Central states-what happens when???

[Ms.PacMan]

The bill allows pension funds to cut.
UPS central states retirees will be the last to receive cuts. The other employers retirees will be cut before a UPSer. By not cutting them, UPS will not have to make up the shortfall. These central state UPSer retirees will not see a cut.

Only UPS CS retirees who retired after 2008.

The Teamsters were happy with this bill and probably thought they would cut the CS pensions of retirees who retired after 2008 first and shift the burden onto UPS to protect other Teamster members pensions.

Did they really think UPS would not think thru this scenario and act accordingly?

I do feel bad for old CS UPS retirees. They will get shafted along with every other CS retiree.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I'm trying to figure out how this could affect me. I'm in the Southern Region and went full-time in 2008 right before the contract was ratified (was ratified early I think) and had nine years as a part-timer between two buildings in the same local. I've basically been in the UPS/IBT full-time pension plan the entire time since going full-time.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I'm trying to figure out how this could affect me. I'm in the Southern Region and went full-time in 2008 right before the contract was ratified (was ratified early I think) and had nine years as a part-timer between two buildings in the same local. I've basically been in the UPS/IBT full-time pension plan the entire time since going full-time.

Single employer or multi ?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

It won't affect you as you are not in a multi-employer pension fund.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Single employer or multi ?

Previously multi. Thats why I was asking. I was hired full-time right before UPS bought out of central states.

It won't affect you as you are not in a multi-employer pension fund.

So I got out just in time eh?

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Previously multi. Thats why I was asking.


So I got out just in time eh?

If you are In a single payer now,you have no worries.

 

[rod]

If you are In a single payer now,you have no worries.

I wouldn't go as far as to say you have "no" worries. Once UPS jumps on the "no more pensions" bandwagon it will become a fight for all to keep their pensions. Remember people -----death and taxes are still the ONLY "sure" things..

 

[sortaisle]

Central States is a multi employer plan. The loophole for UPS keeps them from funding other employees who didn't work for UPS in the CS plan. That's what I pulled from that language. It still benefits UPS. All things government will benefit the rich and big business. Kind of takes the piss out of everyone saying that the Bush Administration was for big business. The House and Senate have been Democrat dominated for a little while before recently and the rich and big business still run the country. We live in an Oligarchy now. The fed hasn't been for the people by the people since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I wouldn't go as far as to say you have "no" worries. Once UPS jumps on the "no more pensions" bandwagon it will become a fight for all to keep their pensions. Remember people -----death and taxes are still the ONLY "sure" things..

O.k. Let me rephrase. Better off, for now...maybe

 

[Ms.PacMan]

I thought I had posted this when we originally caught wind of the proposal but can't find the post. In any case, here is the original proposal and on pg.10 is a list of the companies and funds that helped develop the bill. UPS, the IBT and Central States were three of the architects.

http://www.solutionsnotbailouts.com/On-The-Record/details/141

It's a little disingenuous that the Teamsters should object now.

 

[Mugarolla]

Congress may have been considering the contributions that UPS has made over the years, not including the 6 billion. Congress may feel UPS has contributed its fair share, while other employers in the plan have not, or went out of business leaving employees in the plan with no additional contributions.

I think this may have helped justify it, but bottom line is that without this clause, UPS would be the only company, as a company, to lose billions because of this Kline-Miller Amendment.

 

[brownIEman]

Am I missing something here? Did UPS get a carve out to protect it from its own stupid generosity?

As I understand it:
UPS wanted out of the central states multi-employer fund. There are 2 hurdles to cross for this to occur - 1 - The bargaining unit has to agree to it as part of a negotiation - 2 - The employer leaving a multi-employer fund has to pay the full liability the fund has incurred for current retirees and any calculated benefits earned by current employees as of the date the employer leaves the plan. In essence, what it would owe on top of what it has already paid to fully fund the calculated pension payments going to all of its employees at that time.

UPS did both of these - and in order to secure number one, it went beyond its obligation under step 2. It said to the IBT, we will pay 6 billion plus into the plan as calculated to cover our employees in perpetuity - AND, we will promise that if you running the plan EFF up with that money and cannot afford to pay our employees what they are owed and SHOULD be covered by the money UPS paid in, UPS will make up that difference as well. Giving the plan a blank check to waste away its funds -

The question I have, is how much discretion did the IBT and others administering this plan have to reduce payments if they did lose too much of the funds they were entrusted with (or not make enough with them)?

What I am thinking is that the bill as originally conceived altered the rules to allow the funds to reduce payments so as not to go insolvent and in a domino action take the insurance safety net into bankruptcy with them. I am also thinking the IBT was thinking "This is great, we can reduce pensioners payments, so we can just reduce the UPS pensioners payments FIRST, which UPS will have to make up per the agreement - We get to save the plan on the back of UPS, its even better than if they had stayed in because their liability is greater the more we reduce payments to their retirees to allow more for the others, on top of the 6 billion they gave us to get out of that liability - AWESOME!" And UPS managed to get in language that said, no, you can reduce payments to retirees, but you have to reduce UPS retirees payments LAST. Which of course makes Hoffa and co. none too happy.

Which of course leads me back to the question I have been asking for the last 5 or 6 years, where did that 6 billion go?!?!?! That should be UPS' only response to Hoffa's whining about this law.

