ABF | Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions!

[EX396]

I had control of my own destiny. I chose to work for companies that participated in MEPFs. Companies that provided a pension negotiated in my best interest by my union. Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that there has never been a Teamsters MEPF that defaulted on a retiree's pension check. When I started in 1969 there were already many Teamster retirees collecting their pensions.

You keep attacking the Teamsters and the entire concept of our MEPF. Now you are calling it a Ponzi scheme. You don't know what you are talking about. Approx. 150-200 out of 1400 MEPFs are in danger of failing in the next 10-20 years if nothing at all is done to correct their underfunding situation. How do you explain the other 1200 funds that are okay? Can you provide any facts to support your Ponzi or Pyramid scheme theory?

You are trying to sell the idea that I/we should have tried to have the Teamsters get out of the MEPFs. Why would I/we want to opt out of a pension system that had never failed? In my opinion the union moderators have been very patient in allowing you to continue your anti union posts on this union forum. I doubt that you would have been allowed the same freedom to attack on some TB non union forums....................

I didn't call your Teamsters' MEPF a ponzi scheme. Feel free to go back and read what I said.

A fund is paying out more than it is taking it. The members currently receiving benefits or those close to the top (soon to receive benefits) recruit new blood to pay into the plan. All while knowing doing so increases their chances of receiving their payout, and knowing those at the bottom are not as likely to get theirs. That's why I said wanting to stay in so that you can get yours while knowing those just entering are not likely to get theirs is "LIKE" a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme.

As to why would you want to opt out of a pension system that had never failed? Because it was FAILING. If I could opt out of SS, I would.

Those 1200 other funds are okay because they aren't paying 4 retirees for every one current employee.

 

[EX396]

Or is it just the ones in the Teamster plans that are the suckers?

Please get off of the Teamster victim horse. This debate isn't about the Teamsters, quit trying to make it so.

There are plenty of non-Teamster MEPFs in trouble. The issue, fairly unique to teamsters, is the size of the retiree pool vs. those currently paying into the fund and the direction of that trend. I am not aware of any other MEPF with the size of discrepancy (retires-current employees).

 

[Crystal]

You win EX396 you're right. You saw right through my plan. I have been actively recruiting new members into my pension fund knowing there wouldn't be anything left for them. I have been pulling those suckers in since 2006 just so I could get mine. The only problem with my Ponzi like scheme was that there hasn't been any companies joining my fund since Nation Ways came east back in the 90s. So it's my greed and failure to organize that helped cause congress to pass the Kline-Miller Pension Reform amendment. No matter how I try and spin it I can't fool you.

 

[Crystal]

Please get off of the Teamster victim horse. This debate isn't about the Teamsters, quit trying to make it so.

You got me again. I mistakenly thought that the issue was about Teamsters pensions. Maybe that's because this is a ABF Teamster forum and the title of this thread is Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions. Sorry to have gone off topic and sidetrack your debate.

perhaps you knew it would never happen as the Teamsters aren't really interesting in negotiating in what's best for you and your brothers and sisters if it isn't also good for the Teamsters..

 

[EX396]

Despite the title of the thread, the topic morphed into discussing MEPFs in general, in post #5 of this thread. Coincidently, your post. I was just following your lead. You didn't like where it went, so you remind me what the thread was supposed to be about....

Carry on...

 

[Muler]

I have an idea. ;) If the Teamsters really have their members' best interest at heart and they are there to negotiate on your behalf, tell the Teamsters that you don't want the company contributing $3-7/hr into a fund on your behalf. Tell them you want the company to pay you that additional $3-7/hr and you will worry about your own retirement. The employers aren't putting out any less. The employee isn't getting any less. In fact, the employees are gaining "control" of their retirement choices AND the money is theirs, not going into a fund that is supporting someone else. No fund administrators skimming off the top unless you choose to invest where that is the case. When you die, all the money goes to your heirs, and when they die your legacy could continue.

It will never happen because the retired teamsters need those monies to be contributed by you for them, as theirs went to the folks before them. The ones 15 years or less from retirement will not be able to accumulate enough money to retire with what the pension planned to give them.

It's a mess. There is not an easy solution. Negotiate for as much per hour/mile as you can get and plan for your own retirement.

You never have anything positive to say therefore you have nothing that we care to hear on this forum. If you are a Teamster hater you need to learn how to come across as someone with a fair open mind on Teamster matters. But you don't and you have no merit on this forum.

