Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 606
ABF | Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions!
- Thread starter Freightmaster1
- Start date
Freightmaster, thanks for posting the two links to the TDU's website regarding the pension. The problem, as I see it, is that the pension is going to go broke if something is not done to stop it. I do not KNOW if that is true because I don't have access to the complete figures of our pension, nor do I have the expertise to figure it out. Therefore, I am trusting those individuals who manage the fund and have the expertise to understand the income and expenses of the fund; they all seem to agree the fund is loosing money and will eventually be bankrupt unless something is done.
From what I have read the reason the fund is going bankrupt is because the fund is expensing more money than it is taking in. This problem seems to have been caused when the government forced the fund to raise the retirement income of individuals because the pension fund was overfunded. This excess money was not saved, or invested, for a time when the pension fund would be underfunded. Or, to put it another way, those individuals receiving pensions are getting more money that they were originally supposed to get. Now that the pension fund managers are trying to correct the mistake, the pensioners are upset that they may have to payback the excess pension money they were overpaid.
I have read a lot about a government bailout of our pension but how would that make us any different from welfare recipients who expect others to take care of them just because they are born?
From what I have read the reason the fund is going bankrupt is because the fund is expensing more money than it is taking in. This problem seems to have been caused when the government forced the fund to raise the retirement income of individuals because the pension fund was overfunded. This excess money was not saved, or invested, for a time when the pension fund would be underfunded. Or, to put it another way, those individuals receiving pensions are getting more money that they were originally supposed to get. Now that the pension fund managers are trying to correct the mistake, the pensioners are upset that they may have to payback the excess pension money they were overpaid.
I have read a lot about a government bailout of our pension but how would that make us any different from welfare recipients who expect others to take care of them just because they are born?
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
I remember when the benefits were increased when my Fund was flush with money. I seem to recall it being a mandatory move as you have stated. I sort of agree with you on that line about welfare recipients but here's how I see it...They put us in this mess in whole or in part and they should be responsible for cleaning it up instead of just telling us, "Sorry Charlie"...They are using our tax dollars to bail everyone else out but ignoring our plight. Don't forget the millions of our tax bailout dollars that went to fat cat bonuses after they ran their banks on the rocks and our money bailed them out.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
In the same "Crimenibus" bill,....there are now Government protections for stock traders who deal in derivatives......whatever they are......and lose money on the aforementioned derivatives. Guts out a good portion of the 2012 Dodd-Frank law that restricted bankers from Government bailouts in the event they dabble in risky investments,.....like they did in the run-up to the crash of 2008. I guess we see where the priorities are now.........Those of us who broke our backs making a pittance delivering food, clothing, and shelter are to have our pensions cut,.........while the soft-handed, pot-bellied, richly upholstered Wall Street human leeches will have their stupid, risky, irrational bets on the stock market covered,......by tax dollars from those ragged retirees,.......and the soon-to-be ragged current underpaid workers........I'm going to go put my "Eat The Rich" bumper-sticker back on my car...........
I don't think there is anyone denying the problems of some MEPFs. Right now I think the key issue is the way the government has handled it. A last minute late night backroom deal by a congressional committee slipped into a year end spending bill. The Kline-Miller Pension Reform bill had nothing to do with continuing to fund the government or the use of taxpayer's money. No MEPF was going to default before the new congress begins next month.
The proper way for Congress to eliminate 40 years of pension protection for retirees by changing ERISA was to make this a stand alone bill. A bill that should have been debated and voted on it's own like most other legislation. There were other less drastic options presented by AARP and others to the House Committee on Education and the Work Force. But the committee caved to NCCMP PAC pressure and took the easy way out. They even included a special loophole for UPS which will hurt some retirees even more.
This was not an issue of government bailing out MEPFs. Any possible bailout would have been for the government regulated PBGC................You can't be serious about suggesting that retirees might be in the same class as welfare recipients. We worked 30-40 years earning pension credits based on the accrual rates set by the funds. The funds set those rates based on the pension laws written by congress. We planned our retirements knowing that the anti cutback rule protected us from pension cuts as long as the funds were solvent......................We even helped fund our pensions by putting part of our raises into the pension funds instead of our paychecks. IMO your welfare comment is way out of line and offensive.
In this same biil, Congress is sending 50 billion to Iran, for what, so they might stop burning our Flag, only in America!!!
