I'll add to the discussion...
I retired from an automotive manufacturing company last year, after almost 30 years of "service".
It was (and still is) a UAW closed shop. Being salaried, I was (and to an extent still am) treated differently than the folks I managed.
The article does apply to non-UAW (salaried "management") retirees only, and yes, they are receiving assistance by an increase to a pension of $300 each to cover the increase in "medigap" coverage. Comparing this to my disabled son who has a medigap policy to supplement his Medicare part A/B, it isn't really a problem. His coverage costs $90/month from Blue Shield and there is no pre-existing test. Looking at that existing cost (and if he was married), these folks are looking at a cost of $200/month (and receiving $300 compensation). I know at some companies, retirees also get reimbursed for their part B contribution (what is deducted from Medicare) of about $100/month so if that's what is happening, it may be costing them about an extra $100/mo per couple.
You also have to consider that this is being done for future contract talks with the UAW. We were often in this position of cutting benefits (albit for a long time) before they were restored in some manner after new contracts were formed. The company can request the UAW to sit down earlier for contract talks - they don't have to wait years till the current one expires.
One other thing. You would think that working at a company that used the UAW (or any other union), the "management folks" would get a good deal and get the "perks" of the UAW. I'm not talking about the executives, just the plain "working stiffs" like me. That's a fallacy. There were times (especially in the early '80's) that non-union folks worked and got less pay than the production people they were supervising. I remember working overtime and not getting paid, while the UAW folks I was working with did. I did get time off, but hour for hour (unlike the UAW that was getting 1.5 to 2.0 pay).
Advantages? Non-union folks got a 401k many years earlier, and when it was finally part of the contract, the union folks did not get any company matching funds. Non-union folks received anywhere from 50% of 4% contribution to 100% of 8% contribution over the years (it was reduced over the years).
In retirement, I pay close to $500/mo for me/DW for full medical (I'm pre-Medicare), while retirees I worked with pay nothing. Current contract talks have been going on, and I'm sure that will change.
Am I bitter about the differences? Not really. I received a lump-sum when I retired (converted pension to a cash balance plan) and I was able to invest it for long term. When I had the pension (and the current retired union folks have the same situation), the monthly income is reduced when you get SS. The current UAW folks cannot get a lump sum. They must take the pension.
Over the years, I had the 401k, along with the match. The UAW folks drove nicer cars since they did not have the incentive to save (via 401k) for their retirement. Today, I direct my own retirement (funds/income) rather than counting on a company contract for my retirement income future.
Anyway, that's a look behind the scenes from somebody's who's "been there, done that".
- Ron