Everyone else had a phone. Lol
Viewpoints for new contract, what's in-store?
- Thread starter "Phil"
- Start date
That guy is still president of his Local Union you dope. He isn't retired. Guess you don't understand the word "FACT".
anHOURover
Well-Known Member
I didn't say he wasn't still the president
I said you should retire as well as he should.
It's funny you know exactly who I mean by putting "white slob from Delaware "
FACT
anHOURover
Well-Known Member
The IBT is gettOmg record amounts of money from ups. The IBT mishandled the money and blames it all on the stock market.
The IBT also couldn't organize a bf from a call girl. They have a horrible track record
That sums it up
FACT
Any idiot knows that each pension fund has its own trustees and administrators. They make the rules and set the amounts. The IBT has nothing to do with it. Sean O did not change the 25 and out....Hoffa did not change the rates of pay for anyone. The trustees, which includes company representatives, are required to follow the applicable laws regarding funding.
Like I said, you have absolutely zero knowledge on how it works.
You need to put the crackpipe down. The financial downturn due to a bunch of crooked bankers closed companies, record foreclosures, killed 401K plans, ruined lives and wrecked actuary tables for ALL pension plans. The Teamsters are not alone in this one. All the Union plans took a huge hit. This is much like a big weather event, like a hurricane, ruining the profits of insurance companies which use actuary tables. Many insurance companies have gone bankrupt for this reason.
BTW....the term is BJ and not BF. Bf would be boyfriend which may be a fruedian slip on your part.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
That's not entirely true.
Some pension funds within the Teamsters Union weathered the storm just fine, while others are in peril.
Maybe you can explain the logic in allowing UPS, the single biggest contributor, out of Central States in late 2007 as a sound strategy for an ailing fund?
I would be very surprised if there is more than a handful of "loyal" followers who think that was a sound decision for all affected Teamsters.
That move and years of neglect, while potentially securing my pension, sold out every other member of the fund outside of active UPSer's going forward.
Gives me a sick feeling when considering who got left behind in the name of politics.
Last edited:
Plinko
Sorter/Safety Co-Chairman
Yeah no way I'm 21 and that sounds like a turn off to me.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
If that were the case, do you realize you realize your health care coverage would suffer?
Some funds did better than others and some it depends on the source of your funding. A local that has a bunch of carhaul or freight isn't doing as well because the numbers aren't there. The industries are suffering losses to our manpower.
This is conjecture on my part but......Central States was in trouble because of the first crash and the types of contributions and number of contributors vs. retirees involved. The trustees probably thought a huge influx of cash would be enough, if invested properly, to save the rest of the people.
I also think that a lot of Officers pushed to have the rates move up too quickly to get a pat on the back from the members over many years. A slightly smaller number over a long period on individual pension payments is sometimes the greatest good for all involved.
The Investment group that was consulted and used was the final straw. They took care of their own company rather than the fund itself. Red flags and sirens were going off months before and the trustees were convinced to stay the course by the same group that was fleecing them. That was stupidity. Sickening. JMHO
I should probably look into how a company is affected by decisions it makes if they hold a position on the Fund. We may have a case of the chickens being watched by the fox. Some companies benefit by infighting within our group. Others have to help shoulder the liabilities. Haven't done much but read many articles involving this fund. I feel for all of them.
Not sure if any fund weathered the meltdown "just fine".
Good to see Monday morning quarterbacking is still alive and well.
The CSPF was bleeding and UPS was willing to pony up 6.3 billion to a fund that needed cash. After the UPS withdrawal liability was paid, CSPF was certified green zone. As fiduciaries, the trustees were put in a difficult position of predicting the future. Like most investors, they were wrong.
And now because of their declining principal, CSPF is forced to take additional risks other plans avoid. Even so, the CSPF has (and continues to have) ROI in the top 25% of pension plans.
Had the meltdown not happened, that cash could have returned the plan to solvency, protecting many UPSers and others.
While markets always fluctuate, few predicted the extent of 2008.
The CSPF was a victim of bad timing in 2008 and bad decisions in the late 90's by granting service pensions for all.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
So....do you believe UPS was willing to pay all that money to withdraw because they felt sorry for those who were facing the effects of underfunding, or because they thought it would save them money?
I'm going with the latter.
It was never more than putting a bandaid on a stuck pig.
The single biggest problem then, was exacerbated by the withdraw and is being felt now more than ever.
That problem being the disparity of retirees to active participants.
The only solace in the whole thing is that UPS is still holding at least one end of the bag.
Last edited:
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
Well he get by "quite nicely" with 40 hours per week... so he would probably also wouldn't mind having 1/2 the healthcare that he enjoys now... and let's cut his pension in half also.. I'm sure he wouldn't mind!!
What part of my response led you to conclude I'm an idiot? I believe UPS is a business that operates like a business. Business doesn't entertain notions like compassion. UPS most likely determined paying the withdrawal liability made economic sense.
The single biggest problem facing the CSPF is their expenses are greater than their income. A healthy plan can absorb retirees outnumbering actives with the returns CSPF enjoys. But CSPF was a stuck pig and the UPS bandaid, while a possible fix in better times, couldn't overcome the extent of the market crash in which the CSPF lost nearly a third of their investible assets and no legal avenue to adjust earned credits/benefit payments.
The CSPF had a chance to survive (for all participants) had the market not crashed, yet you assume intentional malfeasance by suggesting nefarious action by the same "sell-outs" that somehow had the good sense to keep UPS holding that bag.
What purpose would this have? Do you think these guys are complete morons? Do you think they don't know how this will affect them politically? Fred Z knows, and is playing his hand masterfully.
How about you come up with the plan to save the CSPF, and not on Monday.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
That plan would have had to have been put in place at least a decade ago and would have had to include cuts and organizing.
Cuts though, would have been wildly unpopular, require new legislation, and would have been politically damaging, so....
Someone on this site made a great analogy of a sick tree awhile back.
He asserted that when you have a diseased tree, you have two choices.
One, prune out the bad sections and let it regrow and fill back in,....or two, let it die and cut it off at the ground.
Seems like the powers that be choose to gamble rather than make the tough choices that might have required self sacrifice politically....and now that tree is all but dead.
Last edited:
You've answered your own question. That new legislation didn't arrive until Dec 2014. In 2007 they did what they were able to do, without the benefit of 2017 hindsight.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Nice try.
That legislation was spearheaded and heavily lobbied for by UPS and the Teamsters, a move that could have been attempted long before, had these "special interest groups" put in a similar effort prior to 2014.
It didn't just mysteriously and fortuitously appear in the 2014 Omnibus Bill.
But they didn't until the tree had rotted at the trunk, why?
Are you saying this legislation was prohibited from being enacted until the 2014, or was it that the powers that be didn't decide to move on it until then?
Last edited:
Ah, the queens gambit...lure the unsuspecting in with irrelevant questions... but I successfully will fend your attack off with the Sicilian defense.
You know that's not what I said in any way, but still you're making a habit out of answering clear statements with loaded and leading queries.
You must be Irish.
But fear not, I believe anHOURover has plenty of room in his conspiracy carriage. FACT.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
.....and you continue to unsuccessfully attempt to sell the notion that there were no other options or alternatives.
Sorry for not sticking to the script.
One fact remains with the geometry of the situation, that being that no theorem or postulate can explain away that the fund is destined for failure and those who are going to do without aren't accepting excuses and neither am I.
The consequences are epic.
Last edited:
