Is Central States pension fund ready to go under?

[705red]

Red,

I read this one several times and I'm still trying to figure out how you do it. Now in my mind I picture those management types running around trying to dispatch the center. Do you grab one and lock him in an office? Tell him to call another management person and have him dispatch your route while your in the office "fighting for someones job". Do you lock them in the office and start phila bustering when you run out of things to say? How many actual days did you lock yourself in an office with management , fighting for someones job, have your route dispatched with someone else and how many of those days where you did not work did you actually get management to give you the guys job back. Did the guy you were fighting for then pay you for the lost wages? I'm titillated by your progressive union tactics.

Tie im in a huge building, almost 1800 teamster employees in the hub im out of. Tie when you work 10,11 hours a day i only need 4 days and would love to take an extra day off to be with the kids, golf, work around the house, etc, i do get paid when im in the office representing the members on greivence matters or termination hearings. Tie i have only been on the losing side of 2 terminations as a steward out of dozens, thats not to say im a great steward, it really helps when management cannot read a contract and fires because they want to!

 

[705red]

i can see ur a teamster peanut head..so wht about the 31billon underfunded? who in hell wants to support that not us ups people who want to retire ..... oh yea they say that the market is back again ,how about my medical and 25 and 30 and out .....So you are telling me when jan 2008 comes we won't be taking any more cuts in benefits.. well we will see whos wrong .. my ups brother and sisters are not signing .the done deal contract U guys talk about done deal .. u might be a idiot.....But i know my brothers and sisters are not 1......they are smarter then that lie ,we got last contract the best contract ever .. yea for are ba agent and president they all got a big pay increase plus no benefit cuts .... go sell ur crapp to ur fellow die hard teamsters members u will get a few more brownie point from them ....Not Us....thats why fedex don't want the teamster either they are smart i tell them when i see them start their own union they will be better off then the teamsters.....

When i get done trying to read this ebonic grammered, or child written post i will reply to it! I might have to wait until my 16 month can read!

 

[sawdusttv]

The problem is the 25 percent that are screwed by staying in CS. You're not going to convince them that retaining their bargaining power in the teamsters is going to make their pension better unless you specifically give them detail on how the teamsters would give them back the pensions they deserve.

They voted for the teamsters and no other union for the last 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years. Unless something changes quickly and drastically they will take a huge hit soon on their pension. They tried that toe the line thing and now you want to give them more of the same rhetoric.

You guys don't get it. You keep preaching soladarity, you keep putting apwa down but you don't give the folks suffering from CS or other poor performing pension plans any reason to hope that staying put will make things any better.

Very well said Tie,
The only thing that I disagree with is the 25% part, Central States is in 25 to 27 states so I would think that the persentage would be much higher, that isn't including all the other plans that are in trouble.

 

[705red]

Very well said Tie,
The only thing that I disagree with is the 25% part, Central States is in 25 to 27 states so I would think that the persentage would be much higher, that isn't including all the other plans that are in trouble.

Saw i think the cs plan has 44,000 upsers in it out of 240,000 nation wide. If a ups-teamster plan is much better than a multi-employer than why is new york in as bad of shape and new jersey worse off than the cs plan? Just something for you in the cs to consider, it sounds great now, but why are there two plans already struggling?

 

[Bill]

Saw i think the cs plan has 44,000 upsers in it out of 240,000 nation wide. If a ups-teamster plan is much better than a multi-employer than why is new york in as bad of shape and new jersey worse off than the cs plan? Just something for you in the cs to consider, it sounds great now, but why are there two plans already struggling?

Multi-employer plans simply don't work. Every time a company goes under, the other companies have to absorb the liabilities of the defunct company. When enough companies go out of business, such as the case in CS, the few remaining companies have to shoulder more of the burden than they can handle, and this puts a strain on the remaining companies. Eventually, the pension fund becomes a major liability, and becomes severly underfunded. AS more employees retire, the problem becomes exacerbated, and it gets to a point of no return, as Central States pension fund is now in. More money is needed to keep a fund afloat, but unless the companies dump a truckload extra money in, the fund can't right itself. UPS just added $28 per week per employee into the fund on August 1, 2007, but its employees don't receive a penny of this new money. This has occurred the past 3 years when UPS has added $24,$24, $24 and another $28 for a total of $100 each week and we receive absolutely nothing toward our pension. Does this make sense from the company's or the employee's point of view? A change needs to be made, and that is why we need a union (APWA) that represents only UPS people and a single pension plan, so that we can receive an adequate retirement pension when the time comes. What don't you get about that?

