brett636
Well-Known Member
No, I just read and research the issues versus taking hearsay as fact.
Is Central States pension fund ready to go under?
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
No, I just read and research the issues versus taking hearsay as fact.
U
UPS FREIGHT WORKER
Guest
No-spin, if that were the case then any one terminal could break away from the IBT and ask for there pension money? Correct? I don't think so! You have to bargain the money and the apwa will never have the power to get that money! You have to get 50% plus 1 of all UPS teamsters to have the power to touch the cen states money! That is over 100,000 people! The apwa probably doesn't have enough money to print out the ballots! Maybe you should send in another $150 to the apwa per there web sight? Oh! by the way, the IBT is not accepting sign up cards from any UPS Freight terminal until the Indy master contract is done. I think that is enough proof that UPS and the IBT want to settle things amiably.
I have already caught you lying about the pilots pension. First you said that you read it somewhere, but when I confronted you about it, you changed your story. Then you changed it a third time when I disputed your new story. As far as I can see, you have lost all credibility on this site. You make statements that have no true meaning to it, and you can't even back up what you say.
The numbers don't lie. Central States has 156,744 active participants as of the 2005 annual report. There are 294,879 people receiving benefits. Now let us take a look at the UPS employees only. There are roughly 40,000 active employees and only 6,865 retirees. The numbers are now much more favorable when the employees of other companies are removed. This equates to approximately 6 employees to every one retired. Central States is quite the opposite where there is 1 employee supporting almost 2 retirees. Any clear thinking person (you are not included in this group) can see that breaking away from the albatross that hangs onto Central States would easily benefit every UPS worker.
the only thing that blows my pension out of the water is the Teamsters mismanaging it and making further cuts. I hate wasting my time responding to people such as yourself who make statements that have no meaning to them. Court cases and decisions have already been enacted. One of them has been mentioned on the forum, but your kind just closes their minds and doesn't bother to read anything that might dispute your empty statements.
You make it too easy to show how stupid you truly are. If you can't show evidence of where you read your information, then don't post it. It is meaningless statements as usual coming from you. How could the bulk of drivers retire in the next 5 years? The Teamsters have eliminated the 25 and out and also the 30 and out pension. You can retire, but according to Central States, you will receive very little. Any one in Central States can check out their own retirement benefits at www.centralstates.org and enter ttheir own personal information. You will see that unless you reach the age of 62 or 65 (if you had less than 20 years of service as of 2003), you will receive a big pension cut. Ironically, under this, it states that your pension and benefits are "not guaranteed". How many package car drivers are going to be able to work until the ripe old age of 65? Maybe Brett, you can answer this question, because you seem to know everything else!!!!! Did I mention that if you don't make it to the age of 50, you receive nothing.
Who is brain washed and why do you say that? Surely you have a reason for saying this, but I doubt it.
That is funny coming from someone who just makes statements without acknowledging where you get your information. You have never in all your writing, listed where you get any of your information. I have asked you where you read about the pilots, but then you changed your statement and said you heard it from the horse's mouth. Sounds to me as if you take hearsay as fact.
You mean to say amicably, not amiably. The Apwa is printing ballots now.
J
JonFrum
Guest
Time for a reality check.
Monies contributed over the years by UPS into Teamsters-sponsored multi-employer pension plans are generally NOT withdrawable or transferable.
The Central States fund has a "no transfer" clause in its Trust Agreement, as (I assume) do all other funds:
TRUST AGREEMENT
CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS
PENSION FUND
AS AMENDED THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2006
ARTICLE XV
BENEFICIAL RIGHTS
No Employer or Union, or Employees, shall have any right,
title or interest in or to the Trust Fund or any part thereof other
than vesting under the Pension Plan except in accordance with
applicable law. There shall be no pro rata or other distribution
of any of the assets of the Fund as a result of any Union, Employer
or group of Employees of Employers ceasing their participation in
this Fund for any purpose or reason, except as required by law.
