Yellow | Pension Fund says Hoffa’s Kroger Deal is Illegal

Freightmaster1

TB Legend
Credits
598
BI2RrzS.jpg

http://www.tdu.org/news/pension-fund-says-hoffa’s-kroger-deal-illegal

President Hoffa should be brought up on charges and thrown out of the union along with most of his cronies! This is a sad day for the Teamsters and all of organized labor!

:fan:
 
I know tou wants to be in power and replace Hoffa but this seems like the propaganda that sickens me with politics.This isn't Hoffa's deal it's Krogers deal just like UPS.If a company can pay the ridiculous withdrawal liabilities , they have a right to do so.
I'm sure their employees would love to get out of this unsustainable Ponzi scheme.We would all be better off if something could be done with the withdraw liabilities.
 
I know tou wants to be in power and replace Hoffa but this seems like the propaganda that sickens me with politics.This isn't Hoffa's deal it's Krogers deal just like UPS.If a company can pay the ridiculous withdrawal liabilities , they have a right to do so.
I'm sure their employees would love to get out of this unsustainable Ponzi scheme.We would all be better off if something could be done with the withdraw liabilities.
Not completely true. ABF wanted to buy their way out two contracts ago and the IBT denied them.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNaEBuFymjhg
The union wanted to reach an agreement by today to allow for member voting before Jan. 1, when federal legislation approved last year to shore up underfunded pension plans takes effect. UPS's withdrawal must be approved by the pension plan's trustees.

The Teamsters historically opposed UPS's efforts to pull out of Central States, and the dispute was a key factor in the union's two-week strike in 1997. Union President James P. Hoffa, whose father James R. Hoffa helped organize Central States in the 1950s, reversed course this year, saying the change would benefit members' retirement security.

http://www.pionline.com/article/200...to-reach-deal-to-withdraw-from-teamsters-plan
Any agreement between UPS and Central States “cannot be implemented unless it is accepted by the (Teamsters) negotiating committee and ratified by the members,” the letter said. “In short, the existence of the agreement between Central States and UPS does not mean that UPS is free to withdraw from Central States and establish a new, jointly administered Teamster pension plan for its employees.”
 
I'm sure their employees would love to get out of this unsustainable Ponzi scheme.We would all be better off if something could be done with the withdraw liabilities.
http://www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/882/unionvsprivatepensionplans.pdf
This language suggests that someone in the Team- sters, whether in upper-level management, media departments, or financial services, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Central States Fund—or, perhaps, is practicing misdirection. A system in which you promise to take an individual’s money, invest it, and return a certain amount to him in the future—but instead use it to fulfill cur- rent similar obligations to another person—is not called a pension plan. It is called a Ponzi scheme. Now, the Central States Fund is not a Ponzi scheme, as it is not run solely for the benefit of its adminis- trators and early adherents. It is merely a poorly- funded pension plan. But this language and current situation demonstrate the problems with Teamsters pension fund.
 
Not completely true. ABF wanted to buy their way out two contracts ago and the IBT denied them.

Yes ,but didn't ABF want to pay the liabilities off in a 10 to 15 year period instead of a lump sum? That didn't have to be allowed.They also offered to pay the same amount into the fund for their employees,they just didn't want to pay retirement payments to people who never worked for them.
The sad part is,if yrcw would have bankrupted those liabilities would have fell on ABF and ruined them also.What the hell kind of retirement plan ruins a well run company like ABF because another company bankrupts?
 
Yes ,but didn't ABF want to pay the liabilities off in a 10 to 15 year period instead of a lump sum? That didn't have to be allowed.They also offered to pay the same amount into the fund for their employees,they just didn't want to pay retirement payments to people who never worked for them.
The sad part is,if yrcw would have bankrupted those liabilities would have fell on ABF and ruined them also.What the hell kind of retirement plan ruins a well run company like ABF because another company bankrupts?
No offense intended but I am not so sure that what you are saying here is right. I am not aware of what terms ABF had in mind for exiting the Funds. I know that they did report to us in a video that they were willing to buy their way out and they said that they had to money to do it. Just the IBT would not permit it. I am also unaware of a provision that puts YRC's liability on ABF. To my knowledge each beneficiary of their respective fund receives benefits based on contributions made on their behalf. ABF and YRC are not covering the liabilities of all the now defunct companies, you and I are.
 
No offense intended but I am not so sure that what you are saying here is right. I am not aware of what terms ABF had in mind for exiting the Funds. I know that they did report to us in a video that they were willing to buy their way out and they said that they had to money to do it. Just the IBT would not permit it. I am also unaware of a provision that puts YRC's liability on ABF. To my knowledge each beneficiary of their respective fund receives benefits based on contributions made on their behalf. ABF and YRC are not covering the liabilities of all the now defunct companies, you and I are.


Let us assume, and without cynicism, that the study hints at the need for a moderate-scale bailout. While such a course of action certainly is preferable to a full-scale bailout, it wouldn't necessarily address the underlying problem of multiemployer pension plans. Under federal law, MEPPs must continue to make all promised contributions and payments should a participating employer exit a plan for whatever reason (e.g., bankruptcy, liquidation, sale of assets). Thus, all remaining employers are required to pick up the slack and assume proportionate liability for the payments owed to the exited firm's "orphan" employees. This "last man standing" rule, as it is known, is the key feature of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. The law was established to protect beneficiaries from the consequences of sudden sponsor withdrawals. But aside from unwittingly giving pension managers an incentive to downplay or deny bad news, this provision renders multiemployer plans unstable. To put it succinctly: Nobody wants to be the last man standing. This puts Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. in the role of the ultimate "last man."

