More gloom and doom..CS is tanking

[Mugarolla]

That is my understanding as well...
We will vote on it, but if is voted down, cuts will be made anyway.

However, I was given the distinct impression , if not the outright statement by a Teamster official that the plan will eventually go bankrupt and the PBGC will not rescue the plan because it is too big to rescue. This rescue plan would extend the plan, delaying it's demise.

If it is your impression that "They" will not let it go bankrupt who might "They" be?
-The PBGC?
-The administrators of CS?
-The federal government/Congress?

Of course the administrator of CS would like to extend it's life as long as possible...half million dollar+ salaries are hard to come by.

Plus everyone gets:
Great Benefits (fully paid health, vision, dental insurance, 10 vacation and 12 sick days, 401k with match, company paid pension, tuition reimbursement, a stipend for lunch)
- Great work hours (35 per week) and flex scheduling (start between 6 and 930 am and work 7 hour days)

Won't let me upload this full size.

 

[Mugarolla]

Won't let me upload this full size.

Let's try this again. The last post was a pdf. Sorry.

 

[OLDMAN3]

Won't let me upload this full size.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/298828951.html
Quote from the article (emphasis mine):
The PRA took effect immediately. Cuts could take place this year. Two good sources for retirees trying to find information are the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and the Pension Rights Center. The Center for Retirement Research studied the Central States Teamster plan and concluded that the plan could remain solvent if benefits were cut an average of 30 percent. The PRA requires a far different allocation of cuts. First, as the Pension Rights Center notes, the pensions of retirees over 80 or disabled are not cut. Those for people 75 to 79 are not cut as severely. This is within reason.

Second, the Pension Rights Center states: “Plan trustees are required to reduce the benefits of participants whose employers went out of business (or withdrew from the plan for other reasons without paying all of their obligations) first, before they reduce the benefits of other plan participants. This will mean that those retirees whose companies went bankrupt will have greater reductions than other retirees.”


While the amount of pension contributions paid for retirees could be equal, cuts will vary drastically. Some of the retirees of companies that filed bankruptcy participated in a voluntary program to donate 15 percent of their gross wages to their companies to help them survive following deregulation of the trucking industry, in hopes of preserving jobs and pensions.

Third, as the center states, certain “retirees in the Central States Teamster plan are given special protection; their benefits are last in line to be cut.”



So if the PRA (Pension Reform Act) will not allow the cuts to go forward as delineated in the study you pointed out (30% across the board) Who is guaranteeing CS won't go under?

 

[OLDMAN3]

A good resource:
http://www.pensionrights.org/issues...nsion-cutback-provisions-omnibus-spending-law

And a calculator to estimate the possible cuts to pension benefits (I assume this will not apply uniformly since the cuts will not be uniform, especially not UPSers who worked past 2007)...

http://www.pensionrights.org/multiemployer-retiree-cutback-calculator

 

[Mugarolla]

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/298828951.html
Quote from the article (emphasis mine):
The PRA took effect immediately. Cuts could take place this year. Two good sources for retirees trying to find information are the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and the Pension Rights Center. The Center for Retirement Research studied the Central States Teamster plan and concluded that the plan could remain solvent if benefits were cut an average of 30 percent. The PRA requires a far different allocation of cuts. First, as the Pension Rights Center notes, the pensions of retirees over 80 or disabled are not cut. Those for people 75 to 79 are not cut as severely. This is within reason.

Second, the Pension Rights Center states: “Plan trustees are required to reduce the benefits of participants whose employers went out of business (or withdrew from the plan for other reasons without paying all of their obligations) first, before they reduce the benefits of other plan participants. This will mean that those retirees whose companies went bankrupt will have greater reductions than other retirees.”


While the amount of pension contributions paid for retirees could be equal, cuts will vary drastically. Some of the retirees of companies that filed bankruptcy participated in a voluntary program to donate 15 percent of their gross wages to their companies to help them survive following deregulation of the trucking industry, in hopes of preserving jobs and pensions.

Third, as the center states, certain “retirees in the Central States Teamster plan are given special protection; their benefits are last in line to be cut.”



So if the PRA (Pension Reform Act) will not allow the cuts to go forward as delineated in the study you pointed out (30% across the board) Who is guaranteeing CS won't go under?