 

[sawdusttv]

Multi-employer plans simply don't work. Every time a company goes under, the other companies have to absorb the liabilities of the defunct company. When enough companies go out of business, such as the case in CS, the few remaining companies have to shoulder more of the burden than they can handle, and this puts a strain on the remaining companies. Eventually, the pension fund becomes a major liability, and becomes severly underfunded. AS more employees retire, the problem becomes exacerbated, and it gets to a point of no return, as Central States pension fund is now in. More money is needed to keep a fund afloat, but unless the companies dump a truckload extra money in, the fund can't right itself. UPS just added $28 per week per employee into the fund on August 1, 2007, but its employees don't receive a penny of this new money. This has occurred the past 3 years when UPS has added $24,$24, $24 and another $28 for a total of $100 each week and we receive absolutely nothing toward our pension. Does this make sense from the company's or the employee's point of view? A change needs to be made, and that is why we need a union (APWA) that represents only UPS people and a single pension plan, so that we can receive an adequate retirement pension when the time comes. What don't you get about that?

There you have it sports fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[UPS Freight worker]

Looks like the apwa has lost its only issue! UPS and the Central States pen. have come to a tenative agreement to pull out of the fund and create a joint UPS and IBT pension fund! Sorry apwa.

 

[705red]

Multi-employer plans simply don't work. Every time a company goes under, the other companies have to absorb the liabilities of the defunct company. When enough companies go out of business, such as the case in CS, the few remaining companies have to shoulder more of the burden than they can handle, and this puts a strain on the remaining companies. Eventually, the pension fund becomes a major liability, and becomes severly underfunded. AS more employees retire, the problem becomes exacerbated, and it gets to a point of no return, as Central States pension fund is now in. More money is needed to keep a fund afloat, but unless the companies dump a truckload extra money in, the fund can't right itself. UPS just added $28 per week per employee into the fund on August 1, 2007, but its employees don't receive a penny of this new money. This has occurred the past 3 years when UPS has added $24,$24, $24 and another $28 for a total of $100 each week and we receive absolutely nothing toward our pension. Does this make sense from the company's or the employee's point of view? A change needs to be made, and that is why we need a union (APWA) that represents only UPS people and a single pension plan, so that we can receive an adequate retirement pension when the time comes. What don't you get about that?

E79 i hear your frustrations, dont think for a minute that i dont understand were your coming from. If a single employer fund is more sound and better for the employees than why are the funds in new york and jersey in as bad of shape?

As for the apwa, it would be the same fund apwa-ups single employer as ups is offering here. There would be no guarantees on what the payouts would be or that it would never be in the same crisis as cs,ny, and jersey now is there? Ups is cutting benefits to their already single employer funds, and we are to believe that this wont happen to those of you under the cs plan now?

This is were you the cs participants need to do your homework and have all your questions answered before making a decision on your retirement.

 

[JonFrum]

Multi-employer plans simply don't work. Every time a company goes under, the other companies have to absorb the liabilities of the defunct company. When enough companies go out of business, such as the case in CS, the few remaining companies have to shoulder more of the burden than they can handle, and this puts a strain on the remaining companies. Eventually, the pension fund becomes a major liability, and becomes severly underfunded. AS more employees retire, the problem becomes exacerbated, and it gets to a point of no return, as Central States pension fund is now in. . . .

Engineer79,
You're right that every time a company goes out of business, the rest of the companies have to pick up their slack, but understand, they only have to pick up the small part that the defunct company still owed the pension fund. Most of the benefits earned by the employees of the bankrupt company would be paid out of the many years of contributions made by the company while it was still a going concern. Additional money would be recovered by the Fund in Bankruptcy Court. Only what isn't recovered must be funded by the other surviving companies in the Fund.

