1997 Strike. Old heads only. On Topic.

[Bubblehead]

Considering the condition of some of our pensions now, do you ever wonder if a "company" pension would have been a good idea?

You don't see the IBT allowing UPS to pay their withdraw liability as the "death blow" for the Central States Pension Fund???

The admitted delicate balance (and ponzi scheme dynamic) already admittedly "upside down" of retirees to active participants, we as a Union allow the single biggest contributor (UPS) to withdraw, then pretend like it's inevitable collapse wasn't helped along by the powers that be???.....please, give me a break.

In the end the irony is that we, the active UPSer's at the time (and perhaps the unborn for once?) who ratified that contract will be the only ones who benefit from it....

....while those who retired before us and UPS (as a corporation) with their "guarantee" are left holding the empty bag.

Feels like blood money to me, as I watch 15,000 retirees march on my state's Capitol seeking help and answers.

 

[RealPerson]

If you watch the Video from the one guy saying the 2018 contract rocks, I am shocked at how much $$$ goes into the Pension and Health to have them going broke and insurance go up! Think he said after this $5 raise it is $50,000+ a year per FT employee.

 

[bowhnterdon]

keep the pensions away from ups and use their conditions as bargaining points.......remember that ups ceased defined pensions for newer management as of a certain date(?) and in 2023 (?) will stop putting money into those with existing defined pensions..no wonder the state of management is what it is.

I hear what your saying. Maybe we should have negotiated a jointly administrative national plan, like the current IBT/UPS plan. With the increase offered in the TA, it is great deal compared to my plan

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

You don't see the IBT allowing UPS to pay their withdraw liability as the "death blow" for the Central States Pension Fund???

The admitted delicate balance (and ponzi scheme dynamic) already admittedly "upside down" of retirees to active participants, we as a Union allow the single biggest contributor (UPS) to withdraw, then pretend like it's inevitable collapse wasn't helped along by the powers that be???.....please, give me a break.

In the end the irony is that we, the active UPSer's at the time (and perhaps the unborn for once?) who ratified that contract will be the only ones who benefit from it....

....while those who retired before us and UPS (as a corporation) with their "guarantee" are left holding the empty bag.

Feels like blood money to me, as I watch 15,000 retirees march on my state's Capitol seeking help and answers.

We constantly hear about the number of retirees compared to actives, but it would seem that if money was paid in all of those years, it should be there when a person retires. Personally, I think there is a lot more to it than being "upside down". But I know what my opinion is worth- about as much as my pension check will likely be...

 

[Karma...]

Remember that soon there will be no management people drawing defined pensions due to attrition....passing away...ineligible.....Defined pensions of all companies are going away....wonder when the union pensions will also be gone...

 

[Bubblehead]

We constantly hear about the number of retirees compared to actives, but it would seem that if money was paid in all of those years, it should be there when a person retires. Personally, I think there is a lot more to it than being "upside down". But I know what my opinion is worth- about as much as my pension check will likely be...

Nobody can explain "continuing liability" to me, with me thinking of Bernie Madoff....

 

[Inthegame]

Nobody can explain "continuing liability" to me, with me thinking of Bernie Madoff....

Was that a dare???
You always go to the extreme with your ponzi talk, now including the criminal Madoff. SMH

...Anyway, I'll give you the Readers Digest version.

Every employer signs a participation agreement when they consent to affiliation with a multi employer pension plan. The negotiated contributions are designed to pay a sufficient amount to cover the benefit payout, however market dynamics and laws forcing trustees to improve benefits when possible without the inverse path of contracting when necessary (until MPRA 2014) have caused funding deficiencies in many plans.

In the not to distant past, if a plan was 100% funded the employers have little if any continuing obligation. The trick bag there is as a plan got closer to 100% funded the trustees must improve benefits or risk (personal, yes personal) lawsuit.

Not that your ponzi obsessed self cares but responsible plans insure their trustees against such action.

Back to the story...
Employers of course want to keep their contribution amount as low as possible so they lobbied lawmakers to allow multi employer plans to operate at less than 100% funded as plans don't need 100% of obligated assets at one time. The offset to this "float" is the continuing liability of participating employers.

Bankruptcy laws allowing pensions to be a secondary creditor haven't helped as many companies with continuing obligations have skated forcing increased liability on the remaining participating employers. (Hostess etc)

Part 2 of this miniseries is available after proper PayPal deposits are made to the BUG fund.

 

[Brownnblue]

I still have a 1997 copy of the pension proposal from the company. They would pay 50 dollars per part time service years without the 6 percent deduction and 100 dollars a year full time for 35 years, capped at 35. They would of been able to offset those benefits from your vested time in the Central States from the time you retire instead of waiting till the retiree reaches age 65. Of course everything would be subject to change once the company got total control of your pension.

That last sentence speaks volumes.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Part 2 of this miniseries is available after proper PayPal deposits are made to the BUG fund.

There's a ponzi scheme if I've ever seen one.

