

Don't like it?  Go start your own business.  It's not as easy as it sounds
with all the government induced nonsence.

Charlie

    
    		You have no need to question.  We know what is
    		best for you.
    
    		Do not challenge.  Accept and be happy.
    
    		Your well-being is our only concern.
    
    
    		Love,
    
    		Big Brother

Let's value differences across the board. All workers must be required
to turn in time cards for sick days.  All workers must be paid overtime if
they work more than 40 hours a week. 

Karen

Karen,

	Oh, don't I wish.  However, then we'll have sick people working 
overtime.  :-)))))))

    A couple of concrete questions about this plan:
    
    If it's correct that WC2's are paid for unused sick days, does that mean
    that WC4's will also now receive that pay?
    
    What's the extra amount of $ that an employee will have to pay to get
    full disability coverage?
    

    
    WC2s get paid for unused sick days?  I'm a WC2 and never heard about
    this one.  Can I get some details?  Is this a yearly thing?
    

    re:. 20
    
    Nine weeks?  for maternity leave?  I was just told by Human Resources
    that I could take 6 total weeks of Maternity leave - 2 weeks before and
    4 weeks after (normal delivery) and if I work up to the birth of my
    baby, I can only take the 4 weeks after, not 6.  I will forfeit the 2
    weeks before if I don't take them.
    
    Where does 9 weeks come from?

    
    RE: .29
    
    WC2's are *NOT* paid for unused sick days.  We can accrue up to a
    maximum of 96 [or is it 92?] hours.  Once we hit the maximum, we 
    stop accruing sick time.
    
    Prior to hitting the five-year mark, I earn more sick time than 
    vacation time, a policy I find absolutely ludicrous.
    
    I view my accrued sick time similar to how I view accrued vacation 
    time -- as a WC2, I earned it.  It's my choice how, and if, to use 
    it.
    
    Interesting how the (ab)use of sick time is only being scrutinized
    here in the US.  I don't know the details for different countries, 
    but I do know that, similar to vacation time earned, our European 
    counterparts get bennies TONS more generous than we do in the US.
    
    Are the benefits cutbacks only happening stateside at this point?
    
    Carla
    

    I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but certain aspects of sick
    and maternity leave/pay are regulated by the State Dept. of Labor
    in each state.  New York, for example, mandates greater maternity leave
    and Digital complies.

    
    Re: .32
    
    >but I do know that, similar to vacation time earned, our European 
    >counterparts get bennies TONS more generous than we do in the US.
    
    
    I think you would probably find that most of those benefits are defined
    by the laws of each country.  I don't think there are many companies
    that provide employee benefits that are much above and beyond what is
    required of them by the letter of the law.
    
    LaDonna

    If sick days are going to be changed this might be moot; but I was
    a WC2 at the time I had surgery.  Because I had been fairly ill in
    the time leading up to the surgery, I had used up most of the sick
    time.  Soooooo, when I had the surgery I went almost 2 weeks without
    a paycheck because at that time it was 9 or 10 working days before
    STD kicked in.  It was explained to me *then* that this was the norm
    for WC2s, but not for WC3 & 4s.
    
    Emergency surgery does happen, but it seems to be the exception, not
    the rule; I've always thought expecting WC2s to have all their sick
    days available "in case" they got ill enough to require STD a little
    unrealistic.
    
    I just can't wait to see what's in store for everyone now.  Wonder who
    will track management?  I agree with the individual who said if sick
    time is going to be more closely tracked it is for a reason.  I don't
    have a problem with this if the rules (and/or penalties) for either
    attaining good attendance records or bad attendance (no matter how
    well medically documented) are implemented fairly across the board.
    
    Karen_who_has_used_vacation_days_already_to_offset_SICK_appearing_in_
    her_records_
    

>       <<< Note 2008.32 by CASHMR::BLAZEK "moonlight visions guide me" >>>
   
>    Interesting how the (ab)use of sick time is only being scrutinized
>    here in the US.  I don't know the details for different countries, 
>    but I do know that, similar to vacation time earned, our European 
>    counterparts get bennies TONS more generous than we do in the US.
 
If you took the difference between a US salary and, say a UK equivalent
salary for the same job I expect you could probably buy most of the
UK benefits with the difference and still have some change left over.

Craig

    I have not received any notice (at home or at work) about the changes
    detailed in the basenote.  Are there others who have not received the
    notice?  Or do I need to ask Personnel to re-send it to me?
    
    Chet

My understanding is that what has been sent out is a pre-announcement briefing
package to the managers so that they can be prepared to answer questions when
the changes are formally announced to the employees.  I think that it is
supposed to be announced in either August or September.

The schedule for this change is:

	July - Benefits Bulletin to employees
	Early Aguust - Training for Personnel
	August - distribution of enrollment materials to all employees
	August/Sept - Open enrollment (vis VTX or Benefits Authorization Forms)
	Sept. - New program effective 9/28/92

As of now there as been a distribution of a special issue of Benefits Bulletin
to personnel and management.

    -.1
    
    I haven't seen anything, yet.  But then, we had a house fire earlier
    this month, while on vacation and we lost all our mail.
    
    Whom do I call to get this resent?

The management issue of the benefits bulletin was sent inhouse not through 
the mail.   The Benefits Bulletin for all employees has not been sent yet to
my knowledge.

Does anyone know if there are other changes to our benefits (ie SAVE,ESPP..)
in this bulletin coming out?

 03-Aug-1992                      U.S. News                         LIVE WIRE


                New Disability Program effective September 28

  Effective September 28, 1992, Digital's new Disability Program will be 
  available to all U.S. employees scheduled to work at least 30 hours per 
  week.  Employees who are not actively at work on September 28, 1992, will 
  continue to be covered under the current disability plans until they return 
  to work.  The new program represents a different approach to providing 
  disability income protection at Digital -- both in the benefits provided 
  and in the choices available.  It is believed that this approach will offer 
  more equitable benefits that are flexible enough to meet the needs of 
  Digital's diverse employee population.

  The upcoming changes will consolidate all current disability plans -- the 
  Sick Pay Plan, the Accident & Sickness Plan, the Salary Continuation Plan, 
  and the Long-Term Disability (LTD) Plan.  Digital will now offer the same 
  program of income protection to all eligible employees, regardless of wage 
  class.

  Under the new program, all eligible employees will receive 100% salary 
  continuation for approved shorter-term disabilities, beginning on the first 
  day of an absence and continuing for up to 13 weeks.  If disabilities are 
  approved beyond 13 weeks, Digital will now provide a core benefit of 
  company-paid, coverage for longer-term disabilities, plus additional 
  employee-paid coverage options to meet the individual needs of the work force.

  During the week of August 10, employees will receive through interoffice 
  mail a Disability Program enrollment kit describing the new coverage choices
  available.  Employees should think about their income protection needs and 
  personal situation, and make their Disability Program selections during the 
  upcoming enrollment period -- August 17 - September 11.  The choices made 
  make at this time will become effective September 28, 1992, and remain in 
  effect until the next disability enrollment period.

  Employees who do not receive an enrollment kit should contact their local 
  Personnel office.  Employees who do not complete the enrollment process will 
  automatically be enrolled for 100% salary continuation coverage (for the 
  first 13 weeks of disability) and 50% core coverage (for longer-term 
  disabilities).

  During the Disability Program enrollment period, employees can enroll for 
  coverage electronically using VTX.  The new VTX enrollment procedure is a 
  menu-driven process that makes enrolling for Digital benefits easier.

  To begin the VTX enrollment process, type the keyword VTX DISABILITY_US at 
  the $ prompt.  Enter your badge number, pass through the system's security 
  check, and choose "Disability" from the enrollment menu.  Enter a one-letter
  code to choose coverage for longer-term disabilities.  You will receive 
  on-line confirmation of your disability coverage and its approximate 
  payroll cost.

Gee, Salary Continuation is now optional.... What happens if you are not sick?
Does your salary still continue?

    What about the LTD I've been paying for the last 13 years?  I 
    understood I was paying for additional insurance to cover a
    long-term disability; what happens to the money we've paid into that
    fund?
    
    

re .46, where is the LTD money

You've probably been buying insurance, which means there is no pool of funds.
Much like auto insurance, you pay and are covered even if you don't use it.