This process is not unique to Central States, or multi-employer pension funds. In fact, it is the standard way of doing business, or going out of business, through out the country. The Bankruptcy Laws apply to all of us, both individuals and companies.

Because UPS has financial dealings with a huge number of people and companies, they are probably left holding the bag more often than almost any other company in America. Yet I never hear you lament that UPS is itself unstable and headed for bankruptcy, just because so many of its accounts go belly-up and leave UPS to absorb the loss.

I'm not defending the nation's lax Bankruptcy Laws, just pointing out that they apply to all of us, not just Teamsters-sponsored pension plans. One way or another, we all pay every time someone checks-out without paying their bill.

 

[Bill]

E79 i hear your frustrations, dont think for a minute that i dont understand were your coming from. If a single employer fund is more sound and better for the employees than why are the funds in new york and jersey in as bad of shape?

As for the apwa, it would be the same fund apwa-ups single employer as ups is offering here. There would be no guarantees on what the payouts would be or that it would never be in the same crisis as cs,ny, and jersey now is there? Ups is cutting benefits to their already single employer funds, and we are to believe that this wont happen to those of you under the cs plan now?

This is were you the cs participants need to do your homework and have all your questions answered before making a decision on your retirement.

The funds in NY and NJ are in bad shape because UPS has control. (correct me if I am wrong). As for the APWA, this new union would be controlling the pension fund (as CS and the Teamsters do now), but would not have the liabilities of funding employees of other companies that the multi-employee fund has now. Under the present situation, UPS employees receive only 40% of the money that UPS contributes, but the APWA, being a single pension plan that represents only UPS people, we would receive all (100%) of UPS contributions. Is it better to receive 40% or 100%? This is a no brainer. By sticking with a failing fund(CS), we can never get an increase in our pension under the RED ZONE amendment signed into law until the fund is 100% funded, which can not occur. We could however, be forced to take additional cuts in order to stabilize the pension fund. A change MUST be made now. Let me ask you a question. If you went into a grocery store and bought a pound of meat for $10, but only received 4 ounces for $10, would you accept this and go home happy? No you wouldn't. You would demand that you receive the full pound of meat. The same could be said for our pension plan. WE WANT THE FULL AMOUNT. IF THEY (TEAMSTERS) CAN'T DELIVER, THEN WE SHOULD TAKE OUR BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE (APWA).

 

[Bill]

Are you getting tired of sacrificing your pension money?

On August 1, 2007, UPS contributed an EXTRA $28 per week per employee into your pension fund. Do you know how much you received? The answer is nothing. Thats right. Zero, nil, nada. In 2006, an additional $24 was added. Another $24 was added in 2005 and another $24 in 2004. Again, you received nothing. UPS has increased our pension by $100 over the last four years, and is now putting $238 per employee per week into our pension fund, but instead of increasing our pensions, we are taking reductions. Where is our money going? It is going to employees of other companies that are in the multi-employer pension fund in CS. We receive only 40% of the total money that UPS contributes. As long as we are burdened with CS, we can not receive an increase because of the RED ZONE amendment signed into law until the pension fund is fully funded (never will be for many reasons), but we can and probably will receive additional cuts even though UPS continues to spend billions on our pension fund. You can be content, do nothing, and let the Teamsters negotiate another "best ever contract", or you can say enough is enough and vote the Teamsters out. They have had many years to work for us, but they no longer have our best interests in mind when it comes contract time. It is time for a change. The choice is yours. Receive 40% (Teamsters) or 100% (APWA) of UPS benefits.