 

[DELACROIX]

Sounds like you have done your homework on this subject. I always thought that if a Pension Plan reaches 100 % or over vesting ratio that it could actually pay for the promised benefits with just the interest gained on their investments. In other words they would not have to put in any more monetary contributions as long as they are getting a good return. UPS made over 14 percent interest last year on their controlled pension trusts (UPS Pension Plan, UPS Retirement Plan and the IBT/UPS pension). Some of the surplus from the new corporate tax break went into their retirement plans to push them over 100 percent. What is your take on this?

Another issue about the Central States problems is that those IBT/UPS Plan retirees who left with 30 or more years under Central at age 55 back in 2008 have now reached the age of 65, they will now be getting a check from the Central for whatever amount they had vested. Thus relieving the company from paying for all the early retirement benefits. This is really going to push the Central closer to bankruptcy.

 

[728ups]

Considering the condition of some of our pensions now, do you ever wonder if a "company" pension would have been a good idea?

Seeing how the company has Effed over Management by making them pay for Healthcare and replacing management Pensions with an "enhanced" 401-K I'd have to say not a good idea

 

[DELACROIX]

That last sentence speaks volumes.

Tell me about it..I could tell you a story.

 

[Bubblehead]

Was that a dare???
You always go to the extreme with your ponzi talk, now including the criminal Madoff. SMH

...Anyway, I'll give you the Readers Digest version.

Every employer signs a participation agreement when they consent to affiliation with a multi employer pension plan. The negotiated contributions are designed to pay a sufficient amount to cover the benefit payout, however market dynamics and laws forcing trustees to improve benefits when possible without the inverse path of contracting when necessary (until MPRA 2014) have caused funding deficiencies in many plans.

In the not to distant past, if a plan was 100% funded the employers have little if any continuing obligation. The trick bag there is as a plan got closer to 100% funded the trustees must improve benefits or risk (personal, yes personal) lawsuit.

Not that your ponzi obsessed self cares but responsible plans insure their trustees against such action.

Back to the story...
Employers of course want to keep their contribution amount as low as possible so they lobbied lawmakers to allow multi employer plans to operate at less than 100% funded as plans don't need 100% of obligated assets at one time. The offset to this "float" is the continuing liability of participating employers.

Bankruptcy laws allowing pensions to be a secondary creditor haven't helped as many companies with continuing obligations have skated forcing increased liability on the remaining participating employers. (Hostess etc)

Part 2 of this miniseries is available after proper PayPal deposits are made to the BUG fund.

Ok, let me rephrase, "legal ponzi scheme"?

I'm not "obsessed", just observant.
The preponderance of evidence is deafening?

Don't let the success of the few cloud the misery of the rest?

 

[olroadbeech]

I was 12 years old win UPSERS struck back in '97 and I would like a few folks who held the line to read me in on the chain of events that lead to the strike.

google may help with info.

the main arguments were pension control and more full time jobs.

my 12 years old son walked the picket line with me.

 

[olroadbeech]

I still have a 1997 copy of the pension proposal from the company. They would pay 50 dollars per part time service years without the 6 percent deduction and 100 dollars a year full time for 35 years, capped at 35. They would of been able to offset those benefits from your vested time in the Central States from the time you retire instead of waiting till the retiree reaches age 65. Of course everything would be subject to change once the company got total control of your pension.

here is some propaganda handled out during the strike.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

here is some propaganda handled out during the strike.

"Propaganda ". Whatever.
Post one sheet at a time so they're readable.
This was prounion literature if I can make out any of the verbiage.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Ok, let me rephrase, "legal ponzi scheme"?

I'm not "obsessed", just observant.
The preponderance of evidence is deafening?

Don't let the success of the few cloud the misery of the rest?

Sad state of affairs.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

You don't see the IBT allowing UPS to pay their withdraw liability as the "death blow" for the Central States Pension Fund???

The admitted delicate balance (and ponzi scheme dynamic) already admittedly "upside down" of retirees to active participants, we as a Union allow the single biggest contributor (UPS) to withdraw, then pretend like it's inevitable collapse wasn't helped along by the powers that be???.....please, give me a break.

In the end the irony is that we, the active UPSer's at the time (and perhaps the unborn for once?) who ratified that contract will be the only ones who benefit from it....

....while those who retired before us and UPS (as a corporation) with their "guarantee" are left holding the empty bag.

Feels like blood money to me, as I watch 15,000 retirees march on my state's Capitol seeking help and answers.

Busses as far as you could see lining the streets that day.
I talked with so many great people who were going to be in dire straights.
"All of a sudden you're old and half your pension is gone."
These are the Americans who worked hard to pass good things on to their kids and grandkids.
It was a sobering day.

 

[Inthegame]

Ok, let me rephrase, "legal ponzi scheme"?

You know what a ponzi is and there's nothing legal about it. It's based on fraudulent claims knowingly making promises that can't be fulfilled.
Properly managed pensions, (now allowed to adjust for downturns,) are sustainable and are providing retirement security to millions of beneficiaries.
No ponzi ever concocted can make that claim.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I still have a 1997 copy of the pension proposal from the company. ...
Of course everything would be subject to change once the company got total control of your pension.

That last sentence speaks volumes.

Hard to say which is worse ... having the Union control your investments or have UPS manage your investments?