Exactly. If you think your retirement will be safer with UPS in charge, ask your manager about his 401k match.
Ron Carey- Local 804 hero
- Thread starter local804
- Start date
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
I wasn't comparing indices, I was pointing out that UPS can and will reduce benefits if it has control of the retirement plan.
A 401k match is a benefit. Specifically, it's a retirement benefit that UPS eliminated.
tieguy
Banned
In so doing you are not comparing apples to apples. So a logical arguement there might be that if ups ever gave you a 401 K match they might also freeze it during a recession.
If you comapare retirement plans to retirement plans instead of retirement plan to perk you find many multi-employer plans reducing benifits while your managers plan is doing very well.
none of this changes the main point which is carey fought to keep control of the pensions and then did not deliver on solid pensions. The company continues to show that their pension plan is a better option. Carey further has egg on his face in that the company had to step in there ten years later to fix central states so that our hard working upsers belonging to central states may also enjoy the retirement they worked for.
if Banners and slogans elevates you to hero status then Carey is your man he sounded good in the soundbite war. If you were looking for something silly like a secure pension then Carey fell well short of delivering what he promised.
Last edited:
Again, BY LAW, UPS must fully fund its management plan. It has no choice. So it makes up whatever shortfalls the plan experiences by skimming as much money as necessary from the rest of the Company and depositing it in the fund. Thus the fund appears "healthy" even though the rest of UPS is distressed, the stock is dead in the water for ten years, and all sorts of things are being cut or eliminated, including quite a few participants in the manager's plan that were shown the door.
tieguy
Banned
Jonesy it appears that Jon is refuting your point that management would cut retirement benifits since the law prevents this. In so doing Jon is actually supporting my point that teamsters would have been better off in a ups run plan.
Jon this is one of the benifits of a single employer plan is it not?
Also if the private plan should collapse isnt the insurance on it significantly better then a multi-employer plan?
thank you for taking us down this path guys this is good discussion that should help us all.
Last edited:
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
Does your management plan get reduced when you start drawing Social Security?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
No ... it's a fixed amount annuity for the life of the contract.
Jonesy it appears that Jon is refuting your point that management would cut retirement benifits since the law prevents this. In so doing Jon is actually supporting my point that teamsters would have been better off in a ups run plan.
It only appears this way to you. You are, as usual, in Troll Mode and deliberately twist everything I say. That's why I've always thought your name should be TrollGuy.
Jon this is one of the benifits of a single employer plan is it not?
UPS can reduce or eliminate lots of things outside the plan, and some things inside the plan, including ending the plan itself. They can also get rid of "at will" employees almost at will, (subject to a few restrictions.) They can also make it hard for participants to last until they reach the finish line. Just look at all the people and "perks" they've cut. But whatever the plan's promissed benefits at each year-end, UPS must bring the funding level up to 100% to cover the cost of those future benefits. If the market drops and the plan's assets drop 10, 20, 30, 40 percent, UPS must take money from its general fund and contribute it to the pension plan until it is back up to 100% funded.
Also if the private plan should collapse isnt the insurance on it significantly better then a multi-employer plan?
Single-employer plans fail about 100 times more often than multi-employer plans. That's why the Government charges them a much higher insurance premium, and mandates that they promptly correct financial shortfalls to keep the funding level at 100%.
I'm a severe critic of Government. Government mandates that single-employer funds be 100% funded, but only requires 80% funding, and often even less, for multi-employer funds. Government mandates that single-employer funds that fail will have the PBGC pay their retirees about three times what a multi-employer fund retiree would get. That's so unfair. But that's Government for ya. Multi-employer funds, as the name suggests, have many, sometimes hundreds, even thousands, of contributing employers. This is a major built-in insurance feature. A single-employer fund has just one contributing employer. If something happens to that one employer, the fund goes bankrupt. That's when the employees realize they shouldn't have put all their financial eggs in one basket. It's best to diversify. Don't have your paycheck and your retirement check dependent on the same source. Especially if you also own stock in that same company.
Seperate PBGC funds insure single- and multi-employer funds. Both insurance funds are in the red. The single-empoyer one's deficit is about 25 times worse than the multi-employer one. The PBGC itself is billions in debt as well.
thank you for taking us down this path guys this is good discussion that should help us all.
We've had this "discussion" before. As penance read this current article on Ron Carey. . .
https://web.archive.org/web/20101128100528/http://tdu.org/node/4176
It only appears this way to you. You are, as usual, in Troll Mode and deliberately twist everything I say. That's why I've always thought your name should be TrollGuy.
Jon this is one of the benifits of a single employer plan is it not?
UPS can reduce or eliminate lots of things outside the plan, and some things inside the plan, including ending the plan itself. They can also get rid of "at will" employees almost at will, (subject to a few restrictions.) They can also make it hard for participants to last until they reach the finish line. Just look at all the people and "perks" they've cut. But whatever the plan's promissed benefits at each year-end, UPS must bring the funding level up to 100% to cover the cost of those future benefits. If the market drops and the plan's assets drop 10, 20, 30, 40 percent, UPS must take money from its general fund and contribute it to the pension plan until it is back up to 100% funded.
Also if the private plan should collapse isnt the insurance on it significantly better then a multi-employer plan?
Single-employer plans fail about 100 times more often than multi-employer plans. That's why the Government charges them a much higher insurance premium, and mandates that they promptly correct financial shortfalls to keep the funding level at 100%.
I'm a severe critic of Government. Government mandates that single-employer funds be 100% funded, but only requires 80% funding, and often even less, for multi-employer funds. Government mandates that single-employer funds that fail will have the PBGC pay their retirees about three times what a multi-employer fund retiree would get. That's so unfair. But that's Government for ya. Multi-employer funds, as the name suggests, have many, sometimes hundreds, even thousands, of contributing employers. This is a major built-in insurance feature. A single-employer fund has just one contributing employer. If something happens to that one employer, the fund goes bankrupt. That's when the employees realize they shouldn't have put all their financial eggs in one basket. It's best to diversify. Don't have your paycheck and your retirement check dependent on the same source. Especially if you also own stock in that same company.
Seperate PBGC funds insure single- and multi-employer funds. Both insurance funds are in the red. The single-empoyer one's deficit is about 25 times worse than the multi-employer one. The PBGC itself is billions in debt as well.
thank you for taking us down this path guys this is good discussion that should help us all.
We've had this "discussion" before. As penance read this current article on Ron Carey. . .
https://web.archive.org/web/20101128100528/http://tdu.org/node/4176
tieguy
Banned
only fifty showed up for a national hero? I hope 49 of them were not from the family. Er um Carey family that is.
tieguy
Banned
Last edited:
AcesUp804
Well-Known Member
was held on his wife birthday ,, started at six ,, most ups drivers don't get off the road till 9pm ,, still it was small but the old executive board from 804 did a good job , killing his name over the last 13 years ,funny he got most of them there jobs, OJ is a killer but if you were a bills fan u still loved when he ran ,, if your from Georgia u love pres jimmy carter ,, because that where hes from ,, first union pres to be elected by the members.....
Toshiro Hitsugaya
Active Member
Some was required like Hub Reps, I guess they knew there was gonna be a small turnout.
Omega man
Well-Known Member
Wrong............the jails are full of people like Scotty and his cohorts.
Last edited:
tieguy
Banned
overworkedunderpaid
New Member
Wow, I read this whole thread and cannot believe this supervisor commenting on central states and he does not have a clue. First and foremost, the central states fund as I know it being I am in central states is going in the toilet because UPS no longer funds that fund that UPS paid billions to get out. What this supervisor fails to inform everyone is say hypothetically an individual has nineteen full time years in this fund and the contract expires on 2013. UPS has made it clear that if the individual does not retire before 2013, that individual pension would not be honored because UPS is not obligated. Mind you there is a penalty for each year prior to twenty five years. UPS is basically forcing the older full time employees to retire or face not receiving a full pension. UPS has stated that they will honor an individual full pension in the old central states only through this contract.
As to his fixed annuity, just like any investment it is subject to the financial market. Being this supervisor annuity is a future value annuity, it is subject to a ceiling based on principle, rate, and time. Actuaries make these investments as they have many other executives investments that have folded and cause these executives a bleak future. Come on sup, unless you are a district manager most drivers make more money than a supervisor. That supervisor also have to pay for health insurance also. All full time supervisors receive SAR's for retirment not a fixed annuity and they run through those like rats eating peanut butter because of their light income. Sad you have to come on a message board for employees and still pull these weak supervisor tactics.
As to his fixed annuity, just like any investment it is subject to the financial market. Being this supervisor annuity is a future value annuity, it is subject to a ceiling based on principle, rate, and time. Actuaries make these investments as they have many other executives investments that have folded and cause these executives a bleak future. Come on sup, unless you are a district manager most drivers make more money than a supervisor. That supervisor also have to pay for health insurance also. All full time supervisors receive SAR's for retirment not a fixed annuity and they run through those like rats eating peanut butter because of their light income. Sad you have to come on a message board for employees and still pull these weak supervisor tactics.