Lee

    The Livewire article sounds like it was written by the same person who
    did the infamous DCU "More Choices" garbage.
    
    Bob

    I assume that in order to end up with the same coverage as a U.S.
    wage-class 4 employee who has been paying for long-term disability
    coverage already, the price has gone up, right?  Anyone know how much? 
    (I'm still stining from the huge increase in health insurance costs to
    join my non-user-friendly-in-the-extreme HMO!!!).
    
    /Charlotte

    
    .48: my reaction exactly... "CAUTION -- spin doctors at work!"
    
    It's amazing how this company can turn a serious degradation of
    benefits into a new feature.
    

I also want to know if you are already paying into LTD if you will 
automatically be dropped into "base-level" coverage and not have deductions 
for disability by default or if you still have to fill out a form.

RE: -.1
Exactly, I find their wording of it all a bit sickening, but I guess that's 
why they title it:

"Benefits Bulletin"
          ****
;-)
Dawn

See 9th paragraph "...as well as not cutting back on employee benefits..."
    
    
Newsgroups: clari.biz.labor,clari.biz.finance.services,clari.tw.health
Subject: Suggestions offered for reducing workplace stress
Keywords: employment, labor, polling services, service industries,
	insurance commodities, financial services, fitness, health
Date: 3 Aug 92 23:08:02 GMT
 
	MINNEAPOLIS (UPI) -- Companies can take steps to reduce workplace
stress that will cut down on employee illnesses, disability and burnout,
an insurance company says.
	A spokeswoman for Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. in
Minneapolis, which conducted the two-year study, said businesses can
make themselves more profitable by helping their employees chill out.
	``The research shows managing workplace stress is managing the
company's bottom line,'' said Peggy Lawless, NWNL research project
director. ``Companies that invest in these programs will earn a return
in higher morale and productivity and lower signess and turnover.''
	The study found that communication among employees and between
management and employees is the most significant way to relieve stress.
	``Companies should create an environment where employees talk with
each other and resolve personal conflcits, and management should offer
workers support and recognition,'' Lawless said.
	The report also suggests that companies give their employees adequate
control to do their jobs.
	``Employees thrive on having decision-making ability, and they feel
less stressed when they don't have to face a lot of red tape,'' she
said.
	Employee stress also can be lifted by improving the perks workers
receive.
	``Sufficient personal time for vacation, sickness or daily relaxation
periods, as well as not cutting back on employee benefits, help
employees cope with stress,'' Lawless said.
	NWNL describes a high-stress workplace as one where management does
not communicate with or delegate control to employees; employees' work
is fast-paced and performed in poor environmental conditions; overtime
is frequent; personal conflicts are common; and employee benefits have
been reduced recently.
	The Minneapolis-based insurance company said its study of nearly 1,
300 employees selected randomly nationwide found a higher percentage of
employees reported burnout in organizations that do not have stress-
reduction programs or policies in place. As many as 48 percent of
employees reported burnout, the report said. Organizations with such
programs or policies in place reported lower burnout rates of 20-28
percent.
	``As companies deal with increased competition and workplace stress,
the survivors are likely to be those that confront jobs stress head on,''
Lawless said.
	Here's NWNL's top 10 ways companies can reduce employee burnout:
	1. Allow employees to talk freely with one another
	2. Reduce personal conflicts on the job
	3. Give employees adequate control over how they do their work
	4. Ensure adequate staffing and expense budgets
	5. Talk openly with employees
	6. Support employees' efforts
	7. Provide competitive personal leave and vacation benefits
	8. Maintain current levels of employee benefits
	9. Reduce the amount of red tape for employees
	10. Recognize and reward employees for their accomplishments and
            contributions.

    
    Re .44:
    
    I have a contact (and will supply by mail) if anyone wants to send
    comments to the author of the LIVEWIRE article, on the content of the
    article itself. Comments on the benefits change should be made to local
    PSAs or Corporate Personnel.
    

    - start quote
    
    Remember, employees will pay their share of the cost of the new
    program with pre-tax dollars; therefore, benefits under the new program
    are considered taxable income.
    
    In Addition, THE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS REQUIRED FOR CONTINUING AN
    EMPLOYEE'S MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGES WILL NO LONGER
    BE WAIVED DURING A DISABILITY. (EMPHASIS PLACED IN THE BULLETIN) There
    are two reasons behind this change in policy.  First, Digital wants
    disabled employees to maintain their pre-disability income - not exceed
    it.
    
    Second, Digital found that be requiring disabled employees to continue
    making contributions for their benefits during a disability, the
    Company would achieve significant cost savings.  These savings could
    then offset the overall cost of the new Disability Program.
    
    .
    .
    .
    
    As a manager, you must:
    
    Ensure that you and youre employees (regardless of their wage clss),
    report all absences due to casual illness or that become a disability
    
    * Make sure that all employees apply for income protection benefits if
    they expect to be out for more than five consecutirve working days.
    
    * Verify that pay checks/stubs are send to employees while on
    disability.
    
    * Work with Digital resoureces to facilitate and support en emplyee's
    recovery, rehabilitation, and return to work.  Generally, employees who
    are absent for 13 weeks or less will return to the position they held
    prior to disability.  Emplooyees absend for 13 to 26 weeks will be
    places in an appropriate position.  Employees absent for more thatn 26
    weeks will be given a 13-weeks job search perior and support to find
    another position.
    
    - end quote

    .52 is interesting.  I used to work for a subsidiary of NWNL.  Maybe
    they are finally waking up and smelling the roses.  They were not a
    company that encouraged open communication, if anything it was
    discouraged and definitely frowned upon.
    
    Karen

    The rates for LTD are;
    
                 Option A (75% option) .40 per $100 (base salary)
    
                 Option B (100% option) .90 per $100 (base salary)
    
                                       

    Re: .56

    fwiw, if I read those figures correctly, then to maintain the
    coverage that I currently have, my payroll deduction for LTD will
    increase by approximately 250%.

	Mike

    Those figures are correct, but I don't think its a 250% increase. We 
    currently pay .36 per $100.

    Well, what I did was look at my current LTD from my paystub (I'm
    WC4) and got number X.  Then I took my salary and figured
    .9*salary/100 and got number Y.  Y was 2� times X.  Which makes
    sense since .9/.36 = 2.5  I guess the differential would be the
    level of coverage.  What is the current LTD level of coverage?

	Mike

    Current LTD Plan(s);
    
    WC2 - 66 2/3% of your base salary (tax free) for the length of your
    disability to age 65, in most cases, after the 26 week waiting period
    (if elected).
    
    WC3 - 66 2/3% of your base salary (tax free) for the length of your
    disability to age 65, in most cases, after the 26 week waiting period
    (if elected).
    
    WC4 - 66 2/3 of your base salary (tax free) for the length of your
    disability to age 65, in most cases, after the 26 week waiting period
    (if elected).
    
    
    

.36 per $100 for 66 2/3% of salary with no taxes.
.90 per $100 for 100% of salary with taxes.

Considering taxes are at about 30% or higher, I think you can state that
this is a 150% (100 + 150 = 2.5 times) increase.

Details - I'm WC4.

I just checked the math, the 75% option is pretty much a wash in cost.
Keep in mind that the amount of salary covered is different, figuring this
in resulted in about a 10 cent change per week.

The 100% coverage is much more expensive but had been unavailable.  In fact,
I would question the 100% number.  Almost all LTD policies have a coordination
clause.

Question: I thought LTD payments were tax free, which is one reason why only
a portion of the salary was covered.  Can anyone confirm this?

    re.142  LTD payments were tax free, but that will now change because of
    the pre-tax of the new LTD.
    
    At the risk of being called a "spin doctor" here is an example of a
    married person making 50k per year as LTD is now and how it compares to
    the new LTD;
    
                      Current LTD        Option A         Option B
    
    Weekly Deduction      $3.46             $3.85            $8.66
    
    Effect of Tax          -0                -1.15           -$3.66
    
    Net Weekly Cost        $3.46             $2.70            $5.00
    

Can you elaborate on why the company would move from post to pre-tax?
Because of my sizable deductions (6 kids plus house, etc.) my federal tax
rate is only 7% or so.  But, if I have to pay taxes on 75% of my salary, the 
net result would be that I would need to seriously consider option B to approach
replacement salary level.