My New England fund, for example, also has a "no transfer" clause in its Rules and Regulations:
ARTICLE X
SECTION 10.10
NO RIGHT TO ASSETS
No person other than the Trustees of the Pension Fund shall have any right, title or interest in any of the income or property of any character received or held by or for the account of the Pension Fund, and no person shall have any right to benefits provided by the Pension Plan except as expressly provided herein. No Employee, Beneficiary, group of Employees, Local Union, or Employer, who ceases to maintain his or its status as a Participant, Beneficiary,Local Union or Contributing Employer shall have any right to any of the assets of the Fund nor may any contributions to the Fund on behalf of the employment of a Participant be transferred to any other pension fund, local union or employer, or be paid to any Participant or Beneficiary except in the form of benefits as provided in the Plan.
http://www.nettipf.com/pdf_files/Rules&Regulations.pdf
The ERISA language [ERISA, 29 U.S.C 1415(a)] cited by the appelate judges in the NETPIC case is in reference to a transfer of assets from a multi-employer fund to another multi-employer fund, NOT to a single-employer fund, and therefore can't be used by APWA supporters.
Can anyone cite an official APWA statement where the APWA claims it will succede in getting these funds, or even that it is going to make a serious attempt?
Can anyone cite an APWA lawyer's opinion as to what points of law he would invoke in asserting his claim to the money?
The court case, which NETPIC LOST! and LOST AGAIN! on appeal is here . . .
USCA1 Opinion 91-1542
The text of ERISA is available here . . .
Employee Retirement Income Security Act - ERISA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 18 | finduslaw
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch18.html
Monies contributed over the years by UPS into Teamsters-sponsored multi-employer pension plans are generally NOT withdrawable or transferable.
The Central States fund has a "no transfer" clause in its Trust Agreement, as (I assume) do all other funds:
TRUST AGREEMENT
CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS
PENSION FUND
AS AMENDED THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2006
ARTICLE XV
BENEFICIAL RIGHTS
No Employer or Union, or Employees, shall have any right,
title or interest in or to the Trust Fund or any part thereof other
than vesting under the Pension Plan except in accordance with
applicable law. There shall be no pro rata or other distribution
of any of the assets of the Fund as a result of any Union, Employer
or group of Employees of Employers ceasing their participation in
this Fund for any purpose or reason, except as required by law.
My New England fund, for example, also has a "no transfer" clause in its Rules and Regulations:
ARTICLE X
SECTION 10.10
NO RIGHT TO ASSETS
No person other than the Trustees of the Pension Fund shall have any right, title or interest in any of the income or property of any character received or held by or for the account of the Pension Fund, and no person shall have any right to benefits provided by the Pension Plan except as expressly provided herein. No Employee, Beneficiary, group of Employees, Local Union, or Employer, who ceases to maintain his or its status as a Participant, Beneficiary,Local Union or Contributing Employer shall have any right to any of the assets of the Fund nor may any contributions to the Fund on behalf of the employment of a Participant be transferred to any other pension fund, local union or employer, or be paid to any Participant or Beneficiary except in the form of benefits as provided in the Plan.
http://www.nettipf.com/pdf_files/Rules&Regulations.pdf
The ERISA language [ERISA, 29 U.S.C 1415(a)] cited by the appelate judges in the NETPIC case is in reference to a transfer of assets from a multi-employer fund to another multi-employer fund, NOT to a single-employer fund, and therefore can't be used by APWA supporters.
Can anyone cite an official APWA statement where the APWA claims it will succede in getting these funds, or even that it is going to make a serious attempt?
Can anyone cite an APWA lawyer's opinion as to what points of law he would invoke in asserting his claim to the money?
The court case, which NETPIC LOST! and LOST AGAIN! on appeal is here . . .
USCA1 Opinion 91-1542
The text of ERISA is available here . . .
Employee Retirement Income Security Act - ERISA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 18 | finduslaw
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch18.html
pkgdriver
Well-Known Member
I wish I could remember where, but I did read that near 50% of all UPS drivers are nearing retirement. The bulk of those will be retiring between the years of 2008 and 2013. Thats a lot of drivers sucking down that brand new APWA pension. Not to mention some of them may be drawing on them for 20 years or more.
-------------------------------------------------------
My center will possibly have 10 drivers(mabey less thanks to CS) retired between2008/2013. That equals to just over 10% in my center. 2 near by centers are also in this range. Under old CS rules im guessing 15-18 would have been gone.
