ABF | Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions!

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.

My mistake I didn't realize it's only the Teamsters union you are against. Another mistake I made is that the Kline-Miller amendment is only 161 pages..............I am happy to hear that your union friends and family have "pretty good planned benefits" I also have friends and relatives who are active cops, teachers, public works employees and retirees. But they are all in public employee pension funds which are in very poor financial shape. Just in NJ alone the taxpayers are on the hook for the about $90 billion in underfunded pension and healthcare benefits due to 20 years of deferring budgeted payments into those funds...............Maybe your governor might tell Chris Christie how your public employee pension funds are in pretty good shape.

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."

I didn't say you defended it what I said was
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.

I didn't see anywhere in your posts where you even hinted at showing you were unhappy or disapproved with the way Kline-Miller was passed. I took your "lots of bills should be presented as stand-alone bills" as your way of blowing it off and saying it happens lots of times and it's no big deal...................It may happen lots of times but not to a bill that takes away pension protection for over 1.5 million retirees

It appears that you don't have a problem with taxpayer funded public employee pension and healthcare plans. And you're not anti union just anti Teamsters. So now I understand why your posts lack any support for the Teamster pension fund's retirees affected by the new changes to ERISA. IMO your posts on this thread are thinly disguised cheap shots at the Teamsters and our pension funds.




 
Maybe your governor might tell Chris Christie how your public employee pension funds are in pretty good shape.

I said they have pretty good "planned pension benefits"....key word would be "planned". I never said their public employee pension funds are in pretty good shape. In fact, those plans are in pretty horrible shape. Maybe Christie can give Brown some pointers.

Crystal said:
I didn't say you defended it.

Yes, you did. Specifically you said:

Crystal said:
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

Crystal said:
I didn't see anywhere in your posts where you even hinted at showing you were unhappy or disapproved with the way Kline-Miller was passed. I took your "lots of bills should be presented as stand-alone bills" as your way of blowing it off and saying it happens lots of times and it's no big deal.

I can see how my statement may have been interpreted that way. I was agreeing that it should have been a stand-alone bill as well as many others. It is a big deal, but I don't foresee it changing the way Washington operates.

Crystal said:
It appears that you don't have a problem with taxpayer funded public employee pension and healthcare plans. And you're not anti union just anti Teamsters.

Actually, I am not just anti-Teamsters...I am anti-lots of unions, while I agree with some others.

Crystal said:
So now I understand why your posts lack any support for the Teamster pension fund's retirees affected by the new changes to ERISA. IMO your posts on this thread are thinly disguised cheap shots at the Teamsters and our pension funds.

I don't know what you expect me to say that I haven't already said. Something had to be done, and folks who didn't prepare for the inevitable are going to be screwed. So what do you think should happen? Current retires don't take a hit at all and the folks that are 1 week from retirement lose everything? Too close to retirement for you? How about 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? What is your solution?
 
I said they have pretty good "planned pension benefits"....key word would be "planned". I never said their public employee pension funds are in pretty good shape. In fact, those plans are in pretty horrible shape. Maybe Christie can give Brown some pointers.

And the Teamsters still have a pretty good planned pension benefits.

I don't know what you expect me to say that I haven't already said. Something had to be done, and folks who didn't prepare for the inevitable are going to be screwed. So what do you think should happen? Current retires don't take a hit at all and the folks that are 1 week from retirement lose everything? Too close to retirement for you? How about 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? What is your solution?

I don't agree that it is inevitable. It has been estimated that only between 150 to 200 of the 1400 MEPFs are in danger of defaulting in the next 10 to 20 years. I'm just a simple retired truck driver and I don't have a solution. But the AARP, Pension Rights Center, TDU and many unions have offered their solutions and the House Committee on Education and Work Force ignored them. The committee knew it's NCCMP lobbied bill wouldn't withstand a full debate and vote as a stand alone bill. That's why it took the easy way out and screwed the retirees..............Did I miss your opinion on the $2 billion loophole written into the bill for UPS? Some might consider that a form of a bailout.

Historically, there is a broad consensus that any plan modification that leads to benefit reductions should protect (hold harmless) retirees and near-retirees (e.g., those within 10 years of retirement age). For good reason: those in and near retirement are either already relying on that income, which is usually modest in amount, or have already made plans in reliance on that income. In the case of retirees, they do not have any meaningful opportunity to return to the workforce or somehow generate new sources of income; in the case of near-retirees, they are deemed too close to retirement to be able to effectuate any significant change in career or retirement plans. It is widely viewed as simply unfair to change the rules of the game people have relied upon throughout their working careers.

That is 1 of many reasons AARP offered alternative measures to the NCCMP's solutions not bailouts. If you click on the TDU link you will find a link to the AARP's statement on the issue.........Most everyone is in agreement that something needs to be done to shore up those 150 to 200 funds that are in trouble. Unfortunately for us retirees Congress took the easy way out and cut 40 years of ERISA pension protection as a first resort rather than a last resort.

Other than the due diligence requirements, which are advisory in nature, the NCCMP proposal makes cutting retirees its first resort

http://www.tdu.org/news/will-congress-pass-bill-allow-pension-cuts
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/a-devastating-blow-to-retirees-374829635989
 
And the Teamsters still have a pretty good planned pension benefits.

Some do, some are abhorrent.

Crystal said:
I'm just a simple retired truck driver and I don't have a solution. But the AARP, Pension Rights Center, TDU and many unions have offered their solutions and the House Committee on Education and Work Force ignored them.

Oh, please. How do you know they didn't review their merit and then dismiss them? You don't know that they ignored them, all you know is that they didn't implement them.

Crystal said:
Did I miss your opinion on the $2 billion loophole written into the bill for UPS?

No, I never offered it.
 
Oh, please. How do you know they didn't review their merit and then dismiss them? You don't know that they ignored them, all you know is that they didn't implement them.

You are absolutely right. I don't know because they never had open hearings or any debate. It was a back room deal brokered by staffers from Kline and Miller's offices...............These are direct quotes from Rep. Bob Bishop for the record of the 12/10/2014 House Rules Committee meeting on the Federal spending bill. He is referring to the Kline-Miller amendment which he and the other committee members hadn't even read. It is at about the minute 42 point of the meeting
This has to be either the best damn amendment ever written or the biggest mistake we've ever done.
It's a lousy way of doing business

Best damn amendment or biggest mistake Isn't that great? They hurry up and pass the bill so they can go home for the holidays. If it's a mistake then oh well. It can only affects 1.5 million retirees. It is unbelievable that the US Congress allows this type of amendment, negotiated and written by staff members and not having even been read by the members, to be attached to a spending bill.

Rep. Jim Miller makes some interesting comments about the bill starting around minute 39. And Rep. Alcee Hasting has an interesting discussion with both Reps. Kline and Miller from minute 52 thru to minute 106.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?323191-1/house-rules-committee-meeting-federal-spending-bill
 
They treat us like trash because we allow them to treat us like trash. We can come on these sites and complain and it gets us nowhere. Until we take a stand we will keep being pushed down. Anybody have any ideas. Calling a politician hasn't worked ever. If it did we would not be in the shape we all are today. I predict that soon retirees and active Teamsters will be pitted against each other and there will be a big sell out. If we allow that to happen then we deserve what we get. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
No, it actually took a rather cursory glance and a rather rudimentary formula to figure out that the solvency of many MEPFs are in trouble.
It took some companies to see a way out of their liabilities to place our funds in a critical position. Make no mistake about it many companies were allowed to go out of business and not fund the plans what they were liable for. This is not just a case of fewer contributing employers. This is years of companies getting around their responsibilities. This is years of the funds not being ran in a manner that was for our benefit. This mess is in no way a reflection of the hard working Teamsters that have spent many hours away from their families to fund a pension that is now trying to cut benefits so it can maintain the high paying jobs of the very people that have endangered it. If we have to take cuts then everyone currently connected with the fund has to be replaced and a congressional committee has to be formed to investigate the decades of bad investments and then if there has been any wrong doing then those people need to be striped of all their assets and imprisoned. Until then we need to stand strong and united. It is time to stop the lip service and stand and take action or get used to saying WELCOME TO WAL MART CAN I GET YOU A CART! YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Muler, you are right on the money there. They have been taking the bacon right off of our plates for some time now and we have sat by and taken it. Health care co payments are a good example. They were unheard of not too long ago. Now they are a way of life, accepted as normal. Pensions are disappearing and we say, "Oh well we need to find another way". Social Security benefits are being eroded and we understand, "It's OK, I need to do something different". Where will we draw the line? When will we say,"I've had enough"? Ironically I had a mid eastern immigrant ask me those last two questions a couple of years ago. :ranting2: :shrug:
 
They treat us like trash because we allow them to treat us like trash. We can come on these sites and complain and it gets us nowhere. Until we take a stand we will keep being pushed down. Anybody have any ideas. Calling a politician hasn't worked ever. If it did we would not be in the shape we all are today. I predict that soon retirees and active Teamsters will be pitted against each other and there will be a big sell out. If we allow that to happen then we deserve what we get. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!

I have an idea. ;) If the Teamsters really have their members' best interest at heart and they are there to negotiate on your behalf, tell the Teamsters that you don't want the company contributing $3-7/hr into a fund on your behalf. Tell them you want the company to pay you that additional $3-7/hr and you will worry about your own retirement. The employers aren't putting out any less. The employee isn't getting any less. In fact, the employees are gaining "control" of their retirement choices AND the money is theirs, not going into a fund that is supporting someone else. No fund administrators skimming off the top unless you choose to invest where that is the case. When you die, all the money goes to your heirs, and when they die your legacy could continue.

It will never happen because the retired teamsters need those monies to be contributed by you for them, as theirs went to the folks before them. The ones 15 years or less from retirement will not be able to accumulate enough money to retire with what the pension planned to give them.

It's a mess. There is not an easy solution. Negotiate for as much per hour/mile as you can get and plan for your own retirement.
 
t
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

I don't believe I am the only username who has tried to defend congress for trying to save our pension but I appreciate that you recognize my original thinking. Thanks you! I read your lengthy posts and I disagree with most of what you say. You seem to advocate that all congressional bills be stand alone bills. That is a little naive in my book. America is a big country with over 350 million people living in it and having each bill debated and voted on separately would take too much time. Consider how long it took the Teamsters and ABF to negotiate our contract.
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

Crystal, I am interested in knowing how long before a multi-billion dollar fund goes broke should we start to worry about when to fix it? In your opinion?

I disagree with EX396 on the Teamsters but with regards to the pension I believe he is right. Just because I don't have the same beliefs as another person does not mean I cannot recognize when they are correct. And besides, our opinions do not matter, this bill has been passed.
 
t

I don't believe I am the only username who has tried to defend congress for trying to save our pension but I appreciate that you recognize my original thinking. Thanks you! I read your lengthy posts and I disagree with most of what you say. You seem to advocate that all congressional bills be stand alone bills. That is a little naive in my book. America is a big country with over 350 million people living in it and having each bill debated and voted on separately would take too much time. Consider how long it took the Teamsters and ABF to negotiate our contract.


Crystal, I am interested in knowing how long before a multi-billion dollar fund goes broke should we start to worry about when to fix it? In your opinion?

I disagree with EX396 on the Teamsters but with regards to the pension I believe he is right. Just because I don't have the same beliefs as another person does not mean I cannot recognize when they are correct. And besides, our opinions do not matter, this bill has been passed.
I remember a meeting at my local.This was when YRCW at the time was trying to get us to take pay concessions.There was this little old lady that was going around chanting "save my pension" "save my pension".This was done to chide us to vote for the pay concessions for YRCW.Guess we know now how that worked out.
 
t

I don't believe I am the only username who has tried to defend congress for trying to save our pension but I appreciate that you recognize my original thinking. Thanks you! I read your lengthy posts and I disagree with most of what you say.

Do you have a problem comprehending what you quote? I said
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
Union haters have posted before you on other TB forums their approval of the way this bill was passed. But they are probably jealous because their companies don't provide them with pensions. So don't flatter yourself on being an original thinker............What specifically do you disagree with in my lengthy posts? Go right ahead and type away.

You seem to advocate that all congressional bills be stand alone bills. That is a little naive in my book. America is a big country with over 350 million people living in it and having each bill debated and voted on separately would take too much time. Consider how long it took the Teamsters and ABF to negotiate our contract.
Are you for real or what? I'm not advocating any such thing. But an act of Congress that takes away 40 years of ERISA protection and can affect 1.5 million retirees should warrant the same stand alone action as these other bills. It only took me 5 minutes to pull these less important stand alone bills from the first page of bills passed by Congress in 2013. There are many more like if you care to research them..............Cutting retiree's pensions should be given at least the same consideration by the full congress as renaming public building or fishing holes.