I am sorry if you take offense to what I said but the thought is a legitimate idea. I agree that this congress may have jumped the gun and NOT handled the pension problem in the best way possible. But they did try to deal with the problem. Your idea that the pension problem should have been kicked down the road until the next congress is the same as making NO decision or letting someone else take responsibility for the problem. As a responsible adult, I try to make decisions for my problems; not give them to someone else, ie pass the buck.
If you read the legislation there will be no cuts to the pensions that are fully solvent. The only cuts will be to those pensions that are going insolvent. You can only base your retirement on the knowledge you have at the moment because no one knows what they don't know (“you don't know what you don't know”). But most of us have known for many years that there are problems with the pension. UPS got out of the pension because of the problems and there was a 2% to 1% contribution cut 7 or 8 years ago. ABF was trying to buy their way out of the pension plan back in 2006 and most of us have been receiving letters warning us of the pension problems for years. Your idea that the current employees should have ignored all that simply because of the “anti cutback rule” does not seem valid to me. You ignore problems to your own determent when you decided to ignore the problems.
I seem to remember several members of congress getting upset and saying they would not have authorized money to those banks if they had known the money was going to go for bonuses. Members of congress got tricked while trying to do the correct thing in a difficult situation. I have a hard time criticizing them for that because I have found that hindsight is 20-20 and that I do not make the best decisions when I am under pressure.
Last edited:
The anti-cutback rule protected you as long as the rule stayed in effect AND as long as the funds were solvent.
A 10% cut will be easier to swallow than what the PBGC will give us. That would give us about a third of what we have now. Plus the PGBC is broke too so the amount they will give us is not guaranteed. I just hope the government isn't given access to our funds. That would be a disaster. I remember Henry Cisneros, Bill Clinton's secretary of HUD wanting to "BORROW" some of the billions of pension funds to provide low income housing loans which he said would be paid back with interest. Has the government ever lied?
bigtruk_us
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
Maybe companies like YRCW need to quit hiding the money and honor their original commitments. Pay the pension fund.That would be a helpful start.YRCW is making money.Deception and sandbagging as long as they can get away with it.Alot of us don't even know how many deferrments on top of deferrments they have been granted.
Objections to the last minute backroom brokered Kline Miller Pension Reform bill included in the Omnibus funding bill isn't my idea. I have read that opinion many times in the past 2 weeks. That is the opinion of my Congressman and both my Senators. It is also the opinion of organizations like AARP, the Pension Rights Center, TDU, many unions, and countless retirees. You are the only username, on any union forum that I have read, who has tried to defend this backroom last minute attack on retiree's pensions
The CSPF, or any other large MEPF, supposedly has 10-20 years before it's predicted default. So including a last minute bill with no importance to the intent of preventing a government shutdown wasn't necessary. There was no immediate sense of urgency to pass this bill............. A last minute 1200 plus page bill that my elected representatives didn't have the time to read or research the alternative suggestions given in testimony to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The committee had been working on the MEPF underfunding problem for at least 3 years. So waiting until next month to change the 40 years old ERISA as a stand alone bill with debate wouldn't be kicking the can down the road
That's great that you make your own decisions and solve your own problems. But your personal problems are not the issue. It wasn't personal to Miller who retired after the vote. His or none of the other committee members pensions aren't being cut even though the country is going broke. The Kline-Miller deal never had enough support in committee to bring it to the full house for debate and passage. By following standard policies and procedures and allowing the next Congress to continue to work on an issue that affects millions of people is not passing the buck. The way Kline-Miller was slipped through Congress denied millions of American citizens the right to fair representation.
Have you read all 1200 pages of the bill? Or are you, like the rest of us, basing your opinions on press releases and bloggers articles? I doubt that many have fully read and understood the potential impact of this bill. I'm quite sure that none in Congress other than the Kline-Miller committee fully understand it. As of Monday my elected representatives haven't.
Your opinions appear to be based solely on your CSPF and yet you ignore the $2 billion obligation that UPS still has to your funds. You ignore the special loophole allowing UPS out of it's contractual obligation. You ignore the fact that $2 billion burden will be carried by the pension orphans in your funds. You ignore the obvious that Kline-Miller caved to the lobbying of the NCCMP and UPS.
I retired in 2010 at 63 from a different critical zone pension fund . I had 41 years credit from 3 jobs in 2 different pension funds. I retired from the bottom of an ABF list because my back couldn't handle the multiple job requirements of a forced utility bid. I am not going to let your double talk confuse the issue. But for you to suggest that having 40 years of protection from the ERISA anti cutback rule isn't a valid reason for retirees to expect Congress to use due diligence and work out a fair solution to the problem is way off base.
