Jimmy I haven't said anything in this thread. Nice to know you're thinking about me though
Yellow | Central States Pension Fund Benefit Reduction Letter!
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
Jimmy I haven't said anything in this thread. Nice to know you're thinking about me though
First, you shifted on me.I responded to bigtruks post that the PGBC brought down the CSPF, which it didn't.
Second, perhaps had we not managed corrputly before- causing us to be taken over (partly causing the downfall); letting UPS out (western didn't); and not acting sooner after realizing that 25 and out/ 39 and out at any age was draining the fund. Plus, the YRC thing? How much more does that affect us than they? There aresome factors beyond our fund's control. Many that we should have had foresight on and taken action. So now, we Must act. Or anyone under the age of 60 will receive zero in ten years, and not be able to fix it at all...
Last edited:
I see that and sincerely Apologize for dragging you in! Too many threads going at once. I'm getting old, I guess. I thought at the time that it wasn't something you would normally say!?!?! Please accept my apology?
Jimmy I haven't said anything in this thread. Nice to know you're thinking about me though
It was bigtruk. My phone doesn't have post #s showing. About 17 back.
No apology needed sir.
If you are retired, and your spouse (that you've been married to for a while) is not collecting social security, then you could divorce on paper to allow your wife to collect on your social security. This would help to make up some of what you've lost for Central States and it is money you have coming to you. You would have to look into the nuances of it to make sure, but I'm pretty sure this can be done without impacting the amount you're collecting.
I would entertain Congress brought down CSPF with the MEPRA bill. If CSPF continued to pay out what they were it would eventually go broke. If this would have happened the Congress would have to bailout the PBGC and the taxpayers would want answers and we can't have that. This in essence bailing out the PBGC or balancing the books whatever you prefer on the backs of Teamsters
Last edited:
Jimmy we are going down a different road with this. IMO it all falls back on the Congress. Sure J.R. Hoffa gave pension fund loans to the mob but it's been proven that the funds did better with them than they did on Wall St. You know the government was out to get Hoffa and the Teamsters union because we had become too powerful. Giving Wall St. control of the fund's investments hurt the funds bottom line
I don't think that UPS tried or even wanted to withdraw from WSPF. If they had then there wasn't any way the funds could legally stop them......................I don't know why your fund gave ajustable benefits like 25 or 39 and out. But I'd guess it was probably because of the government regulation that they could be over funded. Could it have been a case of use it or lose it?
We are opposites. You've become an activist of the retirees, who, obviously don't want cut. I understand. Your view is in the past. You and bigtruk want to spend money investigating to find blame when the thing collapses in ten years. Then the pbgf will fall too, and people like me will get zero. And you aren't in this fund.
My view as an active driver in this fund is that we have a problem- FIX IT! None of us want cuts, but it's reality. CSPF has spent the money to find a solution that's fair to all. We all suffer, but this keeps the fund going for thirty years, so Everyone gets something. We can investigate after we fix it.
My view as an active driver in this fund is that we have a problem- FIX IT! None of us want cuts, but it's reality. CSPF has spent the money to find a solution that's fair to all. We all suffer, but this keeps the fund going for thirty years, so Everyone gets something. We can investigate after we fix it.
That wastes time and money, which makes the eventual cuts deeper.
MPRA won't be repealed by Congress. Come to reality
Hoffa allowed UPS to exit the fund during contract negotiations in return for UPS Freight becoming dues paying members. Dues money was more important than your pension.
Yup....I agree Jimmy, recognize reality. My pension is being cut, I don't like it. The way MPRA was passed still pisses me off, I don't like it. Yada Yada Yada. I've been retired for almost 10 years. I've followed the CSPF underfunding problem closely for years. If anyone followed this whole issue as closely as I have it should not come as a surprise. I guess you could say that the chickens have finally come home to roost. The more I learn about the Rescue Plan the more I recognize that while it may not be perfect it is a balanced approach to the problem.
I'm not on here to pick a fight with anyone. I've read a lot of what I consider to be nonsense here in the last few days. I'm not going to address that here but it does strike me how people can always come up with some conspiracy theory and apply it to almost anything.
Last edited:
None of these "theories" explains why so many other plans that have suffered the same employer losses are still in decent shape while CS is not.
I am waiting until the proposal is posted on Treasury's website before I make a decision which way to vote. By the way, the proposal is 2000 pages long!
http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Plan-Applications.aspx
http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Plan-Applications.aspx
Fortunately for us retirees republican Sen Portman and independent Sen Sanders don't think what you call is reality. The Pension Accountability Act or the Keep Our Pension Promises Act would repeal the MPRA if either is passed.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
https://www.facebook.com/CubanSwagPapi/videos/907764135947674/
Here's how I think they feel.
Here's how I think they feel.
Ok let's address Senator Portman's Bill. It DOES NOT "repeal" MPRA as you suggest. It only amends it. It only amends the voting process. MPRA requires that Fund participants vote after the plan is approved by Treasury. The way MPRA is written however, the voting process is anything but democratic. Under MPRA any votes NOT cast will be counted as yes votes. A majority of those voting can reject the plan but if the total of the no votes is less than a majority of those who are qualified to vote, the plan is deemed to have been passed by the participants. That's simply bull shyt in my opinion. That's not like any election or voting process that I've ever seen. Furthermore even if the majority of participants reject the plan Treasury can still impose it on us. They can because CSPF is considered under MPRA to be a "systemically" important plan. Anotherwards, if CSPF fails the PBGC would itself fail. Portman's Bill only changes this voting process. It does not change MPRA with regard to how "orphans" are treated, it does not change the tier structure, it does not change how a Fund can treat Terminated Vested Participants. It in no way improves or changes anything in the law. Only the voting process is amended. So even if we turn this down what can we change? Nothing. Orphans will still be required to receive the maximum cut before the cuts move on to tier 2. This bill does not allow us to change any of those provisions of MPRA.
So all that said. If the process is delayed and the Funds assets continue to decline at an ever increasing rate there will be less and less to appropriate among the participants. Anotherwords, we stand to possibly get even less than what we're getting under the proposed plan if this process is further drawn out. Be careful what you wish for. It may be worse. My concern is weather the Fund can continue on for an extended period even if the present Central States Rescue Plan is approved. We've got an International Union that recently proposed a plan allowing Kroger to leave the Fund. Any further loss of employers will only cause the Fund to become insolvent sooner. I don't like the situation either but that is the simple reality of how things are.
Last edited:
The rehab plan as it stands only has a slightly better than 50% per chance of success. (50.4%)
Where did you get that number? Would like to read the article
Does anyone know is there a place on the internet to go and look at the past history of the Central States funds amounts and investment results from the past say ten years. Is there some way of doing the research and find out if it has had a reasonable return on investment and it really is just too many retired guys for the amount of guys that are paying in?