-------------------------------------------------------
My center will possibly have 10 drivers(mabey less thanks to CS) retired between2008/2013. That equals to just over 10% in my center. 2 near by centers are also in this range. Under old CS rules im guessing 15-18 would have been gone.
J
JonFrum
Guest
Does everyone understand that if the APWA suceeds in replacing the Teamsters as our exclusive bargaining agent the following things will occure? . . .
Our active participation in the various Teamsters-sponsored pension plans will stop as UPS stops contributing money on our behalf. Each of us will have our benefits calculated as of that moment and we will be eligible to receive benefits according to the rules in effect at that time. If there is a five year vesting requirement, then anyone with less than five vested years will forfeit all monies contributed on their behalf. Anyone who is short of any other pension milestone will forfeit the right to a pension based on that milestone. If, in the New England fund, you are short of the ten year mark, which is required for a disability pension, or the fifteen year mark, which is required for an early retirement pension, or short of 25 or 30 years pension credit for a 25-and-out or a 30-and-out pension, or short of a certain age qualification, like 52 or 55 or 57 or 64 then you can't qualify for those particular benefits. It's just like when the various funds cut the benefits several years ago. If you had not achieved the milestone by the cutoff day, then you were not grandfathered in and had to settle for lesser benefits. Van Skillman was just short of 25 years when Central States moved the goal post on him, as was I when the New England fund did it to me. However since we are still working under those funds, we still continue to accrue pension credits, albeit at a lower rate. If the APWA causes UPS to withdraw from the funds, we will be cut off from all future pension credit accruals. The only exception would be a UPSer who goes out and gets another Teamster job with an employer who continues to make contributions to the old Teamsters-sponsored pension plan on his behalf. This would be very hard to do for a full-time UPSer.
You may have heard that single-employer funds have much better insurance than multi-employer funds. Suposedly, a single-employer fund such as the APWA would create for UPSers only, would have it's monthly benefits insured up to $4,125 per month should the plan fail. While a Teamsters-sponsored multi-employer plan only has insurance of $1,072 per month. The government requires the single-employer funds to be more heavily insured because they fail at a rate of 100 times that of multi-employer funds. They are totally dependant on one employer, and when it fails, the fund fails. That's why you are always cautioned: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. The multi-employer funds, in effect, have much of their "insurance" built in to them as a result of their diversified employer contribution base. I've explained this and more in another thread . . .
http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/ups-subsidizing-non-ups-pensions.27725/
But here I want to explain that the often-cited figure for single-employer plans only applies if you are 65 years of age! The coverage is significantly less if you are younger than 65, as almost all of us are. See this table of coverage to see how much less . . .
Maximum monthly guarantee tables (PBGC.gov)
Note that the coverage is reduced even further if the Surviving Spouse option is taken.
The new APWA pension plan will not carry any PBGC insurance for the first five years, since no benefits will be paid for the first five years, (if I'm interpreting their sketchy pension plan description accurately.) These years will be the most turbulent as the APWA attempts to get its house in order and the Teamsters and Teamsters-sponsored funds retailate with campaigns and lawsuits.
UPS will also be hit with a huge bill from each of the pension plans that is less than 100% funded, to cover its Withdrawal Liability. UPS will regard these payments as no different in kind than it's normal payments that it has been making to the funds on our behalf all along. They will claim in negotiations that any new contributions the APWA expects them to make to a new APWA plan will be on top of the Withdrawal Liability contributions they are already legally required to make to the old Teamsters plans.
Our active participation in the various Teamsters-sponsored pension plans will stop as UPS stops contributing money on our behalf. Each of us will have our benefits calculated as of that moment and we will be eligible to receive benefits according to the rules in effect at that time. If there is a five year vesting requirement, then anyone with less than five vested years will forfeit all monies contributed on their behalf. Anyone who is short of any other pension milestone will forfeit the right to a pension based on that milestone. If, in the New England fund, you are short of the ten year mark, which is required for a disability pension, or the fifteen year mark, which is required for an early retirement pension, or short of 25 or 30 years pension credit for a 25-and-out or a 30-and-out pension, or short of a certain age qualification, like 52 or 55 or 57 or 64 then you can't qualify for those particular benefits. It's just like when the various funds cut the benefits several years ago. If you had not achieved the milestone by the cutoff day, then you were not grandfathered in and had to settle for lesser benefits. Van Skillman was just short of 25 years when Central States moved the goal post on him, as was I when the New England fund did it to me. However since we are still working under those funds, we still continue to accrue pension credits, albeit at a lower rate. If the APWA causes UPS to withdraw from the funds, we will be cut off from all future pension credit accruals. The only exception would be a UPSer who goes out and gets another Teamster job with an employer who continues to make contributions to the old Teamsters-sponsored pension plan on his behalf. This would be very hard to do for a full-time UPSer.
