local 804 pension problems
- Thread starter psstdrvr
- Start date
In response to your question "who do you trust to have control of your future", the answer is a no-brainer. The Teamsters have been controlling our pension money for a long time and have done a poor job. They had their chance to do the right thing, but have failed miserably. It is time to go in a new direction. Although the APWA does not have a track record as of yet, it is common sense that if all the UPS pension money goes only to UPS employees, we will have a fully funded pension plan because we are not giving away 60% of our money to other companies.Wkmac,
You would have to finish my last statement, the lack of new participants is just ONE of the reasons that the Central States trust is underfunded. Of the three listed I believe that the raising of the benefits without the ability to pay for said benefit is the main reason for the current underfundng. The "baby boomer" generation that most of us close to retirement hit all the retirement trusts recently. The events that is happening with most all the Teamster's trusts is also occuring with the Social Security fund, any chance of having healthy, young and contributing participants continue to pay into a plan over the next thirty years would help any benefit plan.
Will this underfunding turn the corner in the next 10 years? To answer that question just look at how many people or organizations are trying to get their hands on our retirement. There is a reason that all of a sudden the AWPA has appeared and that the company has been eager to take control of our retirement funds, these are not dumb people.
One thing I am not saying is that the union has not greatly contributed to this problem. Playing politics with promised benefits and poor investment planning. But really we are in a situation to who do you trust to have control of your future. "Choose wisely"
1St it wasn't a 3 3 vote it was a 4 3 vote the deciding vote was the mechanic's trustee i think he was from 477
2nd it is'nt a 30% cut it is a 30 % on future contrubitions
3rd howie and donato suck cause they knew about this and we were't informed prior to it being done
4th they lost my support and vote in next election
5th BE CAREFUL THE COMPANY WILL!! EXPLOITE THIS TO DRIVE US APART, THEY ARE STILL NOT THE GOOD GUYS
MIKE
2nd it is'nt a 30% cut it is a 30 % on future contrubitions
3rd howie and donato suck cause they knew about this and we were't informed prior to it being done
4th they lost my support and vote in next election
5th BE CAREFUL THE COMPANY WILL!! EXPLOITE THIS TO DRIVE US APART, THEY ARE STILL NOT THE GOOD GUYS
MIKE
People, did you understand at all JonFrum's post. What he was stating with the underfunding ratio with the 804 multi-pension fund. That it would take five times more annual contributions to get it to being 100 percent vesting status. Instead of the 10,000 quoted annually, it would be an additional 40,000 per person to correct the underfunding. Now go on line and study the provisions and vesting ratio required for pension plans under the new PENSION REFORM ACT over the next seven to ten years. Did anybody figure out that these companies and corporations will required by federal law to make additional monetary contributions to get them to that vesting ratio timetable.
Could be wrong on this one, but I believe that 804's underfunding ratio of 5 x would only required that additional payments of 40,000 per participant for one year. If you consider spreading it over the the next seven years it would be doable for the employers contributing to that fund. I have a feeling that the Feds are more involved with these changes and cuts than both the companies and unions, consider that they had their eyes on the Central States funding for over a decade now and possibly longer if we knew the truth.
Could be wrong on this one, but I believe that 804's underfunding ratio of 5 x would only required that additional payments of 40,000 per participant for one year. If you consider spreading it over the the next seven years it would be doable for the employers contributing to that fund. I have a feeling that the Feds are more involved with these changes and cuts than both the companies and unions, consider that they had their eyes on the Central States funding for over a decade now and possibly longer if we knew the truth.
R
Rick.Bulverde
Guest
I am manager just wanted to let you know why. UPS pays into multi-employer pension plan. That means UPS is paying for retirement for other non UPS people. Roadway, etc.
You get the picture. The Union needs money to fund defunk companies that are now out of business to help pay their pension fund. So it's not total UPS screwing you it's also your union. Ask WHY UPS pay's in to a multi-employer plan and not totlal UPS plan and see if your Union Rep does the moon walk.
Regards
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Wkmac,
You would have to finish my last statement, the lack of new participants is just ONE of the reasons that the Central States trust is underfunded. Of the three listed I believe that the raising of the benefits without the ability to pay for said benefit is the main reason for the current underfundng. The "baby boomer" generation that most of us close to retirement hit all the retirement trusts recently. The events that is happening with most all the Teamster's trusts is also occuring with the Social Security fund, any chance of having healthy, young and contributing participants continue to pay into a plan over the next thirty years would help any benefit plan.