 

[PT Car Washer]

Some of that 6 billion dollars is to pay for my fathers Central States Pension. He has been collecting a pension for 35 years. There are thousands of other retirees just like him.

 

[rod]

Some of that 6 billion dollars is to pay for my fathers Central States Pension. He has been collecting a pension for 35 years. There are thousands of other retirees just like him.

If he has been collecting a pension from Central States for 35 years I imagine it isn't a very large one. It wasn't that long ago that a Central States pension was only about 900 bucks a month after 30 years.

 

[brownIEman]

Some of that 6 billion dollars is to pay for my fathers Central States Pension. He has been collecting a pension for 35 years. There are thousands of other retirees just like him.

Which is good, that is where that money was supposed to go. But the idea of the 6+ billion was to have a trust fund that would cover your father and all the thousands of other retirees in the plan at their assigned benefit level in perpetuity.

Now what is coming out is that the plan does not have enough money to do that and will go insolvent. So, either A - The plan was mismanaged or for other reasons is not getting enough return on its investments to cover what it owes retirees, or B - the calculations used to determine how much is needed in the fund to cover its liabilities (ie, the calculations used to come up with the 6+ billion figure) were wrong, or C - some combination of the two.

But UPS saying they will make up any shortfall caused to their retirees benefits due to A, B, or C is the same as giving the administrators a blank check just after they handed them one for $6 billion. That was really stupid on UPS' part.

 

[WhatsUP]

Which is good, that is where that money was supposed to go. But the idea of the 6+ billion was to have a trust fund that would cover your father and all the thousands of other retirees in the plan at their assigned benefit level in perpetuity.

Now what is coming out is that the plan does not have enough money to do that and will go insolvent. So, either A - The plan was mismanaged or for other reasons is not getting enough return on its investments to cover what it owes retirees, or B - the calculations used to determine how much is needed in the fund to cover its liabilities (ie, the calculations used to come up with the 6+ billion figure) were wrong, or C - some combination of the two.

But UPS saying they will make up any shortfall caused to their retirees benefits due to A, B, or C is the same as giving the administrators a blank check just after they handed them one for $6 billion. That was really stupid on UPS' part.

-----------------------------------------------------

The way i understand this Pension Bill is that all UPS retirees going back to day one of the Central States Plan will be 3rd (Last) in line to take any cuts since UPS payed their witdrawal fees to the plan before they got out.

If there are any cuts , UPS retirees that retired under the old plan will have to take the cuts. The people that retire under the Single Employee plan of UPS will not have to take cuts since UPS agreed to make up the difference.

Its difficult to understand the language in the bill that passed. I guess we will find out.

 

[PT Car Washer]

If he has been collecting a pension from Central States for 35 years I imagine it isn't a very large one. It wasn't that long ago that a Central States pension was only about 900 bucks a month after 30 years.

Sorry I meant 25 years and yes it is not a large pension.

 

[WhatsUP]

all[/B] UPS retirees going back to day one of the Central States Plan will be 3rd (Last) in line to take any cuts since UPS payed their witdrawal fees to the plan before they got out.

If there are any cuts , UPS retirees that retired under the old plan will have to take the cuts. The people that retire under the Single Employee plan of UPS will not have to take cuts since UPS agreed to make up the difference.

Its difficult to understand the language in the bill that passed. I guess we will find out.

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...what-happens-when.359574/page-4#ixzz3M5qBU8MM"Ms.PacMan, post: 1473039, member: 4656"]Only UPS CS retirees who retired after 2008.

The Teamsters were happy with this bill and probably thought they would cut the CS pensions of retirees who retired after 2008 first and shift the burden onto UPS to protect other Teamster members pensions.

Did they really think UPS would not think thru this scenario and act accordingly?

I do feel bad for old CS UPS retirees. They will get shafted along with every other CS retiree.

 

[WhatsUP]

The way i understand this Pension Bill is that all UPS retirees going back to day one of the Central States Plan will be 3rd (Last) in line to take any cuts since UPS payed their witdrawal fees to the plan before they got out.

If there are any cuts , UPS retirees that retired under the old plan will have to take the cuts. The people that retire under the Single Employee plan of UPS will not have to take cuts since UPS agreed to make up the difference.

Its difficult to understand the language in the bill that passed. I guess we will find out.

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...what-happens-when.359574/page-4#ixzz3M5qBU8MM

 

[Ms.PacMan]

The way i understand this Pension Bill is that all UPS retirees going back to day one of the Central States Plan will be 3rd (Last) in line to take any cuts since UPS payed their witdrawal fees to the plan before they got out.

If there are any cuts , UPS retirees that retired under the old plan will have to take the cuts. The people that retire under the Single Employee plan of UPS will not have to take cuts since UPS agreed to make up the difference.

Its difficult to understand the language in the bill that passed. I guess we will find out.

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...what-happens-when.359574/page-4#ixzz3M5qBU8MM

You're confusing yourself and your first and second paragraph are saying just the opposite. UPS only paid the liability on active Central States members at that time and they had to work at least one hour in 2008 before retiring to qualify for the new pension and guarantee.

All CS UPS retirees "from day one" will not be included in the third in line carve out unfortunately - only those who retired after 2008.