You may have heard that single-employer funds have much better insurance than multi-employer funds. Suposedly, a single-employer fund such as the APWA would create for UPSers only, would have it's monthly benefits insured up to $4,125 per month should the plan fail. While a Teamsters-sponsored multi-employer plan only has insurance of $1,072 per month. The government requires the single-employer funds to be more heavily insured because they fail at a rate of 100 times that of multi-employer funds. They are totally dependant on one employer, and when it fails, the fund fails. That's why you are always cautioned: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. The multi-employer funds, in effect, have much of their "insurance" built in to them as a result of their diversified employer contribution base. I've explained this and more in another thread . . .
http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/ups-subsidizing-non-ups-pensions.27725/
But here I want to explain that the often-cited figure for single-employer plans only applies if you are 65 years of age! The coverage is significantly less if you are younger than 65, as almost all of us are. See this table of coverage to see how much less . . .
Maximum monthly guarantee tables (PBGC.gov)
Note that the coverage is reduced even further if the Surviving Spouse option is taken.
The new APWA pension plan will not carry any PBGC insurance for the first five years, since no benefits will be paid for the first five years, (if I'm interpreting their sketchy pension plan description accurately.) These years will be the most turbulent as the APWA attempts to get its house in order and the Teamsters and Teamsters-sponsored funds retailate with campaigns and lawsuits.
UPS will also be hit with a huge bill from each of the pension plans that is less than 100% funded, to cover its Withdrawal Liability. UPS will regard these payments as no different in kind than it's normal payments that it has been making to the funds on our behalf all along. They will claim in negotiations that any new contributions the APWA expects them to make to a new APWA plan will be on top of the Withdrawal Liability contributions they are already legally required to make to the old Teamsters plans.
U
UPS Freight worker
Guest
Thank you! Jon Frum! Engineer 79, your pension plan won't work. Sorry for misspelling a word. Guys like you, who have no facts will always nit-pick on some minor thing like spelling. Just for you, I will double check my spelling, so you have to address the facts.
18wheelbrownie
Well-Known Member
Single-employer funds allow the employer to skim money in good times and put it in the company's coffers, money that should be held by the fund for the inevitable rainy day. JonFrum
JonFrum,
With all the threads and replys you have, did you ever contact Van and Dan and ask them your questions and concerns? The pension will not be handle by the company, but by the members, professionals and representatives from the company on a board under the APWA hands!Why should we in CS work till 62 or 65 for our pension ,pay a 6% penalty for every year under 62 or 65 because there is no more 25 or 30 and out ,lousy insurance and carry the load for everyones pension who's company has gone out of business? Don't forget we do work for the most profitable and tightest company !
JonFrum,
With all the threads and replys you have, did you ever contact Van and Dan and ask them your questions and concerns? The pension will not be handle by the company, but by the members, professionals and representatives from the company on a board under the APWA hands!Why should we in CS work till 62 or 65 for our pension ,pay a 6% penalty for every year under 62 or 65 because there is no more 25 or 30 and out ,lousy insurance and carry the load for everyones pension who's company has gone out of business? Don't forget we do work for the most profitable and tightest company !
How can you say that I have no facts to back up my statements? I gave the numbers straight from the annual reports from Central States. There is no denying these numbers, even though people such as yourself will still doubt the facts that you don't agree with.
Why don't you vote for the Teamsters as your bargaining agent. That way, you will be assured that when you are ready to retire, you will receive very little, and have restrictions placed on you. As I recall, UPS freight was Overnight freight not long ago. They belonged to the Teamsters who called a strike that lasted 3 years. Who can support themselves and a family while out of work? The Teamsters had these workers best interests in mind when they no longer worked!!! Continue to support them by all means, and you are asking for history to repeat.
What makes you so sure that if the APWA replaces the Teamsters, UPS will stop contributing money into the pension fund? Are you an insider in UPS corporate headquarters and have discussed this scenario as you describe it? You are the one that posted a law suit filed by UPS to withdraw from the Teamsters pension plan. No one else would have known about this lawsuit if not for you. Are you contradicting yourself?
Thanks to the Teamsters, we no longer have a 25 or 30 and pension plan. They want us to work until the age of 62 or 65 if you have less than 20 years of service as of 2003. Is that fair to ask the package car drivers to work this long at a back breaking job? Most of them will not be able to do this job for that length of time, and everyone of them can't become feeder drivers. The way the Teamsters have it set up, if an employee can't work until 50, he receives nothing for his/her years of work. Great plan! The money goes back into the fund, that worker receives zilch, a retiree from another company gets the money, and the Teamsters continue to mismanage our money.
What you fail to understand is that single pension plans that have failed in the past, have done so because the company controlled the fund and used the money as they desired. The APWA is not giving control over to UPS to manage, thus they control the money, and have access to 100% of the fund that will benefit only UPS people. UPS is not in financial trouble as was the case in many of these so called failed pension plans. As of now, we receive only 40% of the money that goes into the pension plan. How is that a wise investment? If you had bothered to read over the original posting on this thread, the numbers of active participants and retirees are going in opposite directions. The fund, in its current state, is doomed to fail unless much deeper cuts are made. Why should we have to receive cuts when UPS contributes more than enough to fully fund our pensions?
I could write as much as you do, but I choose not to. I only present the facts as they appear. I don't speculate on what may or may not happen as many of the people on this site do. Why don't you do the same.
J
JonFrum
Guest
The pension benefits of non-UPSers are largely paid from the following sources:
The years of contributions their employer paid in to the fund on their behalf.
The years of "excess" contributions their employer paid in to the fund on their behalf, over and above the level necessary to earn each year's full pension credit. [ In the New England fund, for example, we need 1800 hours of contributions per year to earn a full year's pension credit for that year. But an employer might contribute up to 2080 hours on our behalf if we typically work 40 hours a week. The money contributed for hours over 1800 up through 2080 is what I call "excess". ]
The years of contributions, both regular and "excess" that all their other employers contributed on their behalf. [ Some employees move from one employer to another during the course of their working career. Indeed, this is the very reason multi-employer pension plans were started: so workers in the trucking and construction industry especially could have a retirement program even though they moved from job to job, and their employers sometimes went out of business. ]
The years of contributions from all the employers the employee worked for that were forfeited by all his fellow employees who never achieved Vesting Status. [ Like when a non-UPSer worked at one or more companies, and some of his fellow employees never worked long enough to become Vested. Currently Vesting requires five years; in the past it required ten years! Lots of contributions were abandoned, especially under the ten-year vesting rule. These funds remain in the fund and become available to pay benefits to those who do manage to get vested and eventually retire. ]
The contributions contributed over the years on behalf of employees who did not meet a particular plan qualification and had to settle for a lesser benefit. [ A non-UPSer might be aiming for a 25-and-out or a 30-and-out but fall a few months, or years, short. He would have to settle for a pension calculated using an inferior formula. The difference between the inferior formula and the regular formula is another type of "excess" contribution that is available to pay pensions of those employees from those other companies. ]
Any self-contributions made by the non-UPS employees into the pension fund, (where permitted.)
The investment earnings made by the fund over the years on all these non-UPS employer contributions.
- - - - -
In the early days, pensions were very modest, and even the few who were entitled to them, often had to wait until they aged sufficiently to actually begin collecting benefit checks. A small pension becomes even smaller if you "retire" from covered employment in your twenties, thirties, forties or fifties, but have to wait until, say, age 65 to begin receiving benefit checks. Inflation takes its toll all the while.
Benefit levels are tied to years of contributions and to the size of the contributions, so those with fewer years of service and smaller hourly contribution rates get much smaller benefit checks.
A retiree who's employer has gone out of business is called an "orphan retiree." The benefit checks of these non-UPSers are paid out of all of the above funds, not out of present employer contributions. Even if their employer were still in business and contributing, it would be past contributions made during the employee's working career that would fund his retirement benefits, not current contributions. Current contributions are already earmarked to cover the actively employed members on who's behalf the contributions are made. [ Social Security pays current retirees out of current contributions. Multi-employer pension plans pay current retirees out of past contributions made over the years on their behalf. A very big difference. ]
I've never denied that there is some subsidy of Non-UPSers by UPSers, but it can't possibly be anywhere near the 60% APWA supporters claim. Usually if a UPSer doesn't get back all that was contributed by UPS on his behalf, it's either because the UPSer failed to get vested, or failed to meet various other plan requirements, and thus forfeited some, or all, of his contributions.
The years of contributions their employer paid in to the fund on their behalf.
The years of "excess" contributions their employer paid in to the fund on their behalf, over and above the level necessary to earn each year's full pension credit. [ In the New England fund, for example, we need 1800 hours of contributions per year to earn a full year's pension credit for that year. But an employer might contribute up to 2080 hours on our behalf if we typically work 40 hours a week. The money contributed for hours over 1800 up through 2080 is what I call "excess". ]
The years of contributions, both regular and "excess" that all their other employers contributed on their behalf. [ Some employees move from one employer to another during the course of their working career. Indeed, this is the very reason multi-employer pension plans were started: so workers in the trucking and construction industry especially could have a retirement program even though they moved from job to job, and their employers sometimes went out of business. ]
The years of contributions from all the employers the employee worked for that were forfeited by all his fellow employees who never achieved Vesting Status. [ Like when a non-UPSer worked at one or more companies, and some of his fellow employees never worked long enough to become Vested. Currently Vesting requires five years; in the past it required ten years! Lots of contributions were abandoned, especially under the ten-year vesting rule. These funds remain in the fund and become available to pay benefits to those who do manage to get vested and eventually retire. ]
The contributions contributed over the years on behalf of employees who did not meet a particular plan qualification and had to settle for a lesser benefit. [ A non-UPSer might be aiming for a 25-and-out or a 30-and-out but fall a few months, or years, short. He would have to settle for a pension calculated using an inferior formula. The difference between the inferior formula and the regular formula is another type of "excess" contribution that is available to pay pensions of those employees from those other companies. ]
Any self-contributions made by the non-UPS employees into the pension fund, (where permitted.)
The investment earnings made by the fund over the years on all these non-UPS employer contributions.
- - - - -
In the early days, pensions were very modest, and even the few who were entitled to them, often had to wait until they aged sufficiently to actually begin collecting benefit checks. A small pension becomes even smaller if you "retire" from covered employment in your twenties, thirties, forties or fifties, but have to wait until, say, age 65 to begin receiving benefit checks. Inflation takes its toll all the while.
Benefit levels are tied to years of contributions and to the size of the contributions, so those with fewer years of service and smaller hourly contribution rates get much smaller benefit checks.
A retiree who's employer has gone out of business is called an "orphan retiree." The benefit checks of these non-UPSers are paid out of all of the above funds, not out of present employer contributions. Even if their employer were still in business and contributing, it would be past contributions made during the employee's working career that would fund his retirement benefits, not current contributions. Current contributions are already earmarked to cover the actively employed members on who's behalf the contributions are made. [ Social Security pays current retirees out of current contributions. Multi-employer pension plans pay current retirees out of past contributions made over the years on their behalf. A very big difference. ]
I've never denied that there is some subsidy of Non-UPSers by UPSers, but it can't possibly be anywhere near the 60% APWA supporters claim. Usually if a UPSer doesn't get back all that was contributed by UPS on his behalf, it's either because the UPSer failed to get vested, or failed to meet various other plan requirements, and thus forfeited some, or all, of his contributions.
50% nearing retirement????
That was before all the teamster cuts to our pension plans.
Before the cuts I had 5 years until retirement.
Now I have 19 more years to work to get only about 2/3's of what I was going to get at 30 years.
Boy, those teamsters, they are really looking after us!!!