 

[705red]

The funds in NY and NJ are in bad shape because UPS has control. (correct me if I am wrong). As for the APWA, this new union would be controlling the pension fund (as CS and the Teamsters do now), but would not have the liabilities of funding employees of other companies that the multi-employee fund has now. Under the present situation, UPS employees receive only 40% of the money that UPS contributes, but the APWA, being a single pension plan that represents only UPS people, we would receive all (100%) of UPS contributions. Is it better to receive 40% or 100%? This is a no brainer. By sticking with a failing fund(CS), we can never get an increase in our pension under the RED ZONE amendment signed into law until the fund is 100% funded, which can not occur. We could however, be forced to take additional cuts in order to stabilize the pension fund. A change MUST be made now. Let me ask you a question. If you went into a grocery store and bought a pound of meat for $10, but only received 4 ounces for $10, would you accept this and go home happy? No you wouldn't. You would demand that you receive the full pound of meat. The same could be said for our pension plan. WE WANT THE FULL AMOUNT. IF THEY (TEAMSTERS) CAN'T DELIVER, THEN WE SHOULD TAKE OUR BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE (APWA).

E79 are you saying that the apwa would be the only one with a say in how the money would be invested?

 

[Bill]

E79 are you saying that the apwa would be the only one with a say in how the money would be invested?

As it stands now, UPS gives the pension money to the Teamsters who pass it on to CS and other pension funds. If the APWA replaces the Teamsters, the pension money would be invested with an investment firm with the usual regulators in place as they are now. The biggest and only difference is that ALL the investment money and returns would be going to UPS employees under the APWA, whereas currently (Teamsters), only 40% of the pension money gets back to UPS retirees and current employees. What don't you understand about this? This is the only reason that the APWA can promise a bigger pension than the Teamsters do.

 

[705red]

As it stands now, UPS gives the pension money to the Teamsters who pass it on to CS and other pension funds. If the APWA replaces the Teamsters, the pension money would be invested with an investment firm with the usual regulators in place as they are now. The biggest and only difference is that ALL the investment money and returns would be going to UPS employees under the APWA, whereas currently (Teamsters), only 40% of the pension money gets back to UPS retirees and current employees. What don't you understand about this? This is the only reason that the APWA can promise a bigger pension than the Teamsters do.

What im not understanding is you are selling us this pension from the apwa and you expect us to believe that ups will not have any say so in it at all!

 

[JonFrum]

60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

Engineer79,
You and other APWA supporters have been claiming for over a year now, that 60% of UPS' contributions to the pension fund go to fund other peoples' retirement benefits, and only 40% goes to fund the retirement of UPSers.

I began asking back in 2006: Where is the proof for these astounding numbers? I asked repeatedly for a play-by-play description of exactly how this money (the 60%) travels through the system and into who's retirement pocket it goes. I never got a satisfactory answer. Mostly I got endless restatements of The Point as if it was a self-evident fact, or as if it was The Truth because John McDevitt, a UPS official said it was, and testified about it in Congress. Sorry, but that doesn't make it so. His testimony has been refuted by TDU and NABER as I referenced at the time. People testify to false information all the time in Congress. Liberals believe one thing, Conservatives, the opposite. Democrats one thing, Republicans, another. Sometimes thay are deliberately lieing, usually they are just mistaken in their belief.

For what it's worth, UPSersDotCom had the testimony and even Mr. McDevitt's spreadsheet posted in their multi-employer pension section, but they took it down a while ago. I don't know why.

One past poster even claimed, twice(!), that the McDevitt testimony was given before the Supreme Court and so, must be true!

The 60% figure seems to be the very basis of the APWA movement and was mentioned by Danny Eason on the radio just recently.

I've never believed the 60% figure.

First, I think the analysis of TDU an NABOR was correct.

Second, it's not credible that The Figure would stay exactly 60% year after year. It never seems to vary.

Third, like almost everything APWA says, it seems to be drawn from the Central States Pension situation, but is often generalized to all funds, and all Teamsters, and all UPSers. Regional differences are not acknowledged.

Fourth, if money is lost in the market, as Central States lost about $6 billion, this money is gone. It is not being given to retirees of other companies. It's gone!

Fifth, although there is undoubtedly subsidizing going on, (subsidies are inherent in all group arrangements), the idea that the amount is 60% is so excessive as to not be believable without substantial proof. I could believe 6% or 16% or 26% perhaps, and not demand proof; but 60%, that requires proof.