Will this underfunding turn the corner in the next 10 years? To answer that question just look at how many people or organizations are trying to get their hands on our retirement. There is a reason that all of a sudden the AWPA has appeared and that the company has been eager to take control of our retirement funds, these are not dumb people.
One thing I am not saying is that the union has not greatly contributed to this problem. Playing politics with promised benefits and poor investment planning. But really we are in a situation to who do you trust to have control of your future. "Choose wisely"
Oh I finished it. The reason I said what I said was in the past you've made statements to the effect that pension credits are set aside and what you have is what you have and it has no bearing or pressure on the contributions of another or company to company if you please. When all things are working as they should, that is a valid argument but in the case of Central States that is not the case and one could argue has never been. Under the scenario that I saw you suggesting as I explained above, no new participants are ever needed because the individual employee sustains themselves and once they stop contributing, what they have put in will only be what they get. Again, in the perfect scenario this is true but the simple fact is this is not the case at all.
Did you ever consider for a moment that when John McDevitt of UPS testified before Congress about the pension fund and testified that I think it was 40 cents of every dollar contributed on behalf of UPSers goes to non-UPSers that he made that statement under penalty of perjury? Oh yes, you are sworn in just like in court and you can go to jail for contempt of Congress.
But here is the other more telling situation concerning McDevitt's statement and UPS' continual claim in this regard. Not once, and I mean not once have I seen the IBT or Central States object, dispute or otherwise scream foul about this claim. In all of this, in the several years I've heard this out of the company, the only people I've heard in any way object to this assertion are the unionist koolaid drinkers.
Now why would that be? If this is such a gross lie, then why hasn't the union or pension fund with all force and effect opposed this assertion and stopped UPS from continually making it? There are libel laws you know and more importantly, there are federal labor laws that the union could have filed against UPS as well if they are spreading false information about the union. Where are those efforts?
Now to me, that's a telling point in and of itself. In an honest and upright pension system I do agree every one of your points are valid but in this case and because of the history, I'm not convinced at this point that we have that perfect system that you might think we have. I hope you are right but I'm not convinced at this point and it will get worse. I also believe the bigger issue facing the pension system is not wall street investments but the rising costs of healthcare. It's killing everyone.
you asked:
I choose me but we live in a MOBocracy so I'm not allowed to think and decide for myself as to what's best for me so I'm only given the choice of the union or the company. I choose neither nor trust neither and will continue to max out the 401k and other investment vehicles and just hope for the best regarding this other stuff.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Ain't that a scream. About a week ago I read an article that a Jaguar car designer designed a carbody inspired by the body of actress Kate Winslet. Link at the article was another website where celebrities were imposed in front of cars designed after or reflected their personalities. I'll try and find the link and PM it to you if you like.
When I saw this one with Ron I just died laughing. That look on his face just kills me. It was just to good to pass up. Hope it brings a laugh to all who see it.
I've always believed that the greatest gift you can give another person is a smile!
J
JonFrum
Guest
wkmac,
That isn't the powerful arguement you think it is. In practice, it's almost unheard of for any one to be prosecuted for perjury or contempt. Even in criminal trials, perjurers are almost never charged with perjury. Scandalous, but true.
Testimony before Congress always involves panalists who are either pro or con concerning the bill up for consideration. Everyone is either in favor of say, abortion, capital punishment, gun control, right to work, global warming, the war in Iraq, etc. or they're against it. There are at least two sides to every issue. Obviously, they can't all be right. But Congresspeople take all this in stride. They (more or less) allow everyone to have their "say", and nobody is sentenced to do hard time in the Slammer for testifing falsely.
John McDevitt said UPS contributions go to non-UPSers, but he offered no convincing proof or details. He then compared Teamsters pension performance using contributions from previous decades when contributions were only a fraction of what they are today, to a hypothetical UPS plan starting in the present, with the much higher present day contribution levels. Some have charged him with lying, probably because he should know better given his job. (See Below) I just say he is wrong in his apples-to-oranges comparison, and wrong in his analysis of what happens to UPS contributions. (UPS contributions are mostly "voluntarily" abandoned by UPSers, and by UPS, who contributes the money on UPSers' behalf. UPSers time and again fail to meet the qualifications necessary to entitle them to the higher pension benefit levels, or to any pension benefit at all. This is ultimately the result of a wide variety of factors and policies at UPS that make earning a full retirement too much like winning a lottery.)