What advantage is in it for the company?  There must be one - one doesn't make
changes like this unless there's a reason.

    re.61 I'm not sure where you are getting a 250% increase, but here is
    an example of a married person who makes 50K.
    
                      Current LTD        Option A         Option B
    
    Weekly Deduction      $3.46           $3.85             $8.66
    Effect of Tax            -0          -$1.15            -$3.66
    
    Net Weekly Cost       $3.46           $2.70             $5.00

re: .62

Thanks for the example; it picks up the pre-tax benefit that reduces
the weekly cost that the earlier calculations left out.

Suggest you add gross and net annual yield that would be realized if
LTD benefits are actually paid, and then compute the net cost per $1000
of net benefit.

 -g

    re.145 I'm not sure. I would guess it has something to do with the core
           (50%) option that is paid by the company. In the past if folks
            didn't elect to pick up LTD they would have no coverage. With
            the new plan everyone is covered for the core benefit (50%).
            If I find the "official" answer I will post it. 

.141:

I didn't listen to or believe those words from management in the first place,
nor have I ever.  

Look, the company is looking for places to squeeze, so they start in the softest
places (us).  This is usually done without regard for the long term, or for that
matter, common sense.  It's just "bidniss".  The company's dealing from a 
position of relative strength (they have the short supply jobs that most 
employees (for whatever reasons) want to hold onto), we, the employees, are
generally letting it happen by doing little more than complaining.

In reality, I don't know what more a person trying to support a family could do,
which is only a source of more strength for the company.

Yes, with this plan, the company's cutting benefits and/or pay.  Yes, this is
one more case of the employee giving something up to keep their job.  But, I 
ask again, is this such a surprise?  I don't think it's a surprise.  I was upset
over the whole medical plan pay cut, but I wasn't surprised.  With such a clear
precedent as that, how can we be surprised about this LTD business?

No, I don't like it.  No, I don't buy all the happy-talk babble that comes with
the announcement.  No, I don't like it.  I'm just not surprised about it.

Well, actually, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by it.

    
    I must be missing something.  Under the current plan Digital
    provides NO long term benefits.  You pay for them i.e. if you're
    wage class 4 and have LTD and are out of work over six months,
    then you get 66.6% of pay until age 65 or you return to work.
    If you don't elect LTD, then you get 100% of pay for the six months
    provided by Digital and after that you're out of luck.
    
    Under the new plan, Digital provides 100% of salary for 13 weeks and
    after that 50% of salary until you are 65 at no cost to employee.  If
    you select option A or B you get more.  So if employee X earned $1000
    a week it would be:
    
    		o $1000 for 13 weeks
    		o After 13 weeks $500 until whenever provided by
    		    Digital
    		o If you had plan A an additional $250
    		o If you had plan B the full $1000.
    
    Now, I get 100% for six months for gratis and after that either
    I've elected LTD or I'm on my own.  With the new plan, I'll get 100%
    for only 13 weeks, BUT, again for gratis %50 for as long as I'm out
    until age 65.  How is that not an INCREASED benefit?  If employee
    X elected option A, for example, then that would be providing an
    additional 25% at .40/100 or 75% of pay for $1.00 and if option B it
    would be 100% at .90/100 or 100% of pay for $4.50.  That's a better
    deal than we get now!
    
    That's the way this brochure I'm holding reads to me. No?
    
    Steve
    

    re: John Santos' example

    John, I see one very BIG piece missing from your example.  The benefit that
    is being discussed has also changed!  It has gone from non-taxable to
    taxed.  I think that that fact needs to be addressed along with the change
    in price.  That advantage alone can make or break a family.  If I get 50%
    of my pay tax free, I can live.  If I get 66 2/3% of my pay and have to
    pay taxes on it, I am in big trouble.

    I rather not get into the New Speak of the memo.  It just confirms my
    frustration with all the bad news that is put forth as good news.

    Lee G.

    ... while you lose the full week 14-26 Salary Continuation Plan, you do
    receive half of it, at no cost, and it continues until age 65 if you
    remain disabled that long.  I have little doubt that Digital is trying
    to control its costs with the new LTD plan (as well as making it more
    equitable among all wage classes), but I'd really like to see some
    comparative statistics on cost/benefit--before and after.
    
    /Ed
================================================================================
Note 2006.147       Core Management, Inc. STD Admin. Policies         147 of 148
UNXA::ADLER "Rich or poor, it's nice to have $$$"     6 lines   5-AUG-1992 13:43
                          -< Take note, you WC4's... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... you lose the Salary Continuation Plan for weeks 14 through 26 of
    your disability that you used to get under the old plan.  Now you'll
    only receive half salary (unless you choose option A or B), and it's
    taxable, to boot.
    
    /Ed

    RE:-1

    >I must be missing something.
        
    Steve,

    Yes, you are.  It is the effect of taxes on the benefit!!!

    Since I saw the other note string (CMI) before this one, I have replied
    over there on this subject so I won't repeat myself here.


    Lee G.

    re.149 I thought I addressed that point, but I've been jumping back and
    forth from notes 2006 and 2008 I could have put something in the other
    note. 
    Using my example I would guess the benefit would be real close. Option
    B would cost $5.00 per week for 100% of your pay (taxed) while the
    current plan costs $3.46 per week for 66 2/3% of your pay (non Taxed).

    To: Jsantos
    
    I'm thoroughly confused about the changes since we haven't received
    any documentation and VTX is ill on our system.  Could you compare the
    old system vs the new one in terms of what income is taxed?  Is it
    correct that under the old system, the income was tax free, but under
    the new system, it's taxed, regardless of whether an employee goes with
    the basic, 75%, or 100%?  And why is this?  Something about the fees
    being from pre-tax income or something?    Thanks.
    

    Something else, I don't think any insurance would make it more
    lucrative for you to be out of work rather than at work.  So if you
    were getting 100% of your salary and didn't pay taxes on that you would
    be essentially getting a raise equivalent to the amount of your taxes
    and there wouldn't be any incentive to get off LTD.  (ACHF--another
    county heard from)
    
    DAR

    If you buy insurance (e.g. LTD) with income that you've already
    paid taxes on (e.g. current situation), than the insurance payments
    are NOT taxed.
    
    If you pay pre-tax income for the "insurance", than the insurance
    payments ARE taxed. 
    
    (I think medical and dental insurance are a special case, thus the
    pre-tax payment situation that we've got now).
    
    The 26 or 13 or whatever "salary continuation" is taxable income.
    Since the 50% that DEC will pay is not "bought" by any post-tax
    income, that is also taxable.

    re.152  I think you answered your own question and the following notes
    made it pretty clear.
    

    I've tried to combine the discussions of the LTD changes from note 2006
    into this topic.  I couldn't get them all, but I think I got the
    important ones.
    
    Please continue any discussion of the LTD benefits change in this note.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

	I've not yet seen any of the literature. Can someone describe
	what happens to those that are currently on LTD (via Prudential
	and Social Security Disability)?

	My wife is currently on LTD, with very little hope of ever returning
	to work (long story, but basically she has a de-generative bone
	disease).

	Do her benefits remain the same?

Thanks,

Jim

    re.80 If you are not actively at work on September 28, 1992, you will
    continue to be covered under the disability plans in place when your
    disability began. when you return to active status, you will have 31
    days to make your new Digital Disability Program election.
                                              

                     <<< Note 2008.81 by USPMLO::JSANTOS >>>

Thanks.

Jim

    What if a person is on partial disability?  Do the benefits change or
    remain the same until returning to full time?
    
    Karen

    well, if there appears to be so many disgruntled people and no one
    knows how to fix it, why not start an electronic petition right here in
    this file?  This file is read globally and I would bet that BP hears
    what goes on in here.  I'm sure there are many RO's that would feel
    like not speaking up for fear of making waves and getting the boot, but
    does that really matter any more?
    
