Another example of Central States mismanagement
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
J
JonFrum
Guest
A correction to what I posted:
I intended to say Single-employer plans fail 100 TIMES more often than Multi-employer plans. (Not 100% more.) I've made this point to Tieguy several times in the past. And the rare Multi-employer plans that fail were single-industry plans, not multi-industry plans with 3000 Contributing Employers like Central States. Diversity is a good thing.
I intended to say Single-employer plans fail 100 TIMES more often than Multi-employer plans. (Not 100% more.) I've made this point to Tieguy several times in the past. And the rare Multi-employer plans that fail were single-industry plans, not multi-industry plans with 3000 Contributing Employers like Central States. Diversity is a good thing.
tieguy
Banned
But defies your argument that you continue to make. If the dollars ups is putting into CS is not being touched by any other companies retirees then for all intents and purposes we have a single employer plan partitioned within CS. If however we have those dollars going into a common fund for all retirees and the plan is not 100 percent funded which you hopefully acknowledge is true then you have the retirees from other companys draining the money ups is presently putting in. You then have those retirees draining tommorrows dollars today.
J
JonFrum
Guest
I've said repeatedly that SOME subsidies do take place. In any collective arrangement, there will be subsidies going on. This is true throughout our economy. The strong will be subsidizing the weak, the survivors subsidize the bankrupt, the wealthy subsidize the poor. But the subsidy is nowhere near 60%. Because Central States is less funded than other plans, and because they have a special problem with their retirees constituting a larger percentage of the population than most plans, the subsidy is larger than in a typical pension plan. But still not anywhere near 60%. If UPS had a different set of policies, a lot more UPSers would have qualified to retire, or retire at a higher benefit level. But, alas, UPS chose to forfeit a significant portion of its contributions to the Fund. Who's fault is that?
I've also made the point that our pension plans are, to a degree, "partitioned" already. Although the contributions from all the various employers are thrown into a central pot, and the various retirees draw their pension checks from that common pot, nevertheless, they draw benefits according to formulas that apply to all. The more their employer put in, the more they get out. The longer they worked, the more they receive. Etc. Detailed records are kept of how much each retiree is entitled to. It's kind of like a bank where evryone's money goes into the same vault, but you still have individual accounts. Everyone in the pension plan receives a yearly personal statement in the mail telling them of the status of their individual account.
In a fully funded plan like the Western Conference, the subsidies are less and the "partitioning" is more effective. But everyone always wants to talk about Central States, because Central States' troubles suit their adgenda. There's no mileage in saying the largest Teamsters fund is 100% funded, and there is no Withdrawal Liability owed by any of its Contributing Employers.
pkgdriver
Well-Known Member
705red
Browncafe Steward
tieguy
Banned
tieguy
Banned
Really no reason for the multi employer plan to fail. They just reduce your beni's and stretch out your retirement age until the plan become viable. Diversity here was not a good thing.
I wonder if you get it. your cs folks are now looking at working until they are in their sixties for less money. Meanwhile ups is still trucking money in the front door by the truckloads. wheres it going when it gets inside the CS plan? net assets up to 21 million? wonderfull . wheres the money ups paid for its people to have a good not barely adequate, not less then adequate but good retirement. the money is being paid why are they not getting it?
705red
Browncafe Steward
tieguy
Banned
705red
Browncafe Steward
Try it and let me know.
Tie you little question dodger you! You had to have looked into it at 1 point or another if you have 25 years now. Im just asking the right questions so that we are ready when the cs offer gets announced, you know lining my ducks all in a row. It would really help your dewfense of ups really giving a ratsabout us if you would answer.
tieguy
Banned
Tie you little question dodger you! You had to have looked into it at 1 point or another if you have 25 years now. Im just asking the right questions so that we are ready when the cs offer gets announced, you know lining my ducks all in a row. It would really help your dewfense of ups really giving a rats
Red,
i don't understand the point. I'm fine with retiring at 55. 50 would be nice but its kind of young to retire at that age. Most people I have seen retire at 50 end up finding another job just to stay busy. So no I have not looked at an early escape.