Most famous people and institutions are slandered, libeled, and ridiculed on a regular basis. Most don't have the time to respond, and refrain from doing so because it only gives the accuser free publicity and a certain legitimacy. Often responding doesn't end it there, as the controversy tends to grow and expand into other areas as well. It's frustrating to people like me who want Truth and Justice to win out, but most prominent people decide not to defend themselves and hope the accuser will just give up eventually when they realize they aren't getting much traction. Beyond that, the Teamsters and UPS aparently have a long-standing agreement to keep their differences out of the public arena. Just look at all the issues that are discussed on BrownCafe and elsewhere, and yet you never see an official response from a Teamsters or UPS spokesperson. Even during the Strike of '97 criticism of each other was muted. Currently, both sides are in contract negotiations and have agreed to keep talks private.
In very, very rough terms, let's say UPS contributes, on average, a billion dollars a year to these pension funds for each of the last ten years. So if 60% of this money is wrongly going to non-UPS people, that's $600 million a year, or $6 billion total. UPS has not provided any details about where this money went or what specific crimes were comitted or who specifically broke what specific laws. Nor has any one else. All I ever see is endless repetition of the allegation, never any details, never any actual charges filed. Do you, wkmac, have any details to back up John McDevitt's allegation? Do you have an explanation for why UPS hasn't filed charges to get it's $6 billion back?
- - - -
Here's what one retiree group said about John McDevitt's testimony . . .
Retired UPSers
"Misinformation about Teamster Pensions
Last year John McDevitt, UPS senior vice president, testified before the U.S. Congress and lied about our pensions. Management and an anti-Teamster group of UPS employees continue to spread the same material. In his prepared testimony a year ago, McDevitt stated that if UPS had contributed to a 401(k) instead of a union pension plan, and “assuming a conservative 7.5 percent rate of return the employee would have a nest egg of $827,000 after 30 years.” And this money could be converted to a pension of $5,833 a month. McDevitt stated this should be “today’s reality” but instead a Teamster would only get about $3,000 a month from a Teamster plan.
Figures Greatly Inflated
UPS management had to know that this was false. His figures assume that the current negotiated pension contribution rate of about $5 per hour has been in place for 30 years. But thirty years ago UPS was only contributing about 48 cents per hour to the pension. Twenty years ago it was $1.37. Ten years ago it was $2.50. So his figures were greatly inflated. He told Congress that UPS could have provided a $5,833 monthly pension with the same money, and that was totally false.
The Truth
By using the actual amounts UPS paid into the pension fund each year since 1974 for a full timer who worked every day, calculations demonstrate that this Teamster would get, under management’s system, only $2,394 per month after 30 years! This is less than any Teamster fund provides. (We used management’s figure of 7.5% annual rate of return and their conversion formula from lump sum to a monthly pension. TDU can provide the calculations to interested members.) Moreover, many Teamster pension plans (Washington D.C., Baltimore, Upstate New York, and the Western Region) today provide benefits over $3,000 per month. Some even pay close to $5,000 per month with thirty years of service."
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That is why in the same post I made this statement which I believe really holds the more weight and as such I worded it to suggest that.
No argument from me that McDevitt's claims didn't match up to current reality but the simple truth that also few want to publically acknowledge is the use of legalize speak when it comes to processes like this. Folks who testify will make grand statements that suggest one thing or another as in the case of McDevitt but if confronted with counter point facts of say the past funding levels as you correctly pointed out, this is their out.
"Well in the case of the committee's purpose, it was to look at the current funding levels of the various retirement plans and in what respect those levels would effect our future retirees. Those having already retired are locked in to their monthly pension so we are not discussing them as the current crisis effects more than any other class of persons, near future and farther out retirees under these various plans."
In other words, McDevitt or for that fact you can take most any fourm of law with testimony of facts and unless someone from an opposing point of view is asking hard questions (not the case when McDevitt testified) then after the fact when a point of order is made, the wiggle room is, "oh I was testifying as regards to current funding levels and what that would do isolated from the other companies (McDevitt was there to push the partition idea which limits UPS liability exposure, not a complete removal from mutli-employer plans) and for our hourly retirees going forward. I said that in respect that your legislation will only effect going forward and that you are not suggesting legislation that would in effect be ex post facto law. Those funding and payout levels I used were as your law would be, a forward looking point of order. It also was the fact under the partition scenario as to which I was offering testimony in support of!"
Again, what is so telling here is that not once did anyone or any official statement come forth from the IBT challenging what McDevitt said in his testimony. I think they didn't because to do so placed at great risk that UPSers would begin to learn more as the partition idea (good or bad) came out and they might begin to see the "what if's" of this scenario and that scenario. People might begin to think and ask questions and that was just to great a risk for them (IBT) to take IMO.
