What's new

Bigger cuts coming.

superstar

superstar

TB Lurker
Credits
14
Talked to someone on Thursday. ( please guys this is not a truckdriver, nor did I hear it on the CB or in the breakroom ) In roughly 14 days from this past Thursday CS will float a new plan. This man told me if you think people were upset with this rejected one he said they'll "be howling" when they see this one. The Treasury wants the new plans based on 6.25% interest, not 7.5 to 8.5. Before you accuse me of being a bullshitter this individual also heads a another fund so this is fact not BS.
The clock now resets at another 225 days for the application process. He told me that they are bothered by the fact that the Treasury is forcing their hand as to where their investments have to be allocated ( or rather the investments must be much more coservative. ) While historically this fund has averaged pretty close to 8% (excluding the recession) he objects to the Treasury now telling them to be conservative. They also now (not just CS) have to rework the numbers for bigger cuts seeing they are forced to working with a 6.25% return.
The problems some of the fund managers across the nation are having with the rejection is not that it was rejected but that through the ongoing process with CS the Treasury didn't work with CS so that the final application was accepted. By rejecting it with little guidance now all the funds working on applications have to go back and start over again. -----Bigger cuts-----.
He says there is one thing to hope for when these bigger cuts are presented - that all the politicians that were quick to jump on board and say to reject the CS cuts had better come to the table and start talking about new funding and revenue sources other than just offering lip service.
 
superstar said:
By rejecting it with little guidance now all the funds working on applications have to go back and start over again
Click to expand...
I saw that the Treasury was demanding bigger cuts and equal cuts for all, no leniency for the older crowd or those on disability pension. They also said that the anticipated gains were too optimistic, as you have stated. I do not see that there was little guidance, it looks to me like it's pretty specific, take current avaialable funds+anticipated contributions and multiply them by what, 6.25%/year? Take current obligations and divide that by the resultant of that calculation derived as above and cut everyone's benefit to that percentage. Am I off on this?
 
superstar said:
The problems some of the fund managers across the nation are having with the rejection is not that it was rejected but that through the ongoing process with CS the Treasury didn't work with CS so that the final application was accepted. By rejecting it with little guidance now all the funds working on applications have to go back and start over again. -----Bigger cuts-----.
Click to expand...
Treasury didn't work with CS. Could that be because the Treasury doesn't know how to make the MPRA work? Maybe because the Kline-Miller MPRA of 2014 wasn't well thought out. After all it was a backroom last minute deal snuck through congress. It was a deal based on NCCMP's solutions not bailouts. It was Nyhan's plan that didn't work. So I blame congress for rushing a flawed plan into law. I blame congress for causing the CSPF underfunding mess. Since congress won't even move KOPPA out of committee to the floor for debate then have it do it's job and come up with a better plan to fund the PBGC and save the pension funds.
 
ABFer said:
I saw that the Treasury was demanding bigger cuts and equal cuts for all, no leniency for the older crowd or those on disability pension. They also said that the anticipated gains were too optimistic, as you have stated. I do not see that there was little guidance, it looks to me like it's pretty specific, take current avaialable funds+anticipated contributions and multiply them by what, 6.25%/year? Take current obligations and divide that by the resultant of that calculation derived as above and cut everyone's benefit to that percentage. Am I off on this?
Click to expand...
The law does not allow cuts for older people as it is now written, actually what I read was that the UPS people were not being treated equally. I do expect any new proposal will be to 110% of PBGC except for those over 80 and that which is considered disability pension. :idunno:
 
Correctly if I'm wrong but I agree with the 80 year old exemption. Those retirees probably started back in the 50s and early 60s when the accrual was about maybe $ 5 to $10. So those retirees getting $400 & $500 a month and too old to work shouldn't IMO be cut at all. I remember making a delivery to a senior community and talking to the security guard at the gate. He told me that he had worked 38 years for ABC Fast Freight and his monthly check was $425..................................Of course I don't think that anyone who earned a pension should be cut but least of all those guys.....................
 
Crystal said:
Correctly if I'm wrong but I agree with the 80 year old exemption. Those retirees probably started back in the 50s and early 60s when the accrual was about maybe $ 5 to $10. So those retirees getting $400 & $500 a month and too old to work shouldn't IMO be cut at all. I remember making a delivery to a senior community and talking to the security guard at the gate. He told me that he had worked 38 years for ABC Fast Freight and his monthly check was $425..................................Of course I don't think that anyone who earned a pension should be cut but least of all those guys.....................
Click to expand...
Personaly the amount of money for those guys will not make a difference. Even at full pension your talking short duration. In my opinion it was put in to make the "Average" cut look better on paper.
 
wolf said:
The law does not allow cuts for older people as it is now written,
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of that, I never read the pension reform act. I do recall reading in the Treasury's rejection that the cuts had to be equal (I'm guessing percentage wise) for all, I presumed that meant the older and disabled as well. And from what I see it applies to 75 and over.
 
ABFer said:
I wasn't aware of that, I never read the pension reform act. I do recall reading in the Treasury's rejection that the cuts had to be equal (I'm guessing percentage wise) for all, I presumed that meant the older and disabled as well. And from what I see it applies to 75 and over.
Click to expand...
Looks like CS did't read it either.
The 75 to 80 get prorated, not exactly sure by how much. Superstar says we'll know soon on what "equal" entails. Believe it or not they will not ask me. :popcorn:
 
wolf said:
The law does not allow cuts for older people as it is now written, actually what I read was that the UPS people were not being treated equally. I do expect any new proposal will be to 110% of PBGC except for those over 80 and that which is considered disability pension. :idunno:
Click to expand...
That's my take on this too. MPRA as I understand it specifically exempts those age 80 and older from cuts. Those aged 75 to 80 are are not exempt from cuts but their cuts are subject to age. A 79 year old for example will take less of a cut than a 76 year old. The cuts are figured on a sliding scale specifically described in MPRA. I also understand that on the issue of equality and fairness that Treasury was only referring to UPS participants. Under CSPF's plan those UPS participants who retired before the "Make Whole" agreement were treated differently than those who retired after the agreement. Anotherwords some are to be reimbursed by UPS for the lost pension and some are not. Treasury deemed that unfair, taking the position instead that all UPS participants should be made whole regardless of retirement date. If there is a new plan I agree with Wolf. Tier 1 and 2 will probably both be cut to 110 percent of the PBGC insured amount, essentially all will be treated as "orphans". Remember Treasury cannot rewrite the law. I'm sure UPS and their lobbyists are working overtime to promote their position that Tiers 1 and 2 be cut to the maximum and for Treasury to reconsider the position on Tier 3 participants.

I'm also thinking that any new legislation will probably only fund the PBGC (hope I'm wrong) and not bail out the plan. I'm not buying into the argument that the Government will walk away from the PBGC and simply let it go broke. Also, if this does go into the PBGC's hands I don't think there are any exemptions for those on disability or over the age of 80. All are treated the same. Believe me, I wish I could see this differently. The way these bastards passed this in the middle of the night, split the participants into different classes or tiers and essentially screwed those who played by the rules all their lives pisses me off. It is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
COOPER said:
I also understand that on the issue of equality and fairness that Treasury was only referring to UPS participants. Under CSPF's plan those UPS participants who retired before the "Make Whole" agreement were treated differently than those who retired after the agreement. Anotherwords some are to be reimbursed by UPS for the lost pension and some are not. Treasury deemed that unfair, taking the position instead that all UPS participants should be made whole regardless of retirement date
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something here. I understand that UPS made it's full withdrawal payment. But since ABF and other CSPF participants are still fulfilling their pension obligations shouldn't their retirees be given the same consideration as those from UPS? Equal cuts should apply to all company's retirees including those from UPS. Let UPS fulfill its contractual obligations and make all it's retirees whole.
 
