Who will pay the tax on the health coverage when it is ruled a cadillac plan under Obamacare?
there are 23 inividual pension plans ABF is participatory to . Central States is only one. Some are funded better than others, some have different participants in them. In Joint Council #40, Pittsburgh area,......UPS is in the same plan as us. Different multiplier, same plan. Several other plans also have UPS.....and other major employers....in them. Pension Protection Act of 2006 allowed a "buyout" of 20% of the unfunded liability if the Plan happened to go into Critical Status. Several Plans did, including ours, and Central States. ABF chose not to "buy out" of the plans, but to remain in them. Their argument about "orphans" is disingenuous. All Multi-Employer plans use funds to pay pensions to all participants in the plans.....always have,...always will. If your employer closes, your benefit level is frozen at that amount............so "your" pension is "paid" by your former employer. Since funds are mingled into a common fund at Multi-Employer plans to pay benefits......and have always been since the ERISA act of 1974......ABF can't say we are paying benefits to "orphans". ABF is not paying a dime more in pension costs than what was negotiated 5 years ago...........Their "argument" is that since funds are commingled, and many employers have gone out of business,.....they feel that making a pension contribution for an existing employee who has not retired means that the contribution is going to someone who has not worked for ABF.....this is not true, and if ABF wanted a Single Employer plan, they could've set one up years ago......however,...until the "manufactured" stock crash of 2008, Multi-Employer Plans were the strongest, safest retirement vehicle on the market...........and ABF never moaned about "orphans" then,...even though the same retirement procedure was going on.........Once again,....twisting the facts to fit the fears.........VOTE NO!
Your assertions are correct and ABF may decide not to agree to an extension if we vote no. But, that increases the possibility of us going on strike. I believe that would cause some customers to ship with other carriers. It would create a whole load of problems for ABF. If your assertion that ABF would be better without extending the contract, then I would ask you, why did they agree to the ones they have now? Would it not be better for them to just say no?You are assuming we will be under any contract. With a no vote why would ABF agree to another extension? Without another extension we would not be covered by a contract...
there are 23 inividual pension plans ABF is participatory to . Central States is only one. Some are funded better than others, some have different participants in them. In Joint Council #40, Pittsburgh area,......UPS is in the same plan as us. Different multiplier, same plan. Several other plans also have UPS.....and other major employers....in them. Pension Protection Act of 2006 allowed a "buyout" of 20% of the unfunded liability if the Plan happened to go into Critical Status. Several Plans did, including ours, and Central States. ABF chose not to "buy out" of the plans, but to remain in them. Their argument about "orphans" is disingenuous. All Multi-Employer plans use funds to pay pensions to all participants in the plans.....always have,...always will. If your employer closes, your benefit level is frozen at that amount............so "your" pension is "paid" by your former employer. Since funds are mingled into a common fund at Multi-Employer plans to pay benefits......and have always been since the ERISA act of 1974......ABF can't say we are paying benefits to "orphans". ABF is not paying a dime more in pension costs than what was negotiated 5 years ago...........Their "argument" is that since funds are commingled, and many employers have gone out of business,.....they feel that making a pension contribution for an existing employee who has not retired means that the contribution is going to someone who has not worked for ABF.....this is not true, and if ABF wanted a Single Employer plan, they could've set one up years ago......however,...until the "manufactured" stock crash of 2008, Multi-Employer Plans were the strongest, safest retirement vehicle on the market...........and ABF never moaned about "orphans" then,...even though the same retirement procedure was going on.........Once again,....twisting the facts to fit the fears.........VOTE NO!
That "manufactured" stock crash of 2008" was a nuclear bomb. Our beloved president Obama passed the MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN FUNDING RELIEF LEGISLATION in 2010 that allowed the pension funds decades to recoup losses that in effect allowed the carriers to operate with unfunded pension liabilities. The down side is the carriers are now liable for orphans pensions where as there would have been money for them if investments paid off. It's no secret that the Funds rely heavily on stock market returns to make retirees dreams become a reality......"manufactured" stock crash of 2008".....
Oh geez.
The financial market crash of 2008 placed unprecedented funding pressure on multiemployerdefined benefit pension plans and the thousands of employers that provide responsible retirement benefits to their employees by participating in
them. Since that time, the National CoordinatingCommittee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP) and its Coalition partners
have worked tirelessly to develop a plan, and have lobbied Congressfor legislative funding relief.
In 5 years you will be making more then you are now. 1/2 % more. It is unlikely they will ask for more concessions after agreeing to 4 raises, extremely unlikely. 2010 was not a contract they had no recourse. They don't bluff. Don't make them have to sell to YRC
That "manufactured" stock crash of 2008" was a nuclear bomb. Our beloved president Obama passed the MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN FUNDING RELIEF LEGISLATION in 2010 that allowed the pension funds decades to recoup losses that in effect allowed the carriers to operate with unfunded pension liabilities. The down side is the carriers are now liable for orphans pensions where as there would have been money for them if investments paid off. It's no secret that the Funds rely heavily on stock market returns to make retirees dreams become a reality.
http://www.nccmp.org/pdfs/Relief Bill Announcement.pdf
MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN FUNDING RELIEF LEGISLATION
SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA ON JUNE 25, 2010
Who will pay the tax on the health coverage when it is ruled a cadillac plan under Obamacare?
It's to bad for you folks.... Nothing you did wrong BUT YOU DID WHAT WAS EXPECTED OF YOU!!!! **** poor management doesn't take the blame the .....................The workers suffer for their decisions!! Hope it all works out for youYes I agree it is a bad deal that will move organized labor backwards and closer to our non union buddies. Some people will also call that a market adjustment. Anyway, it is quite possibly the best deal available also. My B.A. served on the negotiating committee and to paraphrase him this deal was dramatically better than what they worked on for three months and he feels is the best deal possible considering the hanging offer from YRC which is the game changer.
didnt they bluff on the 15%?
A comment on the math, if you take a seven percent cut in wages you are now making 93 percent of your previous wages. Now if in a year you get a two percent increase in wages you are actually getting a 1.86 percent increase of your original wages. It will not make a huge difference, but you will not get your seven percent back quite as quickly. Then if you are making 94.86 percent of your original wages and get another two percent that would be a 1.8972 percent of your original wages. So after two wage increases you are not back to 97 percent, you are actually at 96.75 percent and so on. I hope my math is correct, I was just doing it in my old worn out truck driver's head.