Hey Jon, I'm thirsty and was gonna fix me something to drink. Care to join me. Grape or Cherry?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
As I said, McDevitt was using a forward looking position using the partition model as the legislation that could result from these testimonies would also be forward. As to UPS sueing to get back the $6 bil. It's not their money my friend, it was allocated by our contract per our directions as part of a compensation package. UPS if ever forced under contractual liability to cover excess pension funding costs might could sued under the grounds of mismanagement and avoid further funding costs but that is complicated by the fact that they are trustees of said fund. If anyone has grounds to sue, it is ourselves who gave up part of our compensation to go into these retirement vehicles and you sue based on failure to provide proper fiduciary management as just one basis of suit but I think even that position if iffy and thus the reason I called some of the APWA types suggesting a pension lawsuit would save everything as at best farfetched..
They (IBT) could see the storm brewing before it hit and instead of taking part of the hourly wage to be moved to the H&W side, they maintained it on the wage side to boost wages in order to generate dues increases to make up for the financial shortfall as a result of declining membership numbers and mismanagement. TDU to their credit has done pretty good in pointing out these failures.
You see Jon, they choose themselves and their cushy jobs before the membership and our needs as it pertains to H&W. Some have suggested we give up some of our current raises in order to help stabliize the crisis but in doing so the actual wages drop and thus do do the dues money. Some want to claim that UPS isn't funding enough monies over the years to fund the system but I maintain the problem is that the IBT needs the funds allocated to the wage side so they can cover their mismanagement of our union. However, they now have an even bigger problem in that there is pressure from the federal gov't. This may explain why UPS gave in to early contract talks.
OK, you claim some plans pay $5k per month and I've heard this myself but as of yet I've not seen a link or whatever posted to an actual IBT fund website who lays out their payment schedules according to their current plans. Even CS per their own website pays out $4300 per month for 35 years service at age 62.
And if you're thinking that "hey I get 62' with 35 years and $4300 is sweet" well not to bust the bubble but call CS and asked them if you qualify. That 35 year sevice window just opened and you can retire at that level in the year 2041'. I called them on the phone and that was exactly what they told me.
OK, now I gave you links right to CS on payouts and other issues so where are your links or hard data to support the $5k per month payout of other funds?
There is a school of thought that CS could turn a corner and stablize and I agree this could happen. The real hard question that we have to ask is, "do you trust this union and it's representatives to do so and make it happen?" That is where it get's dicey and tricky for me and a lot of other folks as well. After 25 plus years of watching this nonsense my faith bucket is about completely empty!
brett636
Well-Known Member
this is why its not a good thing to rely soley on fixed income sources such as pensions and social security to fund your retirement. With more baby boomers retiring every year these funds are becoming increasingly strained and what will be left after the rest of us hit retirement age may not be enough to support ourselves without the aid of another job. I will say that you have two choices in retirement, you can be a walmart greeter, or you can be playing golf daily (I hate golf, just using it as an analogy). I don't care if my pension is there for me or not, I will not let my valuable time in retirment be controlled by a weekly schedule set at walmart.
Tell me BRETT what is the point of having the union if they don't protect the people they represent pension, hourly rate, health benefits?If all the employees of UPS roll over as easy as you have Ups and Hoffa will keep taking.You can bait the trap but will the rat take the bait?From what you state It's ok If when you retire if you have to greet people at your local walmart.Hold on I know what your going to say you yourself have made other arrangements in investments so you don't need the pension from all the years you have payed in I guess for the hell of It?This is totally amazing that people actually think this way.Next thing you no you will be paying for health care,paying for uniforms no overtime nothing.UNBELIEVABLE!With thinking ,intelligence like this It's very scary that people like this our on the road every day along side me.I will take my chances for sure with the APWA at least i will have a opinion to voice in the choices that our representatives make on our account.Good luck with the reamsters.
Keepingthemhonest
Bring'n sexy back
The teamster's pension is at the very most, remotely a result of UPS. Frankly it is underfunded because 1 UPS now has to pick up the pension for teamsters that worked for other companies no longer in biz/no longer contributing(which they shouldn't have to do), 2 The fund was MISMANAGED by teamsters earning horiable rates of return...the boards have made some terrible investment choices not to mention the administration costs are relativly high...eventually I have faith they will fix it but it will not be nearly as golden as it was 5-10 years ago and I suggest everyone invest early in a roth ira/401k. Take it upon yourself to plan for your retirement. Use the pension/social security only as a supplement to your income and FFS buy a house so it is paid off by the time you retire, you're stuck in one location with the same locale don't 
rent you aren't moving anywhere!
rent you aren't moving anywhere!