First off, I want to just throw this out there. I do not believe there is a deal in the works, just yet, but it will come. My Opinion is that the bill will be worked on in Congress after the General election ( not before). Yes big cuts will come along. I also believe thousands of 80 year old retirees make more then you think, 18 years ago was when the pension was raised to three grand, with 30 years and as much as 3500 with 35 years. I know of many of these people. If you were 62 then you are 80 now. Leave all that aside. This whole thing is over studied. I do not have the facts, as Wolf says "they did not call him or me for that matter." However I did submit this plan to Nyhan in writing before the cuts were announced, he did not reply.
So maybe I am full of crap. There was going to be 270,000 retirees taking cuts. the plan pays out 2 billion per year. We need to find 2 billion dolllars to break even. 270,000 people times a cut of $700 each equals $189 million per month not going out. Take that times 12 months and you have $2,268,000,000 dollars not going out per year. BINGO, what am I missing? No need for high risk investing. Anybody that was going to get cut will still get cut, the age protections are still there. I don't want cut but 700 is better than 1300 as cuts go. One more thing, age protection is age discrimination, plain and simple. My plan said, if you make $1900 or more you get cut $700. That would take you to the 110% mark of PBGC. That way if you are over 80 and not making more than 1900, then you do not get cut. AS Jimmy G, my step father says" math is math". I really believe this can be settled without Congressional bailouts. Just rewrite the bill to take out the Orphan issue and the age protections and go with real numbers. But then again I am a simple butt headed retired stupid Orphan truck driver.:idunno:One important thing to remember, when one does not take a cut, another takes a bigger cut. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
 
ESP said:
First off, I want to just throw this out there. I do not believe there is a deal in the works, just yet, but it will come. My Opinion is that the bill will be worked on in Congress after the General election ( not before). Yes big cuts will come along. I also believe thousands of 80 year old retirees make more then you think, 18 years ago was when the pension was raised to three grand, with 30 years and as much as 3500 with 35 years. I know of many of these people. If you were 62 then you are 80 now. Leave all that aside. This whole thing is over studied. I do not have the facts, as Wolf says "they did not call him or me for that matter." However I did submit this plan to Nyhan in writing before the cuts were announced, he did not reply.
So maybe I am full of crap. There was going to be 270,000 retirees taking cuts. the plan pays out 2 billion per year. We need to find 2 billion dolllars to break even. 270,000 people times a cut of $700 each equals $189 million per month not going out. Take that times 12 months and you have $2,268,000,000 dollars not going out per year. BINGO, what am I missing? No need for high risk investing. Anybody that was going to get cut will still get cut, the age protections are still there. I don't want cut but 700 is better than 1300 as cuts go. One more thing, age protection is age discrimination, plain and simple. My plan said, if you make $1900 or more you get cut $700. That would take you to the 110% mark of PBGC. That way if you are over 80 and not making more than 1900, then you do not get cut. AS Jimmy G, my step father says" math is math". I really believe this can be settled without Congressional bailouts. Just rewrite the bill to take out the Orphan issue and the age protections and go with real numbers. But then again I am a simple butt headed retired stupid Orphan truck driver.:idunno:One important thing to remember, when one does not take a cut, another takes a bigger cut. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
Click to expand...
"take out the Orphan issue and the age protections"....."when one does not take a cut another takes a bigger cut"..........Well said !!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ESP
Crystal said:
Maybe I'm missing something here. I understand that UPS made it's full withdrawal payment. But since ABF and other CSPF participants are still fulfilling their pension obligations shouldn't their retirees be given the same consideration as those from UPS? Equal cuts should apply to all company's retirees including those from UPS. Let UPS fulfill its contractual obligations and make all it's retirees whole.
Click to expand...
As you said...."Equal cuts should apply to all company's retires including those from UPS". I agree. The rejected inequitable recovery plan however cuts Orphans to 110 percent of the PBGC insured amount. The cuts for Tier 2 participants will not be greater than 50 percent of their full pension. The cuts for Tier 3 participants (only those UPS participants who retired after September 29, 2007) will not be greater than 40 percent of their full pension.
 