HR-1071 To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins.
S-1614 "Accuracy for Adoptees Act"
A bill to require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State court and for other purposes.
S-982 "Freedom to Fish Act"
A bill to prohibit the Corps of Engineers from taking certain actions to establish a restricted area prohibiting public access to waters downstream of a dam, and for other purposes.
HR-1092 To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the "Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center".
HR-2611 To designate the headquarters building of the Coast Guard on the campus located at 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue Southeast in the District of Columbia as the "Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building", and for other purposes.
S-459 "Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Boundary Modification Act"
A bill to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes.
HR-3302 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, Florida, as the "C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center".
HR-185 To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, as the "Paul Brown United States Courthouse".
HR-2251To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building located at 118 South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the "Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building".
HR-2319 "Native American Veterans' Memorial Amendments Act of 2013"
To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994.
HR-667 To redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range.
S-230 A bill to authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes.
http://www.congress-summary.com/C-113th-Congress/Laws_Passed_113th_Congress_Seq.html


Crystal, I am interested in knowing how long before a multi-billion dollar fund goes broke should we start to worry about when to fix it? In your opinion?

Are you trying to be a smart ass with that question? The House Committee on Education and the Work Force has been working on the MEPF issue for at least 3 years now. CSPF is projected to fail in 10 to 20 years if nothing is done. There was no urgent reason for The Kline-Miller Amendment to be added at the last minute to a critical bill needed to keep the government from shutting down. A complex issue of this much importance should have been presented to congress to be debated and voted on as a stand alone bill. That is the opinion of many members of congress...........Unlike you I don't claim to be an original thinker. I'm just a fair minded reader of the facts.
 
Crystal, a bit fanatical aren't you? Hate speech accomplishes so much less.
Crystal, I am interested in knowing how long before a multi-billion dollar fund goes broke should we start to worry about when to fix it? In your opinion?

Can you expand on that question? How long? Years, months, day, minutes, or after the checks bounce or stop coming?
 
Every years thousands of TEAMSTER RETIREES DIE. Just send off for the form 5500. It will tell everything about where every penny has gone. There are going to be tens of thousands of Teamsters that won't live to collect one dime of their pensions. So remember the numbers can be very deceiving. Just remember how we were told the fund was not in that bad of shape by the very people now telling us it is.

Don't panic and become a scared idiot that is what they want us to do. We need to take and get our pension in control we can not expect them to do so.
 
Crystal, a bit fanatical aren't you? Hate speech accomplishes so much less.


Can you expand on that question? How long? Years, months, day, minutes, or after the checks bounce or stop coming?
What no response to the issues I raised? What hate speech? Can't you come up with a valid argument in defense of the Kline-Miller Amendment? To say that congress is too busy is a ridiculous excuse..................But okay I'll play your silly game. I started worrying about the pension funds back in 2006 when Hoffa and Hall gave UPSF a stand alone contract. I became even more worried in 2008 when some funds lost billions in the stock market............... But what has that got to do with the way the Kline-Miller Amendment was passed? Why the urgent need to sneak it into law? To say congress was too busy is absurd.
 
Crystal, if you had the foresight to see there was a problem in 2006, and even more so in 2008 did you ask your Teamsters representation to negotiate with your employer for different contract terms regarding the pension? O\
 
Crystal, if you had the foresight to see there was a problem in 2006, and even more so in 2008 did you ask your Teamsters representation to negotiate with your employer for different contract terms regarding the pension? O\
Your anti union agenda is really starting to show. I ignored your other post suggesting it. I was hoping you would take it somewhere else. And I do consider your posts anti union not just anti Teamsters since the MEPF issue is much bigger than just Hoffa and the Teamsters.................Of course I didn't ask for different contract terms after already being in the MEPF for 35 years. But when my union sent me a questionnaire asking what was of most importance to me in contract negotiations I chose the pension funding as my first priority.
 
Your anti union agenda is really starting to show. I ignored your other post suggesting it. I was hoping you would take it somewhere else. And I do consider your posts anti union not just anti Teamsters since the MEPF issue is much bigger than just Hoffa and the Teamsters.................Of course I didn't ask for different contract terms after already being in the MEPF for 35 years. But when my union sent me a questionnaire asking what was of most importance to me in contract negotiations I chose the pension funding as my first priority.