J
JonFrum
Guest
I didn't say it. The article I quoted said it. Or at least something approaching it.
I quoted the whole article for completeness sake, but it was the rest of the article that was revelant to John McDevitt's testimony. The actual sentence, which came along for the ride was: " . . . Some [pension funds] even pay close to $5,000 per month with thirty years of service."
In any event, I've read that "Upstate NY" was paying $5,800. So I tried to verify this by going to . . .
NYS Teamsters Benefit Funds
(I hope that is the correct site.) Unfortunately they don't seem to publish their benefit levels, or much of anything, online.
However, this 12/8/2003 notice . . .
https://web.archive.org/web/2005010...nd.org/newsletter/Change in Fund Benefits.pdf
contains the following example on page 8:
"Example 1:
Let’s say your employer’s contribution rate is $6.115 per hour as of January 1, 2004:
You are age 58 as of January 1, 2004 with 30 years of Future Service Credit and your accrued
benefit as of that date equals $5,281.50 per month. You could retire as of January 1, 2004 and
receive $5,281.50 payable for life with 60 payments guaranteed.
If the Fund was not amended to change the benefit formula and you continued working for four
more years until age 62, you could retire at age 62 as of January 1, 2008 and receive $6,161.50
payable for life with 60 payments guaranteed.
Under the Fund as amended, if you defer your retirement for 48 months beyond your Unreduced
Retirement Date, you would be eligible to receive a Supplemental Benefit payable over 48
months equal to 75% of $63,378 ($5,281.50 monthly for 12 months) divided by 48, or $990.28
per month. As a result, you could retire on January 1, 2008 with $6,984.46 (5,994.18 + 990.28)
per month payable for 48 months and $5,994.18 per month payable for life beginning January 1,
2012.
Or, if you choose to receive the Supplemental Benefit as a lump sum, you could retire on January 1,
2008 and receive $5,994.18 per month for life plus a lump sum of $40,344.48."
brett636
Well-Known Member
I don't expect you to be able to wrap your feeble mind around such complex issues. All you know is what you want and you don't care to understand the other variables that help decide exactly what you get. Last time I checked those of us at UPS already get the best pay, benefits, and retirement packages of anyone in our industry. Sure it could be better in a few areas, but it could be a lot worse. Cutting your nose off despite your face is really not the best solution to the problem. I do know that I am young enough that by the time I reach retirement pension checks will be something you view at a museum, not something you will recieve monthly. It won't matter who your representation is as this issue is a much bigger problem than you can comprehend.
the problem with the 804 pension plan is they front loaded the benefits. they gave increases in benefits without having the money first, coupled with a few years of bad investments, their plan is under funded. ups is determined to do away with 25 and 55 or 30 regardless of age type pension , this way you pay in to the plan longer not just for retirement but for health benefits as well. local 177 in jersey has been approached by ups to cut back the pension plan for local 177 as well, while the local says everything is okay, their letter sent out to the members certainly dosen't make me feel confident that they are right
local804
Well-Known Member
I understand what your saying Gman loud and clear. There is one thing you have to understand, We are not the Central States but we are the largest Teamster local on the east coast. We bust our ass of for this company and miss a major part of our family time missing dinner 5 times a week. Why does the company only pay 40 hours a week into our pension and not 50-55 which is what we actually work? The company profits billions after they re invest in new planes, tractors and package cars and we are not asking for much.
Like I said to the other poster in a different thread, the battle is not over, it has just begun.
Like I said to the other poster in a different thread, the battle is not over, it has just begun.
Doesn't the contract guarantee a 40 hour work week for full time employees? Don't drivers have the right to request 8 hours only and grieve over 9.5, if they feel they are overworked? I think everyone has to take the approach that you have to take control of your finances. After working for 38 years - 27 at UPS and 11 before that, I never gave much thought that social security would be an issue. So I did what most financial planners will tell you to do - IRA's and 401K's. This is the money I am relying on to supplement my retirement income. If you owned a business with teamster employees and contributed to their pensions over the years, saw the cutbacks in benefits and pensions, would you increase your contribution per employee? Wasn't UPS trying to work with the teamsters to jointly administer the pensions, to ensure UPS contributions went to UPS employees? Oh wait, that was a STRIKE issue in 97.And Ron Carey's last hurrah to bring UPS to their knees? And the $55 per employee who walked the picket line, I think there might have been some backpay due to some employees. Don't count on anyone but yourself for your financial future - Teamster or Management.
