Yellow | No Tooth Fairy On Pensions?....Get Serious!

"Even if all participants vote against cuts, the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the federal pension insurance program) can override the vote and uphold the trustees’ decision to make cuts if it concludes that the plan’s insolvency would increase the PBGC’s projected liabilities by $1 billion or more."

I'll try one more time to explain my position and then just let it go. Since day one I have been against solutions not bailouts and Kline-Miller as being the first pension cutting options. I have been against the classification of pension orphans since day one even though I'm not an orphan. My opinion on this thread was only about Miller's attempt at fairness with the ability to vote.

I don't know how many pension funds have a projected liability of $1 billion or more. But I do know that none of the funds I'm aware of with the exception of CSPFs are over $1 billion. So in funds like 560, 641, 478, and 701 with their ratios of retirees to active workers a yes vote is highly unlikely. And a no vote couldn't be overruled by the Feds. So I thank Miller for the ability to vote if it becomes necessary.

Crystal, I wasn't trying to contradict you with that post, just showing what the wording was. Totally understand the $1 billion threshold. :1036316054:
 
Got letter recently from 707 Pension Fund. We've already been cut drastically with no vote that I'm aware of (and I'm a light sleeper). The fund had assets of $62,740,112 and liabilities of $664,260,744 and were 9.4% funded as of 2/1/15. As of 1/31/16 their assets were $24,485,000. They are expected to be insolvent in the 2017 plan year. Isn't that wonderful?
 
Got letter recently from 707 Pension Fund. We've already been cut drastically with no vote that I'm aware of (and I'm a light sleeper). The fund had assets of $62,740,112 and liabilities of $664,260,744 and were 9.4% funded as of 2/1/15. As of 1/31/16 their assets were $24,485,000. They are expected to be insolvent in the 2017 plan year. Isn't that wonderful?
Is 707 in poorer shape than Central States? If yes, what happens to 707 in the next 24 months might have a very large influence in how CS get handled. Yes?
 
Is 707 in poorer shape than Central States? If yes, what happens to 707 in the next 24 months might have a very large influence in how CS get handled. Yes?
Also 707, cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. and now being told I will be cut again July 1st to $989. Never had the opportunity to vote on anything, not that it would have mattered.
 
Also 707, cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. and now being told I will be cut again July 1st to $989. Never had the opportunity to vote on anything, not that it would have mattered.
Based on what is happening to you, it won't be long before CS does the same, unless their in intervention by government.
 
Also 707, cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. and now being told I will be cut again July 1st to $989. Never had the opportunity to vote on anything, not that it would have mattered.
It appears that 707 has been taken over by the PBGC and the cuts aren't from the new MPRA of 2014. I'm guessing that no plan was submitted and approved. So there wasn't anything to vote on. I'm no pension expert but it looks to me like a cut from $2800 down to $989 puts you at the 35% PBGC rate.
 
Last edited:
It appears that 707 has been taken over by the PBGC and the cuts aren't from the new MPRA of 2014. I'm guessing that no plan was submitted and approved. So there wasn't anything to vote on. I'm no pension expert but it looks to me like a cut from $2800 down to $989 puts you at the 35% PBGC rate.

FYI...

s5ezl0I.jpg



pzxF9oR.jpg
 
It appears that 707 has been taken over by the PBGC and the cuts aren't from the new MPRA of 2014. I'm guessing that no plan was submitted and approved. So there wasn't anything to vote on. I'm no pension expert but it looks to me like a cut from $2800 down to $989 puts you at the 35% PBGC rate.

lCRtyEL.jpg
 
I'm sorry but I am missing something here. The PBGC will only pay 35% starting next month in July 2016. Why does 707 still has an application to the Treasury under MPRA? If approved and voted for does that mean 707 takes back over and cuts another 10%? 110% of maximum PBGC cuts.................... This isn't much of a consolation but at least members will have the right to vote that extra 10% down. Someone tell me what I'm missing in the 707 pension deal. How was captain cardboard's pension cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. before the PBGC took over or an application under MPRA was even submitted?
 
I'm sorry but I am missing something here. The PBGC will only pay 35% starting next month in July 2016. Why does 707 still has an application to the Treasury under MPRA? If approved and voted for does that mean 707 takes back over and cuts another 10%? 110% of maximum PBGC cuts.................... This isn't much of a consolation but at least members will have the right to vote that extra 10% down. Someone tell me what I'm missing in the 707 pension deal. How was captain cardboard's pension cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. before the PBGC took over or an application under MPRA was even submitted?
Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they make the first cut in Feb. if it was only going to be good for 6 months.
 
I'm sorry but I am missing something here. The PBGC will only pay 35% starting next month in July 2016. Why does 707 still has an application to the Treasury under MPRA? If approved and voted for does that mean 707 takes back over and cuts another 10%? 110% of maximum PBGC cuts.................... This isn't much of a consolation but at least members will have the right to vote that extra 10% down. Someone tell me what I'm missing in the 707 pension deal. How was captain cardboard's pension cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. before the PBGC took over or an application under MPRA was even submitted?
This is the first letter they sent out before the Feb. cuts.
I'm sorry but I am missing something here. The PBGC will only pay 35% starting next month in July 2016. Why does 707 still has an application to the Treasury under MPRA? If approved and voted for does that mean 707 takes back over and cuts another 10%? 110% of maximum PBGC cuts.................... This isn't much of a consolation but at least members will have the right to vote that extra 10% down. Someone tell me what I'm missing in the 707 pension deal. How was captain cardboard's pension cut from $2800 to $1700 in Feb. before the PBGC took over or an application under MPRA was even submitted?
This was the first letter they sent after the Feb. cuts
lEe6jdR.jpg
 
I'm curious as to how they were already able to make those cuts back in Feb? It must have been thru the PBGC. I'm sure it was all quite legal.

It was allowed under MPRA. Read the section titled "Accrued Benefits" in the letter in my post #27.
 
It was allowed under MPRA. Read the section titled "Accrued Benefits" in the letter in my post #27.
I don't think the Feb cuts were under MPRA. I mean 707 didn't even apply to the Treasury until March. I can be wrong but I think those cuts were allowed under the PBGC.
 
I don't think the Feb cuts were under MPRA. I mean 707 didn't even apply to the Treasury until March. I can be wrong but I think those cuts were allowed under the PBGC.

They were allowed under MPRA. Read the above post (#36). I believe PBGC is not yet involved with 707.
 
They were allowed under MPRA. Read the above post (#36). I believe PBGC is not yet involved with 707.
I understand that MPRA allows for cuts but the application must be approved and voted on before they can be made. Didn't captain cardboard's cut from $2800 to $1700 start in Feb before 707's applications were even submitted?

Plan trustees must allow all participants to vote on cuts before they are implemented
.
 
Top