I understand the PRA will not make cuts to anyone over 80, lesser cuts to those in their 70's and no cuts to UPS retires.

But it also said that cuts could be as steep as 60%

And over half the retirees are from orphan companies, bankrupt companies no longer in existence. They may see a 60% cut. I understand some are over the 75 year old threshold so they will not see huge cuts.

Do the math. If you cut over half the employees by 60% this is the same as cutting everyone by 30%

So the PRA will not allow a 30% cut across the board, but the cuts that it allows for will result in an average of 30% across the board.

This will keep CS solvent indefinitely according to Boston College Pension Research.

And I tend to give them more credit than some "Teamster Official" that told you CS will go bankrupt.

 

[upschuck]

Do the math. If you cut over half the employees by 60% this is the same as cutting everyone by 30%

That is assuming everyone gets the payouts.

 

[Mugarolla]

That is assuming everyone gets the payouts.

That is assuming everyone gets the payouts.?

If you mean paycuts, I understand. Most of the half will get 60% cut, but not all.

Some other retirees may get 50% cut.

Some may get 40% cut.

I believe the average across the board will be at least 30%

 

[upschuck]

That is assuming everyone gets the payouts.?

If you mean paycuts, I understand. Most of the half will get 60% cut, but not all.

Some other retirees may get 50% cut.

Some may get 40% cut.

I believe the average across the board will be at least 30%

Sorry, the same payouts. Everybody doesn't get the same payouts.

 

[Browndriver5]

Who cares how much money you have at the age of 80? Life is boring at that age

 

[brownmonster]

Who cares how much money you have at the age of 80? Life is boring at that age

I hope not.

 

[Mugarolla]

Sorry, the same payouts. Everybody doesn't get the same payouts.

No, everyone does not get the same payouts, but the Boston College research did not define a set $ number in reduced benefits, they specified a reduction percentage.

They took into account the different $ payouts.

CS just needs an average of a 30% reduction to remain solvent indefinitely.

Cutting some 60% cutting some 50% cutting some 40% cutting some 5% should average out to a 30% cut across the board.

This would make the pension fund good indefinitely. And if the economy improves greatly, or if CS gets their funding to a better level, they may be able to reverse some of these cuts in the future.

 

[upschuck]

No, everyone does not get the same payouts, but the Boston College research did not define a set $ number in reduced benefits, they specified a reduction percentage.

They took into account the different $ payouts.

CS just needs an average of a 30% reduction to remain solvent indefinitely.

Cutting some 60% cutting some 50% cutting some 40% cutting some 5% should average out to a 30% cut across the board.

This would make the pension fund good indefinitely. And if the economy improves greatly, or if CS gets their funding to a better level, they may be able to reverse some of these cuts in the future.

I would imagine that UPS people get higher payouts than does other companies, and especially the orphaned retirees. Would be nice to know what % of payouts go to UPS v non UPS retirees.

 

[Catatonic]

I would imagine that UPS people get higher payouts than does other companies, and especially the orphaned retirees. Would be nice to know what % of payouts go to UPS v non UPS retirees.

Don't you care about your Teamster Brother and Sisters?
Maybe some Teamster Brother and Sisters are more equal than others.
Oh yeah, definitely a case of Double Standards.

 

[upschuck]

Don't you care about your Teamster Brother and Sisters?
Maybe some Teamster Brother and Sisters are more equal than others.
Oh yeah, definitely a case of Double Standards.

I think you put on the wrong pair of glasses today, the other pair may still be on the nightstand. Would you like me to get them for you?

 

[rod]

Who cares how much money you have at the age of 80? Life is boring at that age

Your children do

 

[Browndriver5]

Your children do

Hopefully my kids aren't still using my money when i'm 80

 

[oldngray]

Hopefully my kids aren't still using my money when i'm 80

Silly man. You are supposed to spend your kids inheritance. Thats what I say anyway.

 

[upschuck]

Your children do

Hopefully my kids aren't still using my money when i'm 80

They are waiting for you to croak.

 

[rod]

Hopefully my kids aren't still using my money when i'm 80

With any luck they won't be ----but they will be thinking about it--guaranteed

 

[upschuck]

Silly man. You are supposed to spend your kids inheritance. Thats what I say anyway.

My mom wants to save everything for "the kids", she lives very miserly.