    Reg.

    re .84 -- see reply.71
    
    The company doesn't care.  Just bend over and hope they use vaseline

    re.83 A partial disability is coded as disabled on the personnel
    system, therefore the same rules as a total disability would apply.
    
    re.84 I understand that Digital bashing seems to be the in thing to do
          these days, but not by me. If you have a valid issue you need to 
          work call me and I will point you in the right direction. If you 
          want to start what you suggest in note .84 I would suggest
          there are enough "DB" notes in here, but if you really want to
          start another thats up to you. 
    
          Many people are upset because of what is going on in this company 
          and because of the realization that job security isn't what it use 
          to be for most us (myself included). I for one would rather be part 
          of the solution than part of the problem. If that means that I have to
          be let go because my job has been reorganized I won't be happy
          about it, but my wife and I have prepared for it as best we can.
           
          It seemed like we were starting to create a meaningful dialog
          in this note that could have helped folks understand this new 
          policy and what it means to them. And, maybe, if we could have
          convinced others that notes is a great communication tool by
          using this note as an example we could have done something
          similar when open enrollment for medical starts.
        
                                  John
      

        I'm not sure why people are complaining about reduced benefits. 
        The disability plan (for WC4) isn't worse, just different.

        Comparing the old and new plans based on length of disability:

            Length		Basic (no cost) coverage

            1-13 weeks		no change
            14-38 weeks		worse than the old plan
            39 or more weeks	better than the old plan--much better

        Digital says in the Benefits Bulletin (and I believe based on
        what I have seen) that most disabilities are shorter than 13
        weeks--the period where the old and new benefits are identical. 
        Anyone permanently disabled, or even out of work for a year,
        also gets a better deal.

        Furthermore, Digital will let you purchase additional insurance
        (Option B) to provide you with roughly the same coverage as you
        were allowed to purchase under the previous plan.  (The old plan
        gave you roughly the equivalent of your normal salary, the new
        plan gives you exactly the same as your salary.)  If you don't
        want that much coverage, there is a new option that allows less
        insurance to be purchased.

        I can't blame Digital for the increased premiums.  Digital isn't
        providing the benefit, but allowing employees (as a group) to
        purchase the insurance.  From the numbers given by Jsantos, the
        `typical' after-tax cost of option B is 44% higher than the cost
        of current coverage.  According to the Benefit Bulletin, there
        has been increased use of LTD (which raises rates) and the rates
        haven't increased since 1986--inflation since 1986 accounts for
        most of the increase.

        It would be great if the insurance company would provide the
        insurance for five cents per week, but it isn't going to happen. 
        I assume that Digital went for the best rate they were offered
        from a reliable insurance company.  (But, just in case, I'm
        planning to investigate purchasing disability insurance from
        other sources.)

        					B.J.

    
    
      I'm still unclear on a few things.  Can anybody answer the
    following:
    
      Is the "Core 50% benifit"  (Which contains no "employee paid portion"
    	subject to income tax?  (I.E.  what is the _real_ difference
    	between the "core 50%" benifit  and the _TAXED_ 75% benifit?
    
      The benifits bulletin refers to no price change since 1986 due
    	to a rate guarantee with the previous carrier.  Does the new
    	contract contain a similar guaranteed rate, or is this now
    	subject to change every year?
    
    
      Are there any exclusions in this new plan?  (Specifically, are pilots
    	of small aircraft, and skydivers also covered?)
    
      How do these rates compare with private  plans?  I've never given
    	much (if any) thought to private life/ltd insurance,  but now
    	that I'm getting married (and older)  it bears looking into.  
    
    
      Maybe we need a separate notes file for this like there was for
    serp?
    
    
    						-al

Under the current LTD you get 60% of salary for the term of the disibility,
tax free.  The 60% figure is "equivalent" to your full salary because:

	1) It is tax free
	2) You are not commuting, and paying the related expenses

I never worked it out for myself, but I don't know if 40% of my income
is consumed by income taxes and commutting, in isolation.

The new "free" plan gives you 50% of your income, TAXED.
This is NOT equivalent to 60% non taxed.  This would reduce the real long
term income to the  area of 30% (or so) of your original income, plus
you are responsible for paying your share of benefits out of it.

The new "equivalent cost" option of 75% is a little better, but still not
really equivalent, given, say:

	1) 20% Income tax (15% of current income, reducing the 75% to 60%
			immediately)
	2) Say 3% for FICA, etc  (2.25% of current income)
	3) Paying for current benefits, while on LTD.
	4) I assume, state income tax is possible (was the previous
	   plan state income tax free also ?)

The "extra cost option" (100%), would be the only one which meets or
exceeds the current 60% tax free option, and then it would be by whatever
current cost is incurred for commuting.

Note NONE of the above discussion includes aything for support of the condition
for which you are on LTD (Say in home nursing, a house cleaner if you are
physically incapacitated, etc, etc).

Also, none of the above includes any potential Federal (Social Security based)
or possible state disability programs (possibly another point for disussion to
help evaluate the options).

    re. 89 No exclutions. The core benefit will be taxed also. I'm not sure 
        about increases for following years.

    
    I am 'happy to have benefits' too. I am not so 'happy' that I don't
    think about the cost of those benefits. In the past, folks in charge of
    making benefit decisions have made mistakes. I think this is another
    one.
    
    Any insurance is based on statistics and and adjusted via results. The
    chances of any individual using LTD are the same regardless of the
    level of compensation chosen - 50% 75% 100%.
    
    It is absurd that the cost of coverage for 100% is more than twice that
    for 75%. There is a base administration cost of each person signing up
    that should be reflected in the 75% cost but, the increase to 100%
    should be devoid of that as well as reflect the economies of scale that
    are reflected in ALL other insurance from any really competing carrier.
    
    I can accept that the cost of goods and services increases over time. I
    can accept that I have to pay more to get more (though I not sure that
    is the case in terms of coverage for this LTD issue). I eagerly await
    the explanation of why the second 25% of coverage costs more than the
    first 25% of coverage. 
    
    John B. 

    
    Re: .89
    
    >Is the "Core 50% benifit"  (Which contains no "employee paid portion"
    >subject to income tax?  (I.E.  what is the _real_ difference
    >between the "core 50%" benifit  and the _TAXED_ 75% benifit?
    
    Yes, because the company pays the premium for the core 50%,
    it is considered part of your compensation and all compensation
    is taxable.  
    
    Under the new plan anyone who goes out on disability will have
    to pay income tax on any benefit amount received, because the
    money which pays the premiums for options A or B is not subject
    to tax.  Look at your paycheck now.  The weekly amount that comes
    out to pay your health insurance has been excluded from your gross
    pay so that no tax has been paid on it.
    
    >  How do these rates compare with private  plans?  I've never given
    >	much (if any) thought to private life/ltd insurance,  but now
    > 	that I'm getting married (and older)  it bears looking into.  
    
    I don't what current rates are but in a life before Digital I sold
    disability income insurance for Mutual of Omaha.  I would bet a week's
    pay that you can't match this deal privately unless it were part of
    some overall package i.e. you bought life insurance, mutual funds,
    homeowers, etc. under one contract.  This is a deal.
    
    I pay significantly less under the Digital plan now and for more
    coverage than I would have paid 20 years ago for a private plan.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    re.92  This is only a guess and I hope the person who use to sell
    insurance can help us out here. You are not purchasing an additional
    25% (75% to 100%). You have a choice of two different plans (one at 25%
    and the other at 50%). The minimum benefit payable is different for
    each plan (A is $115 per month and B is $150 per month). 

    
    Some years back I was on disability (Long-term) with another company. 
    The benefits were somewhere around 60% of gross salary with no taxes
    other than I believe it was social security taken out.  What I received
    under these guidelines was actually more than I received at 100% with
    taxes.
    
    This whole thing confuses the daylights out of me...but then all the
    plans that have come around do.  Why can't they put them in readable
    and understandable English for those of us that don't have degrees in
    "benefits"?
    

Re: .93  Steve, please contact me off-line, I don't know what your weekly
salary is, but every penny helps.  :-)

Prior to the new improved salary continuation plan, Digital's rates for LTD
and *coverage* were the best that I had ever seen.  Up until DEC, the best rates
I had seen were from the IEEE LTD plan.  The disadvantage of the IEEE plan was
that it only covered 60% of your salary *AND* (<- everybody pay attention) there
were coordination rules such that the LTD payment plus anything else you received
from workman's comp, state disability and Social Welfare (Security) would
not exceed 60%.  This was my last understanding, I could never get anybody to tell
me the exact story.  They kept referring to the legal mumble.