It's not an anti-union agenda. It's a "why didn't you ask for control of your own destiny?"....perhaps you knew it would never happen as the Teamsters aren't really interesting in negotiating in what's best for you and your brothers and sisters if it isn't also good for the Teamsters. You knew that though, that's likely the real reason you chose not to answer.

The fact that you were in the MEPF for 35 years is another reason you didn't ask (per your own admission)....you needed all those left behind paying your pension, even if you knew somebody wouldn't be around to pay for theirs. It's like being suckered into a Ponzi scheme or Pyramid scheme and realizing so, but making sure you rope a couple more into it so that you can get yours.
 
It's not an anti-union agenda. It's a "why didn't you ask for control of your own destiny?"....perhaps you knew it would never happen as the Teamsters aren't really interesting in negotiating in what's best for you and your brothers and sisters if it isn't also good for the Teamsters. You knew that though, that's likely the real reason you chose not to answer.

The fact that you were in the MEPF for 35 years is another reason you didn't ask (per your own admission)....you needed all those left behind paying your pension, even if you knew somebody wouldn't be around to pay for theirs. It's like being suckered into a Ponzi scheme or Pyramid scheme and realizing so, but making sure you rope a couple more into it so that you can get yours.

I had control of my own destiny. I chose to work for companies that participated in MEPFs. Companies that provided a pension negotiated in my best interest by my union. Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that there has never been a Teamsters MEPF that defaulted on a retiree's pension check. When I started in 1969 there were already many Teamster retirees collecting their pensions.

You keep attacking the Teamsters and the entire concept of our MEPF. Now you are calling it a Ponzi scheme. You don't know what you are talking about. Approx. 150-200 out of 1400 MEPFs are in danger of failing in the next 10-20 years if nothing at all is done to correct their underfunding situation. How do you explain the other 1200 funds that are okay? Can you provide any facts to support your Ponzi or Pyramid scheme theory?

You are trying to sell the idea that I/we should have tried to have the Teamsters get out of the MEPFs. Why would I/we want to opt out of a pension system that had never failed? In my opinion the union moderators have been very patient in allowing you to continue your anti union posts on this union forum. I doubt that you would have been allowed the same freedom to attack on some TB non union forums....................
 
The fact that you were in the MEPF for 35 years is another reason you didn't ask (per your own admission)....you needed all those left behind paying your pension, even if you knew somebody wouldn't be around to pay for theirs. It's like being suckered into a Ponzi scheme or Pyramid scheme and realizing so, but making sure you rope a couple more into it so that you can get yours.

I really would like for you to try and justify your comparing the MEPFs to a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. If you are correct them over 15 million people participate in federally regulated Ponzi schemes. Or is it just the ones in the Teamster plans that are the suckers?
6. How many multiemployer pension plans are in existence? In terms of assets, how extensive are multiemployer plan holdings? How many participants are covered by multiemployer plans?
As of 2012, there were:
  • 2,740 multiemployer pension plans (1,427 defined benefit pension plans and 1,313 defined contribution pension plans) (Note: In many cases, a multiemployer defined contribution plan is offered as a supplement to a defined benefit plan, rather than as a replacement plan.)
  • 15,171,000 participants and beneficiaries in multiemployer plans (10,520,000 in defined benefit plans and 4,651,000 in defined contribution plans)
  • $624 billion in assets held by multiemployer plans ($431 billion in defined benefit plans
  • and $192 billion in defined contribution plans).
12. What is the legal authority for multiemployer plans? What is the legal authority for employer contributions to multiemployer plans and their governance structure?
Multiemployer plans are authorized and defined by ERISA Section 3(37), 29 U.S.C. §1002(3)(37).
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), as amended by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act), authorizes employer contributions to multiemployer plans and provides the governance requirements for these plans. The NLRA states that employers cannot give money or anything else of value to employee representatives (individuals or unions). The law, however, permits employers to contribute money into a joint trust if it is established for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees and their dependents.
Private Pension Plan Bulletin, 2012 data, U.S. Department of Labor, September 2014.
http://www.ifebp.org/news/featuredtopics/multiemployer/Pages/default.aspx#6

2014 figures are not available yet but it is my understanding that my pension fund did very well on it's investments in the last 2 years.
 
Last edited:
Top