ESP said:
First off, I want to just throw this out there. I do not believe there is a deal in the works, just yet, but it will come. My Opinion is that the bill will be worked on in Congress after the General election ( not before). Yes big cuts will come along. I also believe thousands of 80 year old retirees make more then you think, 18 years ago was when the pension was raised to three grand, with 30 years and as much as 3500 with 35 years. I know of many of these people. If you were 62 then you are 80 now. Leave all that aside. This whole thing is over studied. I do not have the facts, as Wolf says "they did not call him or me for that matter." However I did submit this plan to Nyhan in writing before the cuts were announced, he did not reply.
So maybe I am full of crap. There was going to be 270,000 retirees taking cuts. the plan pays out 2 billion per year. We need to find 2 billion dolllars to break even. 270,000 people times a cut of $700 each equals $189 million per month not going out. Take that times 12 months and you have $2,268,000,000 dollars not going out per year. BINGO, what am I missing? No need for high risk investing. Anybody that was going to get cut will still get cut, the age protections are still there. I don't want cut but 700 is better than 1300 as cuts go. One more thing, age protection is age discrimination, plain and simple. My plan said, if you make $1900 or more you get cut $700. That would take you to the 110% mark of PBGC. That way if you are over 80 and not making more than 1900, then you do not get cut. AS Jimmy G, my step father says" math is math". I really believe this can be settled without Congressional bailouts. Just rewrite the bill to take out the Orphan issue and the age protections and go with real numbers. But then again I am a simple butt headed retired stupid Orphan truck driver.:idunno:One important thing to remember, when one does not take a cut, another takes a bigger cut. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
Click to expand...
At least your working on it. For me I think your letting all that were involved with this train wreak since the concent decree off way to easy. The IRS no "rainy day" funds. I got this dumb idea that letting CS last in line during bankruptcy was wrong. That was just as much my money as Wall Streets....Hell I give up wages for it. Will I get that call asking me what I think? :452: And next guy says math will solve this....:draw: I got a different plan. :biglaugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ESP
Crystal said:
Maybe I'm missing something here. I understand that UPS made it's full withdrawal payment. But since ABF and other CSPF participants are still fulfilling their pension obligations shouldn't their retirees be given the same consideration as those from UPS? Equal cuts should apply to all company's retirees including those from UPS. Let UPS fulfill its contractual obligations and make all it's retirees whole.
Click to expand...
It would appear that UPS lobbied the "Make Whole" thingy and thought that all was well. Feinburg seems to disagree from what I get out of it. More I ponder on this whole thing it would seem lets protect enough guys (UPS/75+/Mathematitions) to vote yes for the benefit cuts, or not vote at all, so that the Treasury would be able to say well you voted for it. Where have I heard that before?
 
The pension fund after 1-1-2008 incurred no further liabilities from UPS teamsters. The UPS/Teamster fund incurred all future liabilities
UPS's 6.1 billion withdraw penalty paid everything due to the pension fund including their share of the orphans!!!! If you get your calculator out
that's 135,000 dollars per UPS employee, with no future liability to the fund!!!!! If UPS's 6.1 billion was partitioned off, instead of paying
for orphans benefits it would have provided over 480,000,000 dollars a year in revenue to the fund, WITH NO ADDED LIABILITY to the fund!!!!
WHY DO YOU THINK UPS's cuts should be the same as everyone else's.
 