After the new improved plan is in place, I *know* the IEEE provides better rates.
And it is all tax free since the payments are with after-tax income.

I've seen this phenomena occur before with past companies.  I am *certain* that
someone somewhere knows that DEC is not getting the best deal for LTD.
For that matter, the life insurance rates stink as well.

Charlie

    What is IEEE? Your memo was a bit confusing, but if you can get us
    better coverage for cheaper rates I'm all for it. 

    IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
    
    They offer, among other benefits, several insurance packages that
    members can use to augment employer packages. Big benefit is that
    between jobs you keep the coverage. Their Term Life is excellent.
    
    Now compared to what's been touted as the new DEC plan their LTD looks
    very good.

Before everyone starts looking for the IEEE, you must be an EE of some variety
to join.  You must be a member (100/year) before you can sign up for the plans.
Even adding the 100/year in, their term life cannot be touched and that's
BEFORE the premium refunds.

They offer accidental death, term life, medical, LTD, etc which is easily
tailorable to meet individual needs, none of this plan a or plan b stuff.
If DEC really gave me the full cost of medical coverage in my pay check,
I would be sorely tempted to switch the whole shabang.

Mr. Santos, what was confusing, I'll elaborate if I can.

    Re .100 You wrote " This was my last understanding, I could never get
    anybody to tell me the exact story. They kept refering to the legal
    mumble". Then you said "I *know* the IEEE provides better rate".
    Do you think the coverage is better? If yes I don't understand why.
    
    What did you mean by "I've seen this phenomena occur before with past
    companies. I am *certain* that someone somewhere knows that DEC is not
    getting the best deal for LTD".  

    I just received the BENEFITS BULLETIN.  I noticed the
    following section on on-line enrollment:

    	   "On August 17, the system will be
    	activated. At that time, to begin your
    	VTX enrollment, type the keyword
    	DISABILITY_US at the $ prompt..."

    	I think folks who want to sign up
    	might have more success typing
    	VTX DISABILITY_US at the $ prompt.

    Oversight, or a conspiracy to prevent employees from enrolling?
    You be the judge.  Next Geraldo...

    
    re .99
    
    I didn't refer to you in using the word 'happy' and used singe quotes
    to offset it rather than quoting your reply. The use of the phrase was
    more to make my point than make an issue with your comments. 
    Having said that, there have always been choices available to employees
    either thru company offered plans or plans thru groups or even
    individual signups. Many people go with a company plan because it's
    easy. Many people think that company plans are the least expensive and
    some ARE very inexpensive. Just because acompany dosen't offer a plan
    doesn't mean you can't have the protection.
    
    re .100
    
    I disagree. You do not have to be an EE of some type to belong to IEEE
    and take advantage of their benefit plans. I've been a member since '76
    and know of a good many folks who ae not EEs who have joined for a
    variety of reasons. Their sub-group, the IEEE Computer Society, is the
    largest (interms of members) of any such group in the world.
    
    John B.

    On the maternity leave you will get the leave under short term which
    will be 100% coverage up to 13 weeks if needed and not 80% as before.
    I spoke to a personnel rep about 1 hr. ago.
    

Membership requirements:  True you don't have to be an EE,  who ever is reading,
you need to be in something of a related discipline.  I just don't know what
the exact rules are (However, EE's are eligible ;-).

Re: 101

My last understanding.....

What I was attempting to do was determine the cost of each benefit dollar.
There was some legal mumbling about benefits not exceeding 60% of your salary
from all plans.  I could never *exactly and catagorically* find out if this meant
my disability check would be reduced by SS benfits.  What I was told was that
I could not buy two policies to reach 60+% coverage.  They (the LTD industry) 
just didn't do that.

The better rate.....

Sorry, I changed subjects slightly and left out some key words.  I *know* the 
IEEE rate is better than DEC's when comparing the current plans.  DEC's plan
was only slightly better (coverage per dollar of premium) than the IEEE's.
Now with the change from post to pre tax benfits, DEC isn't even close.
True, you can only reach 60% of salary, but that gets pretty close when you don't
pay taxes.

The phenomena......  I use to work for Hughes Aircraft then TRW.  I thought I had
good benefits with both, then I started shopping.  I found that I could beat
any company's rates (except for medical).  I have approached benefits people
and expressed my concern and received blank looks as a result.  It's like 
the people negotiating these packages think they're dealing with a bunch of
morons who cannot count.  First you start to hear about new improved plans,
then you see the results.  I have never ever seen a published document about 
how a company develops its benefit plan or how it negotiates.  I would find
it hard to believe that a company of DEC's size would have that great a difference
in mortality tables than something like the IEEE.

Some examples:

Ever take a look at the term life from Met?
TRW's term rates were 250% over what I could get outside of the company.
HUGHES - 125%.

We're not talking slight differences. 

Since everyone is talking about IEEE.  I was once a student member.
How do you get a form to become a member and can someone give me
specifics around the disability insurance part.  

Beth

1-800-678-IEEE - IEEE Service Center (free oil changes! :-)

Let's see - it's ringing...... the recording says to press 2 for membership
new or lapsed.

     In .92 I tried to make a point. I'm not sure I was
     successful. If the Plan A .40 & Plan B .90 info is
     correct, then my 'problem' with the offering is as 
     follows:

     An  employee is making four dollars a week:

      $1    $1    $1    $1
       A     B     C     D

     DEC will pay for the LTD of 50% - no cost to the employee:

      $1    $1    $1    $1
       A     B     C     D
     |---------|    
        DEC

     The employee can buy insurance for dollar C at 
     a cost of .40 (25% plan A)

      $1    $1    $1    $1
       A     B     C     D
     |---------|  |--|
        DEC       .40

     The employee can buy insurance for dollars C 
     and B at a cost of .90 (50% plan B)

      $1    $1    $1    $1
       A     B     C     D
     |---------|  |-------|
        DEC          .90

     Now if I were buying life insurance and was told I could 
     get a $10,000 policy for $100 or a $20,000 policy for $220, 
     I'd say give me two of the $10,000 policies and I'd pocket 
     the savings!

     Hence, since covering dollar C cost me .40 and covering C & D 
     costs .90 I'd just as soon cover dollar C twice. It certainly 
     doesn't cost the insurance company more to cover dollar D than 
     C. So why should my costs go from .40 for dollar C to .45 per 
     dollar for C & D?

     Any good insurance company REDUCES the cost of additional 
     insuring units not INCREASING the cost per unit.

     Any good representative for the company would negotiate 
     declining cost per unit.

     John B. 

    
    Re: .96
    
    I guess my terms are showing.  In insurance speak private plan is
    a term usually used in associated with individual i.e. nongroup plans.
    When someone inquired about "private" plans that is what I had in mind.
    It is quite possible that the plan offered by IEEE is better than
    the new Digital one, but it would still be a group plan and not
    an individual one.  Not everyone belongs to an organization where they
    can get such coverage.  For those of us who don't, the Digital group
    plan will be superior to any individual plan that I ever heard of 
    including the one that I used to sell.
    
    Re: coordination of benefits.  I'm not sure, because I was never
    disabled under this plan, but I doubt there are many plans which don't
    coordinate benefits.  I would suspect that the 66.6% coverage in effect
    now is reduced by an amount equal to any other source of disability
    coverage one might have including SS so, in effect, they are only
    guaranteeing that your total income while disabled will equal 66.6%
    of your current salary and not that they will pay you that amount
    regardless of whomever else is paying you.  Anyone out there been on
    disability under this plan who would know?
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .105
    
    > I could never *exactly and catagorically* find out if this meant
    > my disability check would be reduced by SS benfits.  What I was
    > told was that I could not buy two policies to reach 60+% coverage.
    > They (the LTD industry) just didn't do that.
    
