question about pension contribution

Not just Western getting screwed by Sean of Sherwood.

8mp50l.jpg
It was every pension not named UPS-IBT or NE.
 

DELACROIX

In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
No, and I'm not sure why that would matter. He started FT and has never been laid off.

That age 21 rule when a member starts vesting, it applies for those under the IBT/UPS, not sure about the West. Age is another determining fact also for those in the Central and Southern.

The formula I stated was 35 years, let us say he stays just 5 more years pass 30 how much would he get ?

The original example was for a (part timer) with 35 credit years in..that is where the inequality shows through.
 
That age 21 rule when a member starts vesting, it applies for those under the IBT/UPS, not sure about the West. Age is another determining fact also for those in the Central and Southern.

The formula I stated was 35 years, let us say he stays just 5 more years pass 30 how much would he get ?

The original example was for a (part timer) with 35 credit years in..that is where the inequality shows through.
No, in the west age doesn't matter. The only changing factor is how much PT contributions vs FT.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you before long will be helping another local's pension. The precedent has been set by leadership.
Doubtful it will need to happen again. But shouldn’t the need ever arise? I will certainly be the first to agree that my brother and sisters everywhere are taking care of. We cannot be a union otherwise.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
My pension fund along with many others who had to live with those same government rules didn't need a taxpayer bailout.
If you’re in central states that’s not true i. Central states was heavily in the trucking industry, which was deregulated. It’s really not even debatable, dozens, and dozens of carriers went out of business within a couple years of the deregulation.


“The reality was that deregulation triggered a price war and cutthroat discounting, forcing 20 out of 30 of the largest companies out of business. These changes created an influx of owner operator (shoe string) companies that worked for much lower income. About 400,000 new owner operator companies came into the industry in the early 1990s. The result was too many companies chasing too little freight, which ended in rate wars.
In May of 1985, the pressure was really on the Teamsters union. They were losing a lot of jobs and members. They agreed to a two-tier wage system, where existing members would continue to make their wage of $16 per hour ($33 per hour in today’s money) and new hires would make $8 per hour. The union agreed to the new contract because new members had to pay the same union dues as old members, and real income for the union would go up.

The second phase of trucking deregulation was that the surviving companies began to buy up the survivors, which put fewer companies in control of the industry. So, in some ways, deregulation worked as intended: either trucking companies became more efficient or perished. There was new competition that drove many companies out of business and reduced prices to consumers.

However, to achieve the original objectives of deregulation, 100 large companies went out of business and 150,000 people lost their jobs--these were the high paying union jobs that had good benefits like health insurance and pensions.

So deregulation did result in tough competition, more efficiency, lower costs, and lower prices to consumers. But in attaining these goals, thousands of companies were forced out of business, resulting in lower wages, and the creation of oligopolies through mergers and acquisitions.”
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
My pension fund along with many others who had to live with those same government rules didn't need a taxpayer bailout.
Our local actually voted to add our own money to our fund in order to beef it up. Didn't cry and do nothing, waiting for a handout. Now, the fund that did nothing gets more of a monthly payout than we do. Our monthly contribution was lowered too, given to them.

1713096975412-png.479748
 
Last edited:

UnionStrong

Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Our local actually voted to add our own money to our fund in order to beef it up. Didn't cry and do nothing, waiting for a handout. Now, the fund that did nothing gets more of a monthly payout than we do.
New England fund said the bailout money will be in by end of summer early fall. They had to refile the paperwork last year. I suspect they had to increase contributions before they got the money. The additional funds probably came from the Western fund.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Our local actually voted to add our own money to our fund in order to beef it up. Didn't cry and do nothing, waiting for a handout. Now, the fund that did nothing gets more of a monthly payout than we do.
They did nothing? lol OK
That’s 6 billion OKs 😂

“Unhappy with the high annual expenses of paying into the Central States plan, U.P.S. obtained the blessing of the union and the pension trustees to withdraw, but to do so it must first pay $6.1 billion to shore up the plan.“


No idea what your payout is, but I highly doubt anyone’s making more than you in the central.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
They did nothing? lol OK
That’s 6 billion OKs 😂

“Unhappy with the high annual expenses of paying into the Central States plan, U.P.S. obtained the blessing of the union and the pension trustees to withdraw, but to do so it must first pay $6.1 billion to shore up the plan.“

Did they put part of their raise back into the fund? That's what we did each and every week for years. Then we got screwed for doing so.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Did they put part of their raise back into the fund? That's what we did each and every week for years. Then we got screwed for doing so.
Was never an option for us. But one of the options was your brothers and sisters, who worked their whole lives to literally losing their homes and living on the street so I guess that would be better.?
 
Top