Sixth, no one has ever answered my request for an explanation of how it is legal to take so much of one person's money and give it to another. If the Trustees have been doing this for years and haven't been charged and jailed, then what they are doing must be legal. What is the legal basis? If it's illegal, why haven't you filed charges against them to stop it?

Seventh, UPS runs a workplace where it is very difficult for most employees to last for the decades that are required to actually qualify for a significant pension. Many employees must settle for no pension, or a reduced pension, or a delayed pension. Few qualify for the maximum benefit. It isn't enough that the money was contributed on your behalf. You must *also* qualify to receive it back in the form of a pension, by putting in the required number of years and be the required age. Most UPSers, as the result of the way UPS runs its business, and the policies it adopts, just don't qualify to receive back all the money they put in. The money is, in effect, abandoned and becomes the property of the fund. This is largely UPS' fault, although the Teamsters are to blame as well for allowing UPS to get away with it.

Eighth, If you switch to a new Teamsters/UPS fund, you have the same problem because you still are dealing with the same company and its retirement-hostile policies.

Nineth, If you switch to an APWA/UPS fund, again, you're still dealing with that same company and its retirement-hostile policies. If you don't qualify for a pension, or for a particular pension benefit level, well, you're out of luck. It doesn't matter what fund you're in. If you don't qualify, you don't qualify. End of story.

I admit that in a UPSers-only fund, the truckloads of abandoned money would stay in the UPSers-only fund, but that wouldn't mean *you* would get the money, or even that the money you abandon would at least go to some fellow UPSer. In all likelyhood, the money would make the fund seem fully funded, perhaps even overfunded, and so UPS would be required to contribute little or no money in the following years. They seem to contribute only the legally required minimum to the funds they currently run.

In single-employer funds, UPS benefits financially every time an employee's career is derailed for any reason. This is true of Management and Hourly alike. We should not be giving UPS major incentives to get rid of us.

 

[tieguy]

Engineer79,
You're right that every time a company goes out of business, the rest of the companies have to pick up their slack, but understand, they only have to pick up the small part that the defunct company still owed the pension fund. Most of the benefits earned by the employees of the bankrupt company would be paid out of the many years of contributions made by the company while it was still a going concern.

Excellent Jon. So if UPS goes belly up today then our retirees drawing from CS would be able to continue collecting their checks with no loss of beni's or reduction thereof?


Additional money would be recovered by the Fund in Bankruptcy Court.

Assuming the company goes belly up rich in assets? Assuming those assets are not sold at auction at a fraction of their value? Not much hope there.

Because UPS has financial dealings with a huge number of people and companies, they are probably left holding the bag more often than almost any other company in America. Yet I never hear you lament that UPS is itself unstable and headed for bankruptcy, just because so many of its accounts go belly-up and leave UPS to absorb the loss.

My god don't tell me you are comparing the financial health of UPS to that of CS?

I'm not defending the nation's lax Bankruptcy Laws, just pointing out that they apply to all of us, not just Teamsters-sponsored pension plans. One way or another, we all pay every time someone checks-out without paying their bill.

theres the 10 percent truth I promised you I could find in one of Jons threads.

 

[Bill]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

Engineer79,
You and other APWA supporters have been claiming for over a year now, that 60% of UPS' contributions to the pension fund go to fund other peoples' retirement benefits, and only 40% goes to fund the retirement of UPSers.

I began asking back in 2006: Where is the proof for these astounding numbers? I asked repeatedly for a play-by-play description of exactly how this money (the 60%) travels through the system and into who's retirement pocket it goes. I never got a satisfactory answer. Mostly I got endless restatements of The Point as if it was a self-evident fact, or as if it was The Truth because John McDevitt, a UPS official said it was, and testified about it in Congress. Sorry, but that doesn't make it so. His testimony has been refuted by TDU and NABER as I referenced at the time. People testify to false information all the time in Congress. Liberals believe one thing, Conservatives, the opposite. Democrats one thing, Republicans, another. Sometimes thay are deliberately lieing, usually they are just mistaken in their belief.

For what it's worth, UPSersDotCom had the testimony and even Mr. McDevitt's spreadsheet posted in their multi-employer pension section, but they took it down a while ago. I don't know why.