    You got it.  That is precisely what it meant.  The coverage in an
    LTD policy is simply a gurantee that FROM ALL SOURCES your income
    during disability will equal the percent of your salary specified
    in the LTD policy.  So if SS covers 50% of your salary and you
    have 60% coverage from an LTD policy, that carrier is only going
    to remit a check for 10% of your salary.  Oh, and by the way, if
    they find out that you had a source of income they didn't know about
    such as some other policy and that they paid you too much, they will
    go after you for it and will win.  Believe me they have all the angles
    covered.  Read your policy.  It is worth the time.  I once saved
    myself over $5000 just because I had read my medical coverage policy
    and knew what the claims adjuster was telling me was baloney.
    
    Re: other plans
    
    > I found that I could beat any company's rates (except for medical).
    
    Be careful when comparing rates.  It is entirely possible to get
    individual coverage for FEWER DOLLARS, but individual plans almost
    always provide LESS coverage and for FEWER things than a group plan
    does.  Dollar for dollar no individual plan can hold a candle to a
    group plan.  Be careful - insurance companies who want to sell you a
    policy will expect YOU to be the one who pays attention to whether you
    are comparing apples to apples or not.
    
    Steve
    

    re.109 You are correct about our plans coordination of benefits.
     

    
    Re: .108
    
    The reason is because Options A and B are different
    plans and likley include different variables in the
    calculation of the rate which may not be easily apparent
    to any of us.
    
    I understand your numbers and the way you present your
    case makes sense, but I doubt it is that simple from
    an actuarial standpoint.
    
    Steve
    

Steve,

	I did make sure we were comparing the same items.  I made a point to 
check each plans coverage.  It was my understanding that companies enjoyed better
coverage for lower cost because they were group plans.

	So, when I confronted my, hmm, let's see, what did they call them
at TRW, human resource representative, with irrefutable figures that TRW, but
more likely TRW employees, was getting ripped off in a BIG way, he said, and
I quote:

	"Well, you know, group plans have to take into account the entire 
population....."  imdicating clearly that group plans cost more.

It is entirely possible that this individual did not know what he is/was
talking about.  But, I stand by my statement, in all of my searches, I have
been able to beat the group plans, except medical.  Throw in the normal 
exceptions, assuming of course, I am in good health, no pre-existing conditions,
etc.

    
    Re: .114
    
    OK, for sure, medical group plans you won't beat with individual
    ones. period.
    
    I suspect that what happened with your TRW experience is that you found
    some individual plans which were perhaps the very best available at the
    time and that TRW may have had one of bottom of the barrel group plans
    at the time.  Not all group plans are equal.  There is overlap, to be
    sure, but in general if a company wants to, it can offer group coverage
    that no individual plan will equal or beat.  Apparently TRW didn't
    want to.
    
    Steve
    

Steve,

	Now that's not fair, of course a company can provide infinite bennies
if it wants too.  So can a private plan.  It is my suspicion that companies
as a general rule want to reduce the amount of benefit work that they deal with.
As a result, they offer sub-standard plans and let people look elsewhere.

	My concern is that I would think that the company would have a cost goal 
in mind and then provide the very best coverage possible.  I also would think
that any negotiater ought to be brutal with rate negotiations, etc.

	Then again, I have been called idealistic.  :-)

Later,

	Charlie

TO: John Santos

Thanks for your help in understanding the new LTD but I think that I
would like you to present your example one more time.  I suspect that
when the replies were being moved around I missed an important step or 
two.  My question is can you fill in the ??? in the following chart:

	Current		Core		Opt. A		OPT. B
Salary	 50000		50000		50000		50000
Cost      ???/100	0/100		.40/100		.90/100
$/yr	  ???		   0		 $200		 $450
Benefit  33333.33	???		 ???		 ???


The reason for asking is that I am not sure I understand the exact 
amount of the benefit we are talking about in all cases.  I can then
apply my own tax figures to the above and decide if I am getting a
better beneift, the same benefit at greater cost, or, worse case, a 
lesser benefit at greater cost.

Again thanks for helping all of understand these issues,
Lee G.

I'm going home shortly to pull up some IEEE info. What I remember doing the last
time I compared LTD was noticing the cost to add 25% of my salary.

This should get interesting.

re: .100:
>They offer accidental death, term life, medical, LTD, etc which is easily
>tailorable to meet individual needs, none of this plan a or plan b stuff.
>If DEC really gave me the full cost of medical coverage in my pay check,
>I would be sorely tempted to switch the whole shabang.

Can't you "opt out" as if you were covered by a spouse's medical insurance and
get DEC's cost (savings) added to your pay?

    Anyone compared ACM to IEEE?
    
    When WSE was TFSOed, I compared quotes from my State Farm agent for
    medical insurance against the DEC continuation of medical insurance
    (called COBRA).  State Farm beat DEC on rates by something like $30 or
    $40 a month (my memory is hazy);  the only way State Farm
    was worse was that it had a one million dollar lifetime cap.
    

    Re: Can't you "opt out" as if you were covered by a spouse's medical
    insurance and get DEC's cost (savings) added to your pay?
    
    I think DEC doesn't give you the $ it saves;  you only save the amount
    you'd contribute.  Otherwise people would be signing up with outside
    carriers in droves.
    

    About .84
    
    I wasn't suggesting that *I* was going to start a petition, just
    offering a suggestion for others.  I believe most RO's just KP' when
    they reach the whinning.
    
    I haven't read my bulletin yet, but being a WC2 and (if) I understand it
    right, _I_ now get 100% STD ?  Well, it's about time!  AND, do I reap
    the same coverage for LTD as a WC4?  Hip-hoo! If not, it's something
    more to whine about.  After all, if it wasn't for the few WC2's DEC
    has, all you whining WC4's would have to do some work.  My-my, your
    pocket book's getting hurt a little more and mine makes out a little
    more.  (this all assuming that all WC's are now be treated equally when
    it comes to _Medical_ benefits; I don't care about the rest of the
    specials that comes with being a WC4, I just care that we're all
    getting the same medical rights.)
    
    On the flip side:  I am supporting everyone here who's questioning why
    we would pay more/dollar for higher coverage when package deals always
    used to give discounts for this sort of thing.  We really are
    deteriorating more and more as an economy and a country.  Don't get me
    wrong, I'm giving all I can to make it work for me, DEC, USA  and the
    World- I just can't remain too optimistic about it >50% of the time.
    
    I'll digest the info in my bulletin this weekend and attempt to answer
    these questions, unless someone else has the answer before I go home.
    
    Reg.

    On the materrnity leave yes it stays the same as personnel told me
    you could get up to 13 weeks on this short term coverage before
    having to go to long term if need due to complications. I guess I
    should have made this more clear.Sorry.
    

Re: Opting out

For those of us who do not have two incomes (a newspaper would call us the 
"traditional" family, whatever that is) our options are somewhat more
limited.  If DEC gave me the full bennie and I could get it and spend it pre-tax,
then yes, I probably could beat DEC rates.  However, DEC does not give you
the full amount or it is simply not high enough to cover the additional costs
after taxes.  People with two incomes and medical plans should definitely 
investiage opting out of one or the other.

Back to LTD.  I have my IEEE info thsi morning, I'll post some numbers shortly.

    
    Re: COBRA
    
    COBRA is not an insurance plan.  It is a federal law which requires
    companies to provide continued coverage for persons who for one
    reason or another no longer qualify for the company's plan i.e.
    TFSO'd employees, divorce spouses of current employees, etc. BUT
    the company is no responsible for paying the premium.  It is the
    person's responsibility.
    
    Steve
    

A few questions about LTD:

Does DEC self-insure?  If not, who's the carrier?

Wouldn't the mix of participants affect the rates?  For instance, an older
population, or one with more hazardous jobs, would bring the rates up.
Wouldn't IEEE members be a relatively low-risk group compared to, say,
airline pilots or air traffic controllers?  Wouldn't DEC employees fall
somewhere in between?

Somebody please find fault with my analysis.  It is much worse than 
originally anticipated.

  Rules of thumb:

Comparisons made on cost per 1K of annual benefit.  Cost per 1K avoids 75% vs.
60% rule.
90 day waiting period (advantage slightly IEEE).
Numbers used assume salary of 52K (1K per week).