In practice, this statute can impose high costs upon employers. In a dramatic example, United Parcel Service in December 2007 agreed to pay $6.1 billion to the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund so as to absolve itself from contractual obligations to make further contributions. Under the agreement, UPS would remain liable for its own employees' retirement, but wouldn't have to pay for the retirement of other Teamsters who hadn't worked for the company. Thus, UPS' "escape" hardly let it off the hook. The last man standing rule especially can be devastating to small firms unable to pay the union "greenmail." A Walled Lake, Mich. (suburban Detroit) concrete forming company, Fastdecks Inc., is finding out the hard way. The firm recently got a bill from the Central States Fund for $465,774 after having laid off its sole remaining union employee. Company CEO George Kerver explains: "As companies leave the pool of contributors, each remaining company's percentage of the growing shortage gets larger. That means, theoretically, that the withdrawal liability for the last company that stays in the pool will be $25 billion, or however much the entire fund is underfunded." Such is the dominant reality of the "last man standing" rule: The union calls the shots.
 
Let us assume, and without cynicism, that the study hints at the need for a moderate-scale bailout. While such a course of action certainly is preferable to a full-scale bailout, it wouldn't necessarily address the underlying problem of multiemployer pension plans. Under federal law, MEPPs must continue to make all promised contributions and payments should a participating employer exit a plan for whatever reason (e.g., bankruptcy, liquidation, sale of assets). Thus, all remaining employers are required to pick up the slack and assume proportionate liability for the payments owed to the exited firm's "orphan" employees. This "last man standing" rule, as it is known, is the key feature of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. The law was established to protect beneficiaries from the consequences of sudden sponsor withdrawals. But aside from unwittingly giving pension managers an incentive to downplay or deny bad news, this provision renders multiemployer plans unstable. To put it succinctly: Nobody wants to be the last man standing. This puts Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. in the role of the ultimate "last man."

In practice, this statute can impose high costs upon employers. In a dramatic example, United Parcel Service in December 2007 agreed to pay $6.1 billion to the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund so as to absolve itself from contractual obligations to make further contributions. Under the agreement, UPS would remain liable for its own employees' retirement, but wouldn't have to pay for the retirement of other Teamsters who hadn't worked for the company. Thus, UPS' "escape" hardly let it off the hook. The last man standing rule especially can be devastating to small firms unable to pay the union "greenmail." A Walled Lake, Mich. (suburban Detroit) concrete forming company, Fastdecks Inc., is finding out the hard way. The firm recently got a bill from the Central States Fund for $465,774 after having laid off its sole remaining union employee. Company CEO George Kerver explains: "As companies leave the pool of contributors, each remaining company's percentage of the growing shortage gets larger. That means, theoretically, that the withdrawal liability for the last company that stays in the pool will be $25 billion, or however much the entire fund is underfunded." Such is the dominant reality of the "last man standing" rule: The union calls the shots.

Very well stated! :1036316054:
 
I know tou wants to be in power and replace Hoffa but this seems like the propaganda that sickens me with politics.This isn't Hoffa's deal it's Krogers deal just like UPS.If a company can pay the ridiculous withdrawal liabilities , they have a right to do so.
I'm sure their employees would love to get out of this unsustainable Ponzi scheme.We would all be better off if something could be done with the withdraw liabilities.

BUT....The IBT was trying to negotiate to let them out WITHOUT liability and CSPF busted them in their letter to Kroger & The IBT.....KK
 
Those wernt my words Trip.Im on my phone and couldnt get the link.plenty of them though.
If you could post the link I would like to see it. When Fastdecks laid off their last worker they triggered their unfunded liability payment. I'd have to review more to determine if they paid for someone's else's 'orphan'. I do recall hearing something about remaining fund participants having to pay up when a trigger went off but I also think that that provision was dropping several years ago.
 
If you could post the link I would like to see it. When Fastdecks laid off their last worker they triggered their unfunded liability payment. I'd have to review more to determine if they paid for someone's else's 'orphan'. I do recall hearing something about remaining fund participants having to pay up when a trigger went off but I also think that that provision was dropping several years ago.
Hope I'm wrong, and it may take decades to happen, but at some point, employers will simply walk away, quit paying anything, and say 'what ya gonna do'? Companies don't have the money, the pensions don't have the money, the government doesn't have the money. Hope it takes til we're all dead, but someone is eventually figure out the money has no value except in our minds....
 
Hope I'm wrong, and it may take decades to happen, but at some point, employers will simply walk away, quit paying anything, and say 'what ya gonna do'? Companies don't have the money, the pensions don't have the money, the government doesn't have the money. Hope it takes til we're all dead, but someone is eventually figure out the money has no value except in our minds....
Very well put, Grasshopper!!!!
 
BUT....The IBT was trying to negotiate to let them out WITHOUT liability and CSPF busted them in their letter to Kroger & The IBT.....KK
I have never talked to one person at the international that did not fully understand that they ( the IBT ) could not tell the pension funds what to do. They can ask but that is it. I'll tell you what, if Gordon Sweeton tells me that is what happened I'll believe it. If not I don't.
 
Top