One past poster even claimed, twice(!), that the McDevitt testimony was given before the Supreme Court and so, must be true!

The 60% figure seems to be the very basis of the APWA movement and was mentioned by Danny Eason on the radio just recently.

I've never believed the 60% figure.

First, I think the analysis of TDU an NABOR was correct.

Second, it's not credible that The Figure would stay exactly 60% year after year. It never seems to vary.

Third, like almost everything APWA says, it seems to be drawn from the Central States Pension situation, but is often generalized to all funds, and all Teamsters, and all UPSers. Regional differences are not acknowledged.

Fourth, if money is lost in the market, as Central States lost about $6 billion, this money is gone. It is not being given to retirees of other companies. It's gone!

Fifth, although there is undoubtedly subsidizing going on, (subsidies are inherent in all group arrangements), the idea that the amount is 60% is so excessive as to not be believable without substantial proof. I could believe 6% or 16% or 26% perhaps, and not demand proof; but 60%, that requires proof.

Sixth, no one has ever answered my request for an explanation of how it is legal to take so much of one person's money and give it to another. If the Trustees have been doing this for years and haven't been charged and jailed, then what they are doing must be legal. What is the legal basis? If it's illegal, why haven't you filed charges against them to stop it?

Seventh, UPS runs a workplace where it is very difficult for most employees to last for the decades that are required to actually qualify for a significant pension. Many employees must settle for no pension, or a reduced pension, or a delayed pension. Few qualify for the maximum benefit. It isn't enough that the money was contributed on your behalf. You must *also* qualify to receive it back in the form of a pension, by putting in the required number of years and be the required age. Most UPSers, as the result of the way UPS runs its business, and the policies it adopts, just don't qualify to receive back all the money they put in. The money is, in effect, abandoned and becomes the property of the fund. This is largely UPS' fault, although the Teamsters are to blame as well for allowing UPS to get away with it.

Eighth, If you switch to a new Teamsters/UPS fund, you have the same problem because you still are dealing with the same company and its retirement-hostile policies.

Nineth, If you switch to an APWA/UPS fund, again, you're still dealing with that same company and its retirement-hostile policies. If you don't qualify for a pension, or for a particular pension benefit level, well, you're out of luck. It doesn't matter what fund you're in. If you don't qualify, you don't qualify. End of story.

I admit that in a UPSers-only fund, the truckloads of abandoned money would stay in the UPSers-only fund, but that wouldn't mean *you* would get the money, or even that the money you abandon would at least go to some fellow UPSer. In all likelyhood, the money would make the fund seem fully funded, perhaps even overfunded, and so UPS would be required to contribute little or no money in the following years. They seem to contribute only the legally required minimum to the funds they currently run.

In single-employer funds, UPS benefits financially every time an employee's career is derailed for any reason. This is true of Management and Hourly alike. We should not be giving UPS major incentives to get rid of us.

Just because you ramble on and on in all your postings, it does not mean that you know what you are talking about. I try to keep it short and get to the point. Maybe you should do the same.

 

[tieguy]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

Just because you ramble on and on in all your postings, it does not mean that you know what you are talking about. I try to keep it short and get to the point. Maybe you should do the same.

Perhaps worth posting to make it easier for some to read?

Teamsters Multiemployer Pensions:
Needed Change May Finally Be on the Way
By William H. Fisher,
Raymond James & Associates
June 8, 2007​

Key Excerpts: Pension Developments Discussed
Unlike single employer plans where the integrity of the pension resides with the contributing company, multiemployer plans commingle the employee pension assets/liabilities of numerous companies, implicitly pooling/diversifying the risk of failure of one company among all other contributors. In essence, if one company fails, the other contributors to the plan, through no fault of their own, would be on the hook for the residual liability tail of the failed company.

The funds are managed by trustees, not the employers, and certain provisions appear governed by the Teamsters, again, not the employers.

The data shows that Central States was $20.4 billion or only 49% funded at the end of 2005, as computed by ERISA using single employer pension plan methodology.

