Pension letter

[By The Book]

You misread my post.

My question was whether her 16% would be based off of the original $5,400 or off the reduced amount.

My second sentence answered your question.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Turns out I was wrong. There is no separate 50% cut for orphans. They are grouped with all of the other retirees at the proposed 31%.

 

[DorkHead]

You misread my post.

My question was whether her 16% would be based off of the original $5,400 or off the reduced amount.

Upstate, we had 2 retiree meetings already and this was brought up. She will get 16% of your pension at the time of retirement. If later your pension gets reduced again, then she gets 16% of the new amount. Oh and by the way, the application has not been approved yet. There is a good chance that they might have to resubmit again with a fairer plan.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Upstate, we had 2 retiree meetings already and this was brought up. She will get 16% of your pension at the time of retirement. If later your pension gets reduced again, then she gets 16% of the new amount. Oh and by the way, the application has not been approved yet. There is a good chance that they might have to resubmit again with a fairer plan.

I have no problem with the plan as presented and will vote to accept it.

 

[twoweeled]

I'm sure we all know there are more pensions on the chopping block. Of course they are cutting little by little, to avoid an uproar. We are all staying back wiping our forehead, thankful that it isn't us. May not be us today, but it will be some of us ,,,,,,, soon! Typical tactic. A little at a time. They may very well get very close to all of us, if not all of us. The more screwing we accept, the more screwing we're going to get! Guaranteed.
This didn't spring up on our Union leaders. They seen this coming a long time ago. And if they didn't see a long time ago, then they were still responsible for what is taking place.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

We had a union meeting last Saturday and our BA gave us an update on our pension issues.

Our application for relief has been submitted to and received by the Treasury Dept. with a projected approval/denial date of 4/12/17. There have been numerous phone calls between the Treasury and our Pension Fund seeking clarification but the overall feeling is that the plan will be turned down. At that point the Fund would have to weigh their options. If by chance our plan is approved the Treasury would send out ballots to all plan participants; however, the Treasury can still implement the plan regardless of the outcome of the vote.

There was an interesting development. The Plan Trustees have submitted a separate proposal for a $1B loan with a 1% interest rate and a 10 year grace period before the first payment would be due that would allow us to maintain our current benefit levels while planning on investment growth/returns to repay the loan. The Fund will be mailing out a form letter to all plan participants which we would then be asked to forward to our local representatives asking them for their support.

I received a very cool response from those in the room when I asked whether the government should be in the business of bailing out private pension plans. Our BA was quick to point out the difference between a loan and a bail out.

While I am not happy with the prospect of losing 20% of my pension, I do not support the bail out of private pension plans in any form whatsoever.

 

[MC4YOU2]

It will be interesting to see what changes in pension law will be upcoming in the Trump admin.

The word is that less favorable changes to participants are likely.

 

[retired2000]

Upstate how can you say you like the plan. If we had trustees with any kind of smarts we would not be in this situation. To many side deals

 

[3 done 3 to go]

We had a union meeting last Saturday and our BA gave us an update on our pension issues.

Our application for relief has been submitted to and received by the Treasury Dept. with a projected approval/denial date of 4/12/17. There have been numerous phone calls between the Treasury and our Pension Fund seeking clarification but the overall feeling is that the plan will be turned down. At that point the Fund would have to weigh their options. If by chance our plan is approved the Treasury would send out ballots to all plan participants; however, the Treasury can still implement the plan regardless of the outcome of the vote.

There was an interesting development. The Plan Trustees have submitted a separate proposal for a $1B loan with a 1% interest rate and a 10 year grace period before the first payment would be due that would allow us to maintain our current benefit levels while planning on investment growth/returns to repay the loan. The Fund will be mailing out a form letter to all plan participants which we would then be asked to forward to our local representatives asking them for their support.

I received a very cool response from those in the room when I asked whether the government should be in the business of bailing out private pension plans. Our BA was quick to point out the difference between a loan and a bail out.

While I am not happy with the prospect of losing 20% of my pension, I do not support the bail out of private pension plans in any form whatsoever.

How about close 2 of the 4 locals in Ny. Then there will be plenty of bodies to cover the pension payouts. They are making it way harder than it needs to be. It is the teamsters hierarchy who wants to protect their cushy jobs. Don't forget they gave themselves a big raise before they let us know what the cuts to the pensions would be. I totally agree with NO BUYOUT!

 

[Inthegame]

How about close 2 of the 4 locals in Ny. Then there will be plenty of bodies to cover the pension payouts. They are making it way harder than it needs to be. It is the teamsters hierarchy who wants to protect their cushy jobs. Don't forget they gave themselves a big raise before they let us know what the cuts to the pensions would be. I totally agree with NO BUYOUT!

Please explain how closing two locals would accomplish anything toward pension issues.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Please explain how closing two locals would accomplish anything toward pension issues.

It would reduce our overall expenses but would have zero impact on our pension.

 

[3 done 3 to go]

Our local has 14,000 retirees. With 9,500 actives. Simple math. You can do. Plus board members gave them selves a 10% raise

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Our local has 14,000 retirees. With 9,500 actives. Simple math. You can do. Plus board members gave them selves a 10% raise

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Inthegame]

Our local has 14,000 retirees. With 9,500 actives. Simple math. You can do. Plus board members gave them selves a 10% raise

I can pull off a little complex math also but this is more simple logic than math.

You have 9500 active employees in a local union and you think closing it makes any sense? Do you understand those 9500 members would still be Teamsters absorbed by another local union, with the only savings gained by lessening representation. If your misguided dream were to come true, the Pension fund would actually lose funding as the closed local would no longer be contributing on behalf of those local union employees.

Furthermore, closing the local doesn't eliminate the pension obligation of those 14000 retirees nor the vested obligation the fund has toward the 9500 actives, including the employees of the closed local.

LU officials could give themselves a 100% raise and it would have zero impact on the pension, or are you one of those clever members that think dues funds your pension?

 

[Inthegame]

It would reduce our overall expenses...

Maybe. Some locals spread out over large geographic areas have satellite locations Business reps work out of, that need a fully operational office including phones, computers, rent, etc. Travel costs are higher. In any case and more important to the member, your dues would be unaffected.

... but would have zero impact on our pension.

Give that man a cigar.