Okay, I get it. You're saying it's okay for Congress to be tricked into passing legislation. But what has that got to do with the Congress removing the anti cutback protection for retirees of MEPFs without the ability to debate and vote on the merits of the bill? This time Congress wasn't tricked The only pressure put on Congress was to pass the funding bill to avoid another government shutdown. Kline-Miller was a small amendment slipped into a major last minute compromise vote.
Last edited:
The anti cutback rule was and still is a part of the 40 year ERISA. Kline-Miller only removes the rule from MEPFs. There are some that say it would not have passed as a stand alone bill. There are many, including my 3 elected representatives, who feel this issue which can affect millions of retirees should have been presented to Congress as a stand alone bill.
Lots of bills should be presented as "stand alone" bills. That doesn't mean that it is responsible to put all your eggs in one basket. You needed two things to happen in order for that pension to be what you anticipated it to be.
One was a big "unlikely". While the other was much more probable, you had to count on politicians for it to happen.
One was a big "unlikely". While the other was much more probable, you had to count on politicians for it to happen.
Unlike on some TB non union forums the ABF moderator allows all on topic opinions and all are welcome on this union site. But I'm not sure of what your interest is in this issue or if you have an anti union agenda. I don't follow your posts on other forums but the few I remember were of the anti union persuasion........I'm assuming your "big unlikely" is that you feel the MEPF system was destined to fail. Apparently Congress didn't think so when they set PBGC premiums for MEPFs so much lower that those for the SEPFs.
Congress felt the MEPFs were more secure and less likely to fail than the SEPFs. And even though the PBGC is not funded with tax dollars only Congress can raise the premium rates. It chose not to do so even thought the PBGC requested increases.
Fortunately for me I didn't put all my eggs in one basket and never really had much faith in politicians. But after 67 years of Federal labor regulations I did expect Congress to do the right thing and allow my elected representatives to at least read and debate the issue on it's merits.
I started earning Teamster MEPF credits in 1969 and saw many members retire and collect their earned pensions until they dies. I know many who are still collecting their pension today. To my knowledge there has never been a Teamster MEPF that has defaulted on a retiree's monthly pension payment. After seeing that 1st hand for 41 years you are telling me that it was irresponsible of me to count on the pension funds to continue.
Are adjustments to MEPFs, SEPFs, Public Employee Pension Funds and the PBGC necessary? Sure they are just like they continue to be necessary for the survival of Social Security. But the solving of a projected problem 10-20 years from now was not an emergency issue needed to be passed on the coat tails of the year end funding bill.
This isn't a union/non-union issue, no need to make it one.
The "big unlikely" is looking at the assets and liabilities of the fund. Looking at the contribution rates and the aging workforce. Doing some simple math and seeing just how excellent the returns would have to be in order for the various funds to remain solvent.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
You make it sound like you've investigated it extensively...rather odd for someone who has no skin in the game...wouldn't you say?
I think you do have an anti union agenda by your posts on this issue. And given some of your past FedEx anti union posts and your lack of support on this issue it appears you are happy with the pension cuts. I find it hard to believe any taxpayer would side with the underhanded way this bill was passed. I would expect all working people to side with the Teamster retirees. The title of this thread is Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions and you come on here defending the way Congress backdoored the passage of this bill. Nobody is asking you to agree with us. But you brushed off the actions of Congress and blamed the retirees for not being responsible by putting all their eggs in one basket.
You are welcome to think I have an anti-union agenda but I don't. Three of my closest 4 friends are in unions (2 police officers and a fireman), my oldest daughter is in a teachers' union. They all have pretty good planned pension benefits. I have stated several times, in various threads, that I am not anti-union; I am anti-Teamsters.
I am not "happy" with the pension cuts, I just don't know what the solution is, and believe reasonable people should have seen it coming.
I am not happy with the way the bill was passed. In fact, I specifically said "lots of bills should be presented as stand-alone bills"
Show me where I defended the backdoor passage of this bill.
When social security finally fails there will be people shocked and ill-prepared. That doesn't mean it is their fault it failed. However they hack-up that program there will be people "screwed" from top to bottom. There will be those well into their retirement years that won't have the ability to regenerate that lost income. There will be people who are very close to retirement age who will have their plans changed drastically. There will be people in their 30's who were paying social security for more than a decade who won't see a single penny. The fact that it failed, the unfairness of it failing, and how it is pushed/back-doored through won't be their fault, but they certainly should have seen it coming and planned accordingly.