The irony is that these funds in aggregate are significantly under-funded despite the fact that the employers are making relatively enormous annual outlays [over $20,000 per full-time employee per year for pension and healthcare for the major union transportation companies]. As a result of the aforementioned items, according to 2005 Form 5500 ERISA data (the latest liability info available), the five largest Teamster multiemployer pensions, anchored by the poster child, Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (Central States), are collectively under-funded by a whopping ~$31 billion (or only 64 percent funded).

* * *​

There are fewer companies contributing to these pension plans. The number of trucking companies signed on to a national contract with the Teamsters union dropped from 900 in 1980 to 15 in 2006.

* * *​

Sixty cents of every dollar UPS pays to the pension funds covers the retirement costs of employees who worked for other companies.*​

* * *​

The Central States Pension Plan was only 49 percent funded at the end of 2005, with roughly $21 billion in assets as of the first quarter of 2007.**

* * *​

The ratio of assets to liabilities for the 5 largest Teamster pension plans combined is 62 percent.
Retirees outnumber active participants in the Central States Pension Plan by nearly two to one.***

* * *​

“We strongly believe UPS and its employees would be far better off if it were able to exit the Central States Plan,” said Bill Fisher, Managing Director of Raymond James & Associates.
UPS and other freight carriers (YRC Workdwide, Arkansas Best, and a handful of smaller carriers) belong to scores of multiemployer pension plans. Because of the decline in unionized carriers and the more than 600 closings of Teamster-covered carriers in the freight industry since 1980, the remaining carriers are liable for literally billions of dollars in unfunded pension withdrawal liability. ****
* Source: “UPS Uses Political Clout to Press for Cuts in Pension Benefits,” Bloomberg News, by Jonathan D. Salant and Jay Newton-Small, March 20, 2006.
**Source: “Playing the Freight Card,” Traffic World, by John Gallagher, June 18, 2007.
***Source: Know Your Pension, from ERISA data
**** Source: “Pensions Dominate Teamsters’ Talks with UPS, Freight Carriers,” Logistics Management, June 22, 2007.

 

[JonFrum]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

I have given you the website that says we receive only 40%of the money that UPS contributes. It is from Raymond James,an independent financial firm. . . .

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. I am asking for PROOF that UPSers only receive 40% of the money UPS contributes on their behalf, and that the other 60% goes to subsidize the retirement of non-UPSers. I've seen the figure quoted many times, and now here you are quoting it again. Indeed, that's all Raymond James is doing. They are just quoting what they read somewhere and taking it as Truth. Endlessly repeating the 60%/40% figure doesn't make it more true with each repetition. I'm looking for an actual explanation. PROOF.

It's also illogical to cite a report dated June 8,2007 to justify why you have been citing the figure since many months earlier.

By the way, I read the Raymond James Report when it was first spammed to Browncafe by 1eyejack. It's the most amaturish report I have ever read. Everyone should see it for themselves.

 

[JonFrum]

Excellent Jon. So if UPS goes belly up today then our retirees drawing from CS would be able to continue collecting their checks with no loss of beni's or reduction thereof?

Correct. That's what the $21 billion in fund assets is for. That's what all that ERISA fine print is all about. Although I don't think UPS will be going belly-up today, so relax, unbunch.

Assuming the company goes belly up rich in assets? Assuming those assets are not sold at auction at a fraction of their value? Not much hope there.

In Bankruptcy Court the Fund would recover whatever it could. I never said it would recover everything. My point was that every dollar counts, and the surviving Contributing Employers only have to pick-up what the bankrupt company owed but did not ultimately pay.

My god don't tell me you are comparing the financial health of UPS to that of CS?

Of course not. You're just deliberately twisting my words as you usually do so you can appear to be shocked at my stupidity/arrogance/audacity/duplicity/criminality/cunning/etc (circle one) so you can react in seeming disbelief. What else is new? My point was that all businesses and individuals and funds get stuck "holding the bag" when someone declares bankruptcy while owing them money. It's a normal part of business. I'm not defending the Bankruptcy laws, just stating that they apply, like it or not, and by definition, the survivors pick up the slack.