My comment on non-Union pension:
If the company is going to offer a defined benefit. Why not stay with the Teamster's?Is it for Adminstration cost,or is it to pay for new equipment and growth?
If they went to a 401k plan,would they match dollar for dollar up to half of the goverment allowance of $14,800. Example is you put 10% of $50,000 gross income,$5,000 does the company match that amount? Would it be closer to most other's,that is max. of $2,000 to $3,000.
Could this be extreme? I don't think so.
this is the reason double barrel
if they stay in the teamster plan and let's say their withdrawal liability is what they now claim is 829 million and two years from now YRC also a participating employer goes belly up
abf's liability will skyrocket and they will be left to make up the deficit and get caught holding a large part of the 'bag", so to speak
they very well may be in that scenario as the "last man standing"
this is a position they do not want to be in
this liability also plays in the formulating of their bottom line value as a company in a negative fashion
now as far as their 401k solution it may sound good, it may look good, but that doesn't mean it will be good
one word comes to mind ENRON
those people thought they had the world by the balls until the truth came out
i'd rather take my chances with the teamsters
in addition abf unlike ups wishes to pay down that withdrawal liability over a 10 - 15 yr period
yeah right and what happens in two , five or eight years down the road if abf goes belly up
who pays the remainder that is owed? guess who ? you do by not getting what you should be entitled to!!!!!!!!!!!!