I assumed a tax rate of 25% to balance the difference between pre-tax and
post-tax considerations.  The calculation of the per/1K figure is on NET money.
For example, IEEE covers 60% of your salary, therefore, the cost of the plan is
dollars divided by 60% of your salary.  For the DEC plans, I reduced the
salary coverage by 25% to simulate the affect of taxes. I only want to
illustrate a point.  Also the IEEE rates I used are one year old.

IEEE - tax free benefits, paid for with after tax dollars.
 60% max coverage. Coordinated benefits.
 Age indexed - you get old, the rates go up.
 Continuable from employer to employer.
 Possible but not guaranteed premium rebates.

DEC - taxable benefits, paid for with pre-tax dollars.
 75% coverage (can go as high as 100%)
 Taxable benefits (makes 100% coverage nearly mandatory IMHO).


Costs:

DEC 75% -> $0.40 per 100 per week.  208/year or $7.11/1K.
DEC 100%-> $0.90 ....               468/year or $12.00/1K.

IEEE:

Age 30-39  0.21 per 120 monthly benefit. 21 units .. $7.35/1K.
Age 40-49  0.38 ....                                 $13.30/1K.
Age 50-59  0.65 ....                                 $22.75/1K


I'd conclude that I have comparable coverage, no?

<FLAME ON>
Now I'll stick the real zinger out there for those of you who have not noticed. 
The brochures clearly say that DEC pays the first 50% of the coverage.  OH,
really?  Let's adjust the numbers then.  If this is true, then when I elect
plan A I am adding 25% of my salary (not 75%).  Likewise, plan B only adds 50%
of my salary.  Adjusting my numbers, the DEC plan costs are:

75% -> 208/year divided by (25% of (52K - 25% taxes)) or  $21.33/1K!
100% -> 468/year divided by (50% of (52K - 25% taxes)) or $24.00/1K!

Would someone care to address this inconsistency?
<FLAME OFF>

Cordially,

As was pointed out in an earlier reply, you appear to have forgotten
to adjust the amount paid for tax/non-tax status.  Using the 25% you
chose, you should reduce DEC's fees by that percentage.

You will probably still come up with an IEEE advantage, but it will
be reduced.

- g

g:

	I acknowledged that I did not do that.  So what?  The numbers change
a little.  The point is that the amount the company is charging is GROSSLY
different than external plans.  I would like for once to hear a *plausible*
explanation for the difference.  We're not talking about 10, 20 or 30%, we're
talking way, way out of line.

    
    As was not pointed out in an earlier reply but was inferred - the
    company that IEEE has to administer it's plans works with a
    participating base of approx. 65,000 members. This is their lever to
    negotiate plans.
    
    Now, the DEC negotiators had a base of all employees in the U.S. to
    work with and the results can be summed up in one word - which I don't
    care to use.
    
    Question: if an administrator for a group like IEEE can work out such
    good deals for it's members, how come the company negotiators can't get
    at least equal numbers? 
    
    In the land of pay-for-performance I'd say drop a bunch of internal
    slots and outsource administration of the benefits program.
    
    re .127
    
    Thanks to Mr. Gilley for pointing out in words what I tried to show in
    reply .108 in graphics. One of the key differences in the current LTD,
    the proposed LTD, IEEE, or others:
    
    
    
       I pay less than .40 per hundred now for my entire LTD coverage of
    2/3 pay.
    
       I am asked to pay .40 per hundred for 1/4 of my pay or .90 for 1/2
    of my pay.
    
       IEEE will keep the cost under .40 for me.
    
    In the real world of LTD .90 per hundred is more than enough to cover
    ALL 100% of the paycheck! 
    
    (By the way, ever notice how the SPIN doctors always use glossy paper
    to promote the goodness of how much more you'll pay for less - and why
    you should be thankfull for the opportunity? Glossy paper costs more -
    it's a Freudian thing.)

Mr. Santos are you listening.  Since you seem to be most familiar with
our benefits (one of your replies indicated that you do this for 
a living or somethign like that), who would I forward my cost comparison to?
Could you check to see if perhaps I am completely missing the mark?
Since lots of sharp technical people work for DEC, and they just *hate*
being patronized, perhaps an explanation might help us out here.

    Re: COBRA
    
    Right.  The value of COBRA is that it guarantees that you can get
    medical coverage for 18 months.  You pay both "your contribution" and
    "DEC's contribution."  But, everyone that I know who checked with
    private insurance companies found that they could get similar
    insurance to the DEC plan for significantly less than the "your" plus
    "DEC" amount.  Which does lead one to ask why DEC premiums are so
    high...
    

    
    Re: .133
    
    Well, I guess it depends.  I was divorced several years ago and had
    to pay the premium for my ex-wife's coverage.  I did some
    investigating and found that the Digital plan under COBRA cost
    less than paying for an individual plan with the same coverage.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: questions about why the last 25% of coverage costs more than the 
    third 25%.

    The two 1/4's only look the same if you don't take coordination of
    benefits into account.  The insurance company does not plan on paying
    all of the 75% out of pocket.  They will do their best to rehabilitate
    you so that you can provide some of the 75% yourself.  In the case
    of the 75-100%, there is less of a chance that you will be able to
    be rehabilitated into work that provides 100% of your old salary so
    they expect that more of this quarter will come out of their pockets.
    Because of this, you have to pay more for that last quarter.

    					MJC

MJC,

	Sounds good, I just don't think your explanation addresses the vast
difference in costs.  Sure, I could understand a percentage change, but the
numbers I come up with clearly suggest to me that the plan is recovering
any expenses on the first 50%.

	Note the following:

The new plan is taxable.  This means that 75% of your income equates to about
50% in old style benefit levels.

This means that everybody had better elect the 100% coverage to assure sufficient
coverage - I think somebody took this into account when they set the rate
structures.

Unless they drastically alter the situation, I'll be calling IEEE within the
week to supplement the basic plan.

    I'm out of the country, and won't be back to look over tha packet for a
    couple weeks yet; Can someone comment on the coordination of benefits
    provisions in the Digital plans? If I purchase private coverage (with
    post-tax dollars) for some amount (either a specific figure or % of
    salary), what would I actually end up with?
    
    For example, suppose I just take the default 50% DEC plan, and I have a
    post-tax paid private policy for 50% (no coordinated benefits). What do
    I get from the DEC plan, 0 or 50%? 
    
    (My mom was recently disabled; her plan through her work provides 60%
    [tax-free], coordinated with Soc.Security disability, but the
    individual policy she was also carrying pays independant of both.)
    
    Dave

    
    I have recently looked into Disability insurance to get an idea
    of what an individual policy would cost.  The quote I got came
    from Equitable and its not cheap.
    
    I would have to pay $137 and change per month to receive $2638
    per month if I became totally disabled.  This is non-taxable 
    income and I when I say totally disabled I mean I could not
    perform the duties of my current occupation.  Some policies state
    that you have to be disabled in "any" occupation.  Also if my
    earnings are reduced by at least 20% in another occupation I
    would be paid the difference. This last benefit was optional.
    
    The policy would become effective after 90 days of disability and
    its good until age 65.  
    
    Obviously I was quoted the whole nine yards(every option they
    offered, I only touched the surface) and I forgot there were 
    no coordination clauses. I also forgot how they came up with 
    this $2638 per month base, but the lower the base the lower 
    the premium.  I plan to ask for a requote without the frills.
    
    Everything I have read on disability always stated to make sure
    at a minimum the coverage specifically reads "in your occupation". 
    I'm curious how the DEC 100% coverage reads.  One way suggested
    to lower your premium is to raise the effectivity date, 3 months,
    6 months, 9 months, whatever length of time you could afford
    to live without outside income.  Theres a recent Consumer Reports
    article that helps you to figure out the base coverage needed.
    Its a good start before going out for quotes, too bad I didnt
    read it beforehand.
    
    Angela
    

    Re: .-1
    
    This is not a plug for NorthWestern Mutual Life, but three years ago
    when I was getting prices they were very reasonable.  This info. is
    definitely out of date, but I would call them.
    
    Charlie

    
    oops, when I checked again the $137/month charge was for both
    my husband and myself.
    