If I believed everything I was told about you as a non union truck driver I would see you as a porky pine. Because if you had as many sticking out of you as you have had stuck in you then you would look like a PORKY PINE!

You see we could all be haters then we would sound as stupid as you do on this forum. Grow up and stop the hating. YOUR IN A HOLIDAY MOOD BROTHER ALWAYS!

 

[EX396]

Good morning Muler ;)

I have plenty of positive things to say, sometimes even about unions. Rarely is it about Teamsters, but I have made a short list about the positives more than once.

Ironic that you call me a "Porky Pine" (that's classic right there) and then tell me to grow up and stop the hating....and that I sound stupid.

 

[Crystal]

Good morning Muler ;)

I have plenty of positive things to say, sometimes even about unions. Rarely is it about Teamsters, but I have made a short list about the positives more than once.

Ironic that you call me a "Porky Pine" (that's classic right there) and then tell me to grow up and stop the hating....and that I sound stupid.

I don't think Muler was calling you any names. He said IF he believed...........But I do think Muler was asking you to take your anti Teamster opinions somewhere else and I'll second that.

If I believed everything I was told about you as a non union truck driver I would see you as a porky pine. Because if you had as many sticking out of you as you have had stuck in you then you would look like a PORKY PINE!

 

[Deleted member 5115]

I don't waste my time with him. I do not believe he works for any company that this BB is here for and I think Muler was searching for porcupine but didn't come up with it. I don't think there are many of them in Cleveland.

 

[Getoverit]

You win EX396 you're right. You saw right through my plan. I have been actively recruiting new members into my pension fund knowing there wouldn't be anything left for them. I have been pulling those suckers in since 2006 just so I could get mine. The only problem with my Ponzi like scheme was that there hasn't been any companies joining my fund since Nation Ways came east back in the 90s. So it's my greed and failure to organize that helped cause congress to pass the Kline-Miller Pension Reform amendment. No matter how I try and spin it I can't fool you.

Watch out, he's special you know!! If he can't get you on your post he'll nail you on your grammar! He will always be right... :)

 

[Deleted member 5115]

Watch out, he's special you know!! If he can't get you on your post he'll nail you on your grammar! He will always be right... :)

It's hard to believe that a man of his stature hangs around here with us lowly peasants.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Maybe he's trying to edjercate us,.....since our thinking is so...........wrong.....

 

[Homesick]

What no response to the issues I raised? What hate speech? Can't you come up with a valid argument in defense of the Kline-Miller Amendment? To say that congress is too busy is a ridiculous excuse..................But okay I'll play your silly game. I started worrying about the pension funds back in 2006 when Hoffa and Hall gave UPSF a stand alone contract. I became even more worried in 2008 when some funds lost billions in the stock market............... But what has that got to do with the way the Kline-Miller Amendment was passed? Why the urgent need to sneak it into law? To say congress was too busy is absurd

Sorry Crystal, but I don't spend a lot of time on the truckingboards or chat rooms or other sites of this nature. I have a job, a business, and investments that take priority. The reason the Kline-Miller bill was passed the way it was, and not as a stand alone bill, was because the debate over the bill would have taken to much time as a stand alone bill. Look at all the bills you listed earlier; how many of them would have taken years to pass? Possibly the “Accuracy for Adoptees Act” because so many people are interested in how much precious metal goes into coins. Or maybe "Freedom to Fish Act” because every American is interested in Federal documents and your name and birth date. None of the bills you listed would have had any real debate on the house or senate floor. But pension reform would have been stalled for years. And when you are talking about compounding interest, then years can make or brake an account.


Also, you claim you have been worried about the fund since 2006, then you had plenty of time to make alternative arrangements for supplementing your decreased pension payout. You say that my personal responsibility has nothing to do with the Kline-Miller bill but if you had taken steps to be a more responsible person, then you would not be relying solely on your pension payout. What you seem to want is for Pension Reform to be debated until the working capital is depleted so much that there is no saving the fund. In that respect I believe EX396 is correct. You want the maximum payout you can get without regard to anyone else.

The argument that you relied on anti-cut regulations shows that you gave little or no forethought to your retirement. It was a government regulation and could have been changed anytime the government was in session. Remember prohibition? Before prohibition many people started and ran liquor business based on years of our legal right to make liquor. Then during prohibition many people relied on selling illegal liquor for income. Now liquor is legal again. Times change, people and governments make mistakes and the rules get changed to correct the mistakes. Your mistake was thinking legislation was something carved in stone. Wrong.

