Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Inthegame" data-source="post: 3031487" data-attributes="member: 37112">BUG and I aren&#039;t the ones not &quot;getting it&quot;. The problem is his frustration is misplaced and he doesn&#039;t see it. First off, dues have nothing to do with pension benefits. He&#039;s throwing s%$# at the wall, and he&#039;s hitting the floor and ceiling.&nbsp; &nbsp; Secondly, blaming his local union for the woes of a funding deficiency in a multi employer plan is like blaming his town board for the national debt. His local is a bit player that may (or most likely not) have a representative as a trustee of the fund. Even if his local has a trustee, they (the trustees) are forced to play the hands they&#039;re dealt. Nobody, especially anyone who stands for election every three years, WANTS to cut benefits.His plan is plagued by the same stresses affecting many other plans, the lawful avenue participating employers take when they hide under bankruptcy to exit plans and not pay their withdrawal obligations. The plans however, prior to the 2014 MPRA, are still forced to continue full benefit payments to retirees even though future promised contributions (that actuaries figured in when determining benefit amounts) aren&#039;t coming in. The participating employers break their commitment, and the union gets the blame.Hostess is a perfect example. They walked away from dozens of Teamster plans under bankruptcy and now are back as a profitable company, minus millions of dollars of obligations they owed their employees. The local unions in the NYS plan are still making 100% of their obligatory contributions but once again receive the blame.I wonder if 3 done eats Twinkies?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Inthegame, post: 3031487, member: 37112"] BUG and I aren't the ones not "getting it". The problem is his frustration is misplaced and he doesn't see it. First off, dues have nothing to do with pension benefits. He's throwing s%$# at the wall, and he's hitting the floor and ceiling. Secondly, blaming his local union for the woes of a funding deficiency in a multi employer plan is like blaming his town board for the national debt. His local is a bit player that may (or most likely not) have a representative as a trustee of the fund. Even if his local has a trustee, they (the trustees) are forced to play the hands they're dealt. Nobody, especially anyone who stands for election every three years, WANTS to cut benefits. His plan is plagued by the same stresses affecting many other plans, the lawful avenue participating employers take when they hide under bankruptcy to exit plans and not pay their withdrawal obligations. The plans however, prior to the 2014 MPRA, are still forced to continue full benefit payments to retirees even though future promised contributions (that actuaries figured in when determining benefit amounts) aren't coming in. The participating employers break their commitment, and the union gets the blame. Hostess is a perfect example. They walked away from dozens of Teamster plans under bankruptcy and now are back as a profitable company, minus millions of dollars of obligations they owed their employees. The local unions in the NYS plan are still making 100% of their obligatory contributions but once again receive the blame. I wonder if 3 done eats Twinkies? [/QUOTE]

Verification