Bubba Gump said:
The pension fund after 1-1-2008 incurred no further liabilities from UPS teamsters. The UPS/Teamster fund incurred all future liabilities
UPS's 6.1 billion withdraw penalty paid everything due to the pension fund including their share of the orphans!!!! If you get your calculator out
that's 135,000 dollars per UPS employee, with no future liability to the fund!!!!! If UPS's 6.1 billion was partitioned off, instead of paying
for orphans benefits it would have provided over 480,000,000 dollars a year in revenue to the fund, WITH NO ADDED LIABILITY to the fund!!!!
WHY DO YOU THINK UPS's cuts should be the same as everyone else's.
Click to expand...
Did any UPS employees get a letter from CS? I certainly don't know but with the tone of your post I have to assume some did therefore still part of the fund. Further more who ya yelling at. Personally I'm not worried what it may or may not cost UPS.....just what is costing the RETIREES...they did'nt do a damn thing wrong either!!!!!

Edit: when I say retirees I include those yet to collect a pension.
 
wolf said:
Did any UPS employees get a letter from CS? I certainly don't know but with the tone of your post I have to assume some did therefore still part of the fund. Further more who ya yelling at. Personally I'm not worried what it may or may not cost UPS.....just what is costing the RETIREES...they did'nt do a damn thing wrong either!!!!!

Edit: when I say retirees I include those yet to collect a pension.
Click to expand...
an abf employee at 342 dollars a week at 8% would be a millionaire after 30 years, a multi millionaire
after 40 years { money doubles at 9 years at 8%, what happened to 30 and out? }
the pension protection act of 2006 which gave us 342 dollar contribution rates is going to drive union
companies out of business. ever heard of hostess, allied? there will not be future retirees, only unemployed
teamsters who will be working for wages only with no pension. maybe a small 401k. perhaps you should
think of future generations. maybe you could impart on them your new knowledge, "a pension fund is a ponzi
scheme that is not a 100% funded at a reasonable rate of return" if we continue to screw younger workers they
are all going to want 401k's. and whoever hoffa's replacement is he's going to let them out of cspf.
after all they learned to be selfish from the old timers.
 
Bubba Gump said:
an abf employee at 342 dollars a week at 8% would be a millionaire after 30 years, a multi millionaire
after 40 years { money doubles at 9 years at 8%, what happened to 30 and out? }
the pension protection act of 2006 which gave us 342 dollar contribution rates is going to drive union
companies out of business. ever heard of hostess, allied? there will not be future retirees, only unemployed
teamsters who will be working for wages only with no pension. maybe a small 401k. perhaps you should
think of future generations. maybe you could impart on them your new knowledge, "a pension fund is a ponzi
scheme that is not a 100% funded at a reasonable rate of return" if we continue to screw younger workers they
are all going to want 401k's. and whoever hoffa's replacement is he's going to let them out of cspf.
after all they learned to be selfish from the old timers.
Click to expand...
When I have all the answers things will be fixed and everybody will be happy. Been pretty clear on what I would like so what is your plan. Let me see how well you learned from the Old Timers. :popcorn:
 
Bubba Gump said:
The pension fund after 1-1-2008 incurred no further liabilities from UPS teamsters. The UPS/Teamster fund incurred all future liabilities
UPS's 6.1 billion withdraw penalty paid everything due to the pension fund including their share of the orphans!!!! If you get your calculator out
that's 135,000 dollars per UPS employee, with no future liability to the fund!!!!! If UPS's 6.1 billion was partitioned off, instead of paying
for orphans benefits it would have provided over 480,000,000 dollars a year in revenue to the fund, WITH NO ADDED LIABILITY to the fund!!!!
WHY DO YOU THINK UPS's cuts should be the same as everyone else's.
Click to expand...
135,000 dollars per UPS employee, that is only about three to four years pension for each one. What do they do after that? Bubba you seem to be new to all this. How do you feel that UPS is any better than the rest of us. I do agree that after 08, those guys are not in the plan anymore. But the ones still in the plan, what about them? Remember that we did not make the plan fail and did not make the decision of the rejection. Many and including me worked at wanting the rejection so it can have a fair hearing at the senate floor. The Bill needs to be tweaked some to make it more fair. It may not get that far, because there is no saving the plan if we go against each other here. There is no saving it anyway. Go ahead and vent, it will make you feel better. :ranting2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top