    By the way, its the JULY 1992 Consumer Reports that has some
    basic disability info.
    
    ap

    
    What I find most disconcerting is that a person out for more than 13
    weeks could very likely be out of a job.  It states if you are disabled
    13-26 weeks you will be placed in an "appropriate" job, and after 26
    weeks you simply get a 13-weeks "job search" period?  WHAT GIVES?!?!
    
    I'm terminally ill.  There may come a time when I'm sick and have to
    take disability time and yet be able to return back to work.  BUT, what
    incentive would there be to return if my illness lasted more than 26
    weeks.  The prospect of having to "job hunt"?  I'd be better of to
    remain ill.
    
    "jackin' the house", Bob

Re: 130

>     As was not pointed out in an earlier reply but was inferred - the
>     company that IEEE has to administer it's plans works with a
>     participating base of approx. 65,000 members. This is their lever to
>     negotiate plans.
>     
>     Question: if an administrator for a group like IEEE can work out such
>     good deals for it's members, how come the company negotiators can't get
>     at least equal numbers? 

I am a big fan of IEEE and have IEEE insurance. There is, however, a big
difference between IEEE and Digital. IEEE can reject you for coverage.
Digital cannot. Therefore the process of adverse selection will leave
Digital with a pool of individuals where the risk profile is much
higher.  For that reason, group rates with 100% acceptance will have
rates that are higher than the best rates available on the outside.


Re: 135

>     Re: questions about why the last 25% of coverage costs more than the 
>     third 25%.

Again, it's probably a question of risk and adverse selection. Since
Digital CANNOT reject any applicant for LTD, those who are at risk
will sign up for the maximum. An individual with a long term debilating
disease could and should sign up for the maximum.  


Gim
    

Gim,

	Wrong on both counts.  Insurance is based on mortality rates.  I would
question the statistical aberation that you suggest.  I cannot believe that the
30 day exclusion period could contribute to grossly disimilar rates.

	Digital can reject your application.  It's just that if you sign up
before the initial 30 day period, they waive the pre-existing condition 
regulations.  However, I seriously question if this will last much more.

Charlie

Re: -1,

Some additional details on IEEE disability insurance and IEEE Life
insurance:

  1.  the policy is MEDICALLY UNDERWRITTEN and requires both a
      a physical and a blood test including test for HIV.

      Translation: if  you don't meet the underwriting requirements
      you will be rejected.  If you are rejected for
      IEEE insurance, you will probably sign for the Digital plan.


  2.  Premiums are experience rated with premium credits based on
      claims.  The result of the selection criteria stated above
      results in a risk pool that's lower than Digital's and hence
      can offer lower premiums.

By the way, for past few years, the premium credit on IEEE
disability has been 30-35%.

Gim

re .143:

I thought .135's explanation of why the last 25% costs more than the 3rd 25%
was pretty good -- coordination of benefits.  Can anybody refute this?

    I have my own LTD policy that starts paying after I've been disabled
    for 6 months.  I picked the 6 month period (called an 'elimination
    period' in the industry) for obvious reasons.
    
    With the changes I was faced with the possibility of paying for 100%
    coverage to fill the gap between the Digital 3-month STD and the start
    of my own LTD policy.  The Digital info states that even if one has
    100% coverage, the payment will be reduced by whatever amounts you get
    from SS and other coverage.  So, if I elected the 100% coverage option,
    I would be paying for 100% coverage but getting 100% coverage for only 3
    months, dropping to approx. 34% coverage when my other LTD policy
    kicked in at 6 months.  (I'm ignoring SS in this example.  The actual %
    will be even smaller due to SS).
    
    I called my insurance company and was told that I could change the
    elimination period from 6 months to 3 months WITHOUT needing to reapply
    for coverage or getting another physical.  I'm waiting for them to send
    me the information on the additional cost for the reduced elimination
    period.
    
    So, if you have your own policy, check into this option before
    commiting to a possibly more expensive option thru Digital.
    
    Bob

    
    	Re: .149
    
    	If you don't mind my asking, what are the costs (say, per $thousand
    per month) of your own LTD policy?
    
    							-craig

    re: .150
    
    I don't remember.  The policy has an 'inflation adjustment' term that
    causes the benefit amount and premium to rise on a periodic basis. 
    I'll have to check and see.
    
    Bob

I just looked into their policy and re-upping my membership.  Here is some
scenarios...........

Membership $95/year

This plan is based on a $120/month benefit option.  The premium is semi-annual.
I've also chosen the 90 day wait period with the career plan to be equivalent
to DECs.  One more thing, this benefit is not subject to tax.

Members Age   Career Plan
under 30       $4.60
30-39          $5.40
40-49           $10.00
50-59          $16.90


The other part of this program says that you can't have greater than
60% of your income as a benefit.  So with DEC's 50% minus health insurance
premiums and taxes, I would say that you want to make up around 30%
of your income.

Given a monthly income of 3600,  Dec will pay you $1800 minus taxes,etc....
get about 1080 in insurance. I am under 30 so my premium annually would be

	1080/120 = 9 units


	9 * $4.60 * 2 =  $82.80

over 30; 9 * 5.4 * 2 =   $97.20
over 40; 9 * 10 * 2 =  $180

etc...

Dec's plan would be $.90 * 52 * 8.3 =  $388.44

Is this right?

Beth	

    re.152 I'm a little confused about what type of benefit your plan is
    paying. You say "the other part of this program says that you can't
    have greater than 60% of your income as a benefit". If you have 50%
    core coverage from DEC doesn't that mean the most you could collect
    from your plan is 10%? I know I must have this wrong, but what is the
    actual payout and how much would it cost?
    

    This is a general question about disability insurance:  Do I understand
    correctly that the DEC disability insurance vanishes if you're laid off
    (I gather on the theory that you have no job to be disabled from)?  Do
    other disability insurance plans tie into current employment that way?
    What happens, one might ask, to someone who's temporarily unemployed,
    is looking for work, and, like, gets run over by a truck in the
    interval and becomes disabled?
    

    re.154 Yes, you understand correctly about disability insurance if you
           are TFSO'd. The other part of your question I'm not sure about.

    re: .150
    
    Since I am purchasing my policy with after-tax dollars, it will pay 66%
    of my gross income after 6 months.  I am paying $26.57/month/$1K of
    benefits.  I haven't been able to find out what the cost will be with a
    3 month elimination period.
    
    Bob

    	Some things to consider when deciding what coverage to elect:
    
    	If you are out on disability, and return for a minimum of 2
    	weeks and relapse, you start back at week #1 for coverage.
    	That is to say, if you get injured, stay out for 13 weeks,
    	return for 2, and go back out again, you have another 13
    	weeks of full coverage.  Of course, this doesn't help you
    	if you are permanently disabled.
    
    	If you elect to go with the 50% DEC coverage, if you return part
    	time after the 13 weeks, you still will get the DEC 50% up to
    	100% salary.  That is to say, if you are out 13 weeks, and return
    	to work 20 hrs/week, you earn 50% and DEC still covers the other
    	50%.  If you work 30 hrs/week, you earn 75% of your salary and
    	DEC covers the other 25%.  Again, this doesn't help you if you
    	are permanently disabled.
    
    	It is difficult to raise your coverage.  It is easy to reduce it.
    
    	The tax implications in the Information Guide are skewed to
    	look the most favorable to you and it will most likely be less
    	favorable than stated.  The tax impacts can be more closely
    	approximated by looking at the percentage of your weekly pay
    	is witheld for fed and state tax.

    	Kind of a morbid question, but is this LTD funded by some 
    	government protected pool of money like our pension plan is?
    	DEC is self-insuring this.  What happens to me if DEC does a 
    	WANG and I am out on LTD?

    re: .158
    
    Earlier replies indicate that the LTD policy is provided by an
    insurance company, not Digital.  Digital is simply paying part of the
    premium and the leverage of a large pool of employees to negotiate a
    group rate.  If Digital goes under while you are out on LTD, you will
    continue to receive your benefits, although it is unclear whether you
    would then be required to pick up the portion of the payments that
    Digital was paying.
    
    Bob
    
    Bob

>  Doesn't LTD imply
>    that one is out sick and soon enough will return to work.

	No. LTD inplies that one may very well never be well enough to return
	to work. STD inplies that one is out sick and will return to work.

			Alfred