ABF | Pension

:idunno: I don't know that that part would even be relevant to the Treasury Dept.
 
I'm surprised that it's not more like, "Sure you can retire and work all you want under covered employment but you shall accrue no more pension benefits from said work".
 
Well now that the pension has been saved for the retirees what about the rest of still working and can't retire for another 15 yrs. By all accounts the pension will be broke in 10 yrs leaving nothing for current employees. So what's the point of working for a union outfit? And how the hell is ABF going to recruit new employees. The carrot of retirement is now gone.
This statement is going to ruffle many feathers. But now that the retirees saved THEIR so called earned pension there's no more meetings no more worries I guess it's everyone for themselves.
 
Well now that the pension has been saved for the retirees what about the rest of still working and can't retire for another 15 yrs. By all accounts the pension will be broke in 10 yrs leaving nothing for current employees. So what's the point of working for a union outfit? And how the hell is ABF going to recruit new employees. The carrot of retirement is now gone.
This statement is going to ruffle many feathers. But now that the retirees saved THEIR so called earned pension there's no more meetings no more worries I guess it's everyone for themselves.
The pension has not been saved for anyone in CSPF at this time. The changes proposed by the Fund have been denied by the US Treasury Dept. but there are still changes forthcoming. It may end up in the hand of the PBGC and their prescribed benefit rates.

As to how ABF going is going to recruit new employees, that is a problem for them to figure out and, quite honestly, it looks more like they want out of the LTL business than anything. They wanted vengeance against their work force and the IBT gave it to them, now it's their problem and they won't get any sympathy from me.
 
Are you saying that I could go to work for a trucking company in the office & not be penalized from the Fund?


I'm in the W. Penna pension plan, but I think the rules regarding work are similar. As long as you are not performing work similar to what the bargain unit was doing .( I.e. .... retiring and going to work for a non-Union company doing linehaul...).....you are restricted only as much as your age and Social Security qualifiers limit you.
 
Well now that the pension has been saved for the retirees what about the rest of still working and can't retire for another 15 yrs. By all accounts the pension will be broke in 10 yrs leaving nothing for current employees. So what's the point of working for a union outfit? And how the hell is ABF going to recruit new employees. The carrot of retirement is now gone.
This statement is going to ruffle many feathers. But now that the retirees saved THEIR so called earned pension there's no more meetings no more worries I guess it's everyone for themselves.


You make a good point....... however , what the Treasury Dept. has done in it's report merely returns things back to before the Kline-Miller provisions of the 2014 Cromnibus bill........... temporarily.

Prior to that, once you retired, ......your check was untouchable,........and , as you said, a great recruitment tool. The Treasury Dept. called into question CSPF's accounting and reasons for being in such a sweat to cut retiree's checks...Could there be an underlying agenda to keep people from retiring and forcing current retirees back into the workforce?

Why the Teamsters and the CSPF allowed UPS to withdraw from the fund,.......and allow YRC to halt payments/full payments for five years,......are questions that should be asked on the convention floor in Las Vegas in July. It looks to me like they were almost designing the plan to fail by cutting out it's two biggest sources of funds.

I'm a soon-to-be retiree in a fund that is supposedly in as bad of shape as the CSPF. It wasn't ten years ago, when we were paying retirees a thirteenth check, because Federal law does not allow Defined Benefit funds to ....."save for a rainy day".....Once a Fund is 100% funded, companies B are no longer required to continue pension payments ,.........so there is no mechanism for funds to save in case of severe stock market fluctuations....,.

Good luck, Brother.......I fought for 40 years to support this Union and Pension funds......Now it looks like scheming between Wall Street and the employers.ay torpedo my waning years......

And,.....yes,......if I knew 40 years ago that they were going to yank out the carpet and take away what they promised me for the last 40 years,.........I wouldn't have gotten into this industry.
 
Why the Teamsters and the CSPF allowed UPS to withdraw from the fund,.......and allow YRC to halt payments/full payments for five years,......are questions that should be asked on the convention floor in Las Vegas in July. It looks to me like they were almost designing the plan to fail by cutting out it's two biggest sources of funds.
That sweetheart deal was part of the trade off for card check recognition at UPS Freight.
It wasn't ten years ago, when we were paying retirees a thirteenth check, because Federal law does not allow Defined Benefit funds to ....."save for a rainy day".
And that is where I place a good part of the blame on our legislators for where our funds stand today.
 
The Treasury Dept. called into question CSPF's accounting and reasons for being in such a sweat to cut retiree's checks...
Actually, if I read the reply from Treasury concerning the "rescue plan" correctly, it sounded to me like the accounting the treasury was disputing was the overly rosy projections CSPF was making concerning future returns. I didn't get a hint that they thought there was no hurry to get something done. If anything, it sounded to me like they were basically saying nice try, but you will have to cut even deeper to get where you need to be. Maybe I am misinterpreting the message.
 
Actually, if I read the reply from Treasury concerning the "rescue plan" correctly, it sounded to me like the accounting the treasury was disputing was the overly rosy projections CSPF was making concerning future returns. I didn't get a hint that they thought there was no hurry to get something done. If anything, it sounded to me like they were basically saying nice try, but you will have to cut even deeper to get where you need to be. Maybe I am misinterpreting the message.
That plus the fact that the cuts were not equal across the board, it looks to me like those were the two sticking points.
 
Actually, if I read the reply from Treasury concerning the "rescue plan" correctly, it sounded to me like the accounting the treasury was disputing was the overly rosy projections CSPF was making concerning future returns. I didn't get a hint that they thought there was no hurry to get something done. If anything, it sounded to me like they were basically saying nice try, but you will have to cut even deeper to get where you need to be. Maybe I am misinterpreting the message.


You're probably right.......I skimmed over that letter pretty fast. I'm guilty of not reading it carefully.....got it right here in my briefcase, looks like I should read it over lunch.

But now the CSPF says they haven't any future plans for pension cuts.........did they just give up?

That card check language was in UPS national contract before they bought Overbite. Our......"leadership" ........didn't have the courage to force UPS to abide by the contract,.....so they made a deal where UPS wouldn't fight the card check .
 
I'm torn on this pension thing. I am one of the ones who will get screwed the most (because of my age) with those proposed pension cuts. And I'm happy to see that Congress put a halt to the cuts, but where I'm torn is that I understand that when the Govt. (Congress) gets involved in anything, their "fix" is always based on using tax payer funds for the "fix".
And I never agree with making EVERY American tax payer responsible for a corporation (or pension fund's) failure.
So, although these cuts being halted (for now) could eventually benefit me personally, I don't like seeing the American tax payer being on the hook for the mismanagement of the pension fund.

One side of me is happy, the other side feels guilty.
:idunno:
 
And I never agree with making EVERY American tax payer responsible for a corporation (or pension fund's) failure.
So, although these cuts being halted (for now) could eventually benefit me personally, I don't like seeing the American tax payer being on the hook for the mismanagement of the pension fund.

One side of me is happy, the other side feels guilty.
That halt is only temporary and the final result will be worse than the proposed program. On one hand I agree on that taxpayer bailout thing, on the other I saw how we lavished the Wall Street Tycoons with my tax dollars and I disagree more with giving money to the rich than I do the needy.
 
This is a chess match now with the government. The powers that be made their proposed cuts most likely knowing they would be trashed. They would rather force the government to either bailout the fund out someway or give it to the PBGC. Ends bad for all parties either way.
 
I'm thinking that the fund administrators didn't think much of the feedback they got from the members so they just said **** it, let the cards fall where they may and let someone else take the blame.
 
Top