 

[Getoverit]

Sorry Crystal, but I don't spend a lot of time on the truckingboards or chat rooms or other sites of this nature. I have a job, a business, and investments that take priority. The reason the Kline-Miller bill was passed the way it was, and not as a stand alone bill, was because the debate over the bill would have taken to much time as a stand alone bill. Look at all the bills you listed earlier; how many of them would have taken years to pass? Possibly the “Accuracy for Adoptees Act” because so many people are interested in how much precious metal goes into coins. Or maybe "Freedom to Fish Act” because every American is interested in Federal documents and your name and birth date. None of the bills you listed would have had any real debate on the house or senate floor. But pension reform would have been stalled for years. And when you are talking about compounding interest, then years can make or brake an account.


Also, you claim you have been worried about the fund since 2006, then you had plenty of time to make alternative arrangements for supplementing your decreased pension payout. You say that my personal responsibility has nothing to do with the Kline-Miller bill but if you had taken steps to be a more responsible person, then you would not be relying solely on your pension payout. What you seem to want is for Pension Reform to be debated until the working capital is depleted so much that there is no saving the fund. In that respect I believe EX396 is correct. You want the maximum payout you can get without regard to anyone else.

The argument that you relied on anti-cut regulations shows that you gave little or no forethought to your retirement. It was a government regulation and could have been changed anytime the government was in session. Remember prohibition? Before prohibition many people started and ran liquor business based on years of our legal right to make liquor. Then during prohibition many people relied on selling illegal liquor for income. Now liquor is legal again. Times change, people and governments make mistakes and the rules get changed to correct the mistakes. Your mistake was thinking legislation was something carved in stone. Wrong.[/

Typical political bullshit, just another way to say who gives a f*++ about hard working people who have the right to receive what they were told they would upon retirement!! You got yours ******* so screw us kind of statement....

 

[Crystal]

The reason the Kline-Miller bill was passed the way it was, and not as a stand alone bill, was because the debate over the bill would have taken to much time as a stand alone bill. Look at all the bills you listed earlier; how many of them would have taken years to pass? Possibly the “Accuracy for Adoptees Act” because so many people are interested in how much precious metal goes into coins. Or maybe "Freedom to Fish Act” because every American is interested in Federal documents and your name and birth date. None of the bills you listed would have had any real debate on the house or senate floor. But pension reform would have been stalled for years. And when you are talking about compounding interest, then years can make or brake an account.

And you know this how? Was this ever stated by Kline or Miller or anyone else in Congress? If you have read it somewhere will you provide the link or at least the persons name? I have a feeling that it's just your own opinion. Unlike you I have free time and I have watched the C-Span 12/10/14 House Rules Committee on Federal Spending Bill

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323191-1/house-rules-committee-meeting-federal-spending-bill.

If you go to minutes 39-42 and 52-106 you will see the only "for the record" comments that I could find on the issue. Nowhere in Miller or Kline's answers to the committee did they use your excuse that it would take too much time.

In fairness to retiring Congressman Miller he did bring up some valid points. But nothing that justified the need to attach a brokered back room pension reform bill on to the must be passed Omnibus Spending bill.

Also, you claim you have been worried about the fund since 2006, then you had plenty of time to make alternative arrangements for supplementing your decreased pension payout. You say that my personal responsibility has nothing to do with the Kline-Miller bill but if you had taken steps to be a more responsible person, then you would not be relying solely on your pension payout. What you seem to want is for Pension Reform to be debated until the working capital is depleted so much that there is no saving the fund. In that respect I believe EX396 is correct. You want the maximum payout you can get without regard to anyone else.

That's a bunch of crap. Where did I say I was relying only on my pension? I didn't claim anything. Stop playing analyst and stop twisting my posts to fit your flawed opinions. I have never said that pension reform wasn't needed. I have just agreed with the many members of Congress, Unions, AARP, and other pension organizations that objected to the way the bill was passed.

Here's what I said in response to your asking twice for a specific date.

But okay I'll play your silly game. I started worrying about the pension funds back in 2006 when Hoffa and Hall gave UPSF a stand alone contract. I became even more worried in 2008 when some funds lost billions in the stock market............... But what has that got to do with the way the Kline-Miller Amendment was passed? Why the urgent need to sneak it into law? To say congress was too busy is absurd