Their is something to this. I do agree that no refund is coming as you state. However, why are the companies still having to pay in to the pbgc, when we are not going to be allowed to go there? The companies have to pay twice as much now under the law, as they did before the new law. What a crock. Is this money coming out of the fund or from the still active companies? Either way, someone is paying for something, that is now ever going to be used.
Yellow | Comments on CSPF Town Hall Call
- Thread starter BaBaLoo
- Start date
There is something to this, I agree that no refund is coming or should be. Now that the new law is in place the companies or the fund has to pay twice as much of a premium to the PBGC. Why does either one have to pay for insurance of which they will never be allowed to use? The whole idea here is to save the Central States Pension on the backs of the teamsters. So the PBGC, can stay afloat. That is not going to happen, Senator Jordan of Ohio says," the plan to save it will not work, in less than two years it will be broke". I am quoting from a letter he sent me.
Sounds like the seniority you all covet to me...
In my opinion everybody who has already retired should remain unaffected. The current workforce should have an equal percentage decrease in benefits across the board. If you are close to retirement and unprepared, bummer. You have been participating in a plan that has been in trouble for many years and you chose to not prepare otherwise. Perhaps hoping you would get yours before the bottom fell out and screw everybody else.
freight jockey
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
There is a difference IMO, I don't expect to receive a refund from my auto insurance company if I don't file a claim, instead I had the piece of mind knowing I was insured by them in case of loss per my policy with them.
CS payed PBGC for insurance and was supposedly insured against failure, now PBGC is saying we can't cover your anticipated claim.
Insured against failure? The limits (read UPTO) are defined by ERISA .
http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/multiemployer/multiemployer-benefit-guarantees.html
freight jockey
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
You are correct, and PBGC is saying they cannot cover this when CSP will eventually fail. They fraudulently represented their insurance that was mandated by law upon pension funds.
Remember PBGC is a government agency, and CS Pension has been under government controls since 1978. The government forced Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust upon us who lost approx. 50% of our unfunded deficit in 2008. The federal government forced the loss by their actions, they supposedly had us insured with insurance they mandated us to buy, and now they don't want to make good when we eventually go broke which is in part due to their actions ?
We need to hold the feds feet to the fire IMO.
freight jockey
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
And using your logic why should someone who is receiving far more back than they ever paid in even calculating a reasonable rate of return keep collecting more ?
We chose to keep working a union job and could not choose our pension fund.
You are questioning seniority, which is the bedrock of the union movement ?
Go back to the non union side of this site.
dreambecamenightmare
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Kind of like the extra dues going into the strike fund when we have a no strike clause.
Because they could be 85 years old and unable to generate income.
freight jockey said:
Yep. Your choice.
freight jockey said:
That's the irony. You want those with seniority to take a cut. I say you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
bigtruk_us
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
That issue is apples to oranges.we are not talking personal liability insurance
bigtruk_us
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
This possible pension cuts doesn't bode to well.For the individuals who work for YRC.Whether it be for the voters who were yes and those that were no.Because alot of us in our hearts.Especially the ones that were close to being of age to retire.Wouldve been saddened by the closure of YRC.Now that possible pension cuts are looming.That alone undermines the goal of many to retire with full retirement.Alot of it because Mr.Nyhan and crew failed to follow the ERISA guidelines of being financially prudent relating to charges on fees and investments.This my friends needs to be investigated fully to the extent of the law.If alot of us had known at the time of the second MOU2014 VOTE like we know now.There would've been huge protests.Maybe tthat'swhy the company and the Union rushed in to have another MOU? The MOU before the 2014 was set to expire in March of 2015.Which if expired and still in effect.Wouldve cancelled out many of the givebacks.If that vote was today.Do we think that YRC would've been given more time? Who knows
Can this be translated to American English?