705red
Browncafe Steward
krash
Go big orange
A manager here told me 58 was the age requirement now.1
J
JonFrum
Guest
My memory is that it had nothing to do with management's plan. The sales brochure for the UPS plan for hourlies was *silent* on the Social Security Offset matter. Since this is a feature of single-employer plans, questions were asked. Would UPS rule out a Social Security Offset and put the matter to rest? They never did. People drew the natural conclusion that a Social Security Offset either would be a part of the plan, or it would at least be a nasty bone of contention while negotiating the plan details. Remember, there was no actual plan. Just a sales brochure. We wern't being invited to join the existing management plan. UPS' strategy was that we first end the strike, go back to work, and only then, after we had lost all leverage, would the plan features be negotiated.
J
JonFrum
Guest
Lots of reasons that have been discussed to death in this forum, most notably, the $6 billion loss in the markets during 2000-2002.
Was told an interesting quote that between the ages of 50 to 65 one quarter of the male population meets their maker. The longer any benefit plan either pension or health and welfare, private or governmental keeps you from retiring the better their odds of keeping their trusts healthier. With medical costs continuing to climb and most of us living longer companies are raising the retirement age to lower the number of years for responsibility of covering their retirees. Most of us will lose our company health insurance when medicare kicks in at age 65.
One of the reasons why the Central States trust is in trouble is that the teamster leadership by their very nature has to be concerned with the wishes of it's membership. All of us been crying for an early retirement since the early 90's. The failed attempt of UPS taking over in l997 and political pressure from the international forced the Central States trustees to match what the company offered, even when they knew that the active contributing participants have been declining for years.
Why is that the company controlled pension and health and welfare trusts did so well in comparison. The very nature of any corporation is to make a profit over any concern of it's employees, basically you are a human resource. Just study your history for anybody in the Central States area, just how many teamster members retired with a full pension benefit under any UPS company controlled pension plans (mostly part-timers). Think of the turn over even with those part timers who became vested (5 years). Basically nothing is going out of the plan, so it continues to collect interest without the company providing additional monetary contributions. Management employees are really the only drain on their pension plans, most of the union participants will only get the table crumbs considering the unequal funding of the plan.
One of the reasons why the Central States trust is in trouble is that the teamster leadership by their very nature has to be concerned with the wishes of it's membership. All of us been crying for an early retirement since the early 90's. The failed attempt of UPS taking over in l997 and political pressure from the international forced the Central States trustees to match what the company offered, even when they knew that the active contributing participants have been declining for years.
Why is that the company controlled pension and health and welfare trusts did so well in comparison. The very nature of any corporation is to make a profit over any concern of it's employees, basically you are a human resource. Just study your history for anybody in the Central States area, just how many teamster members retired with a full pension benefit under any UPS company controlled pension plans (mostly part-timers). Think of the turn over even with those part timers who became vested (5 years). Basically nothing is going out of the plan, so it continues to collect interest without the company providing additional monetary contributions. Management employees are really the only drain on their pension plans, most of the union participants will only get the table crumbs considering the unequal funding of the plan.
I have never understood the arguement that there are more retirees drawing a pension than there are active members paying in.
For one the retirees that are drawing now, their pension money was paid in for the 30 odd years that they worked and it collected interest for that time so there should be enough to pay there pension. I know that the companies didn't pay in as much back then as they do now, but the retirees aren't drawing as much as now either. Now I,m working and the money is being paid in for my future retirement and it is collecting interest and making more money so the money should be there for my retirement when I get to that point. I know that the fund lost money during the 9\11 period but what about all the record profits that the fund and stock market made for the 10 or 12 years prior to that. Also, when they talk about the plan, they talk like every person from the first retiree on down is still drawing on the plan. NOT SO!!!! Were is all the money that was left in the plan when the numerous members died? Most of them never lived long enough to draw anywhere close to what was paid in on there behalf. We never hear anyone talk about that money.
For one the retirees that are drawing now, their pension money was paid in for the 30 odd years that they worked and it collected interest for that time so there should be enough to pay there pension. I know that the companies didn't pay in as much back then as they do now, but the retirees aren't drawing as much as now either. Now I,m working and the money is being paid in for my future retirement and it is collecting interest and making more money so the money should be there for my retirement when I get to that point. I know that the fund lost money during the 9\11 period but what about all the record profits that the fund and stock market made for the 10 or 12 years prior to that. Also, when they talk about the plan, they talk like every person from the first retiree on down is still drawing on the plan. NOT SO!!!! Were is all the money that was left in the plan when the numerous members died? Most of them never lived long enough to draw anywhere close to what was paid in on there behalf. We never hear anyone talk about that money.
