Mug,
We agree, UPS pays it's pension for life. We agree, CSPF pays "a" pension for life. And even what you typed, "says that it will not include any reduction in the offset starting at age 65 regarding your pension" agrees with what I'm stating. NOT INCLUDE ANY REDUCTION IN THE OFSET.
This is how you are confused, UPS at the time of our retirement is paying ALL of the pension liabilities. When you reach age 65, the offset a.k.a. CSPF will start paying there portion. And at this time, we are getting letters stating what the pension cuts from the CSPF plan are POSSIBLY going to amount to (final outcome amount is yet to be decided).
I'll have you read this for a forth time, the contract reads: If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or REQUIRED BY LAW, the amount of such reduction shall NOT be included in this offset.
Once again, at the time of this pension split, UPS IS PAYING OUR FULL BENIFIT, not CSPF.
If CSPF was now paying our benefits and UPS was then joined into the wording at age 65, then your interpretation would be valid.
I see it as you are the one confused. I backed my statements on the facts presented and used your own quote to validate my point. I rest my point. I'm prepared for my retirement in full with or without a pension.
I know what the clause says and I know what the clause means. You are interpreting it incorrectly.
The offset is what CSPF pays, not what they should pay.
Let's say Cheryl worked for UPS for 30 years. She is retiring with a $3000/mo pension at age 62. She has 10 years in the UPS pension and 20 years in the CSPF. I will round numbers for easy math.
UPS will pay Cheryl $3000/mo until she turns 65. When she turns 65, UPS will offset what they pay her by the amount that CSPF pays her. Her 20 years in CSPF gives her, say, $2000/mo.
UPS offsets $2000/mo. So how much does UPS pay her? They pay her full pension, $3000 minus the offset, $2000. So UPS pays her $1000, and when added to what CSPF pays her, she still receives her full $3000 pension.
Now, CSPF reduces their portion of her pension by $1000. She now only gets $1000 from CSPF. How much does UPS pay?
The reduction will NOT be included in the offset. UPS cannot include this $1000 reduction in the offset. So what can they offset? They can only offset the $1000 that the CSPF will pay her. They cannot offset the $1000 reduction. Remember, the contract says that the reduction will NOT be included in the offset.
So UPS pays her full pension, $3000 minus the offset, $1000. UPS pays her $2000 added to the $1000 from the CSPF and she still gets her full $3000 pension.
This is what the contract says and this is what the contract means.
To prove it, let's take the exact opposite of what the contract says. Let's say that the contract says that the reduction WILL be included in the offset.
UPS can now include in the offset the $1000 that the CSPF pays her AND the $1000 reduction. Remember, the contract now says that the reduction WILL be included in the offset. So what does UPS pay?
They pay her full pension, $3000 minus the offset, $2000. UPS pays her $1000. Add the $1000 from the CSPF and her pension is now only $2000.
So the wording in the contract, whether the word NOT is in there means two different things. As it should. They are exact opposites. If NOT is in there, UPS pays any reduction. If NOT is not in there, UPS does not pay any reduction. The word NOT is in there, so UPS pays any reduction from the CSPF portion of her retirement.
I'll go one step further to prove that I am right.
The CSPF knows that the clause in the contract means that UPS has to make up any reductions per their letter sent to every UPS employee in tier 3.
The Teamsters know that the clause in the contract means that UPS has to make up any reductions per Hoffa's letter to Congress 2 days before they voted on the Omnibus Spending Bill.
And.....wait for it......your employer, UPS, knows that the clause in the contract means that they have to make up any reductions per the press release issued 3 months after the Omnibus Spending Bill was passed.
So if I'm the one confused as to what the contract says, then so is CSPF, the Teamsters and UPS.
Do you know how many contract lawyers UPS has? If the clause did not mean what I said it meant, what the CSPF said it meant, what the Teamsters said it meant, then these contract lawyers would have debunked it long ago.
They haven't because they can't. It means what I said it means. What the CSPF said it means. What the Teamsters said it means. What UPS said it means.
Since this was such a long post, I'll make one more point. You said your facts were based on the wording of the clause and the retirement calculator.
The retirement calculator says nothing about any cuts. The retirement calculator does not say whether UPS is liable for, or is not liable for, any cuts. The retirement calculator does not address any cuts because they are not here yet. The only thing the retirement calculator tells you is what your retirement will be and who pays what portion, when you retire. The CSPF portion is based on no cuts at this time.
And your fact about what the contract says, that is just your opinion. My opinion on what the contract says and means is backed up by the CSPF, the Teamsters and UPS. Your opinion is backed up by you, and only you.
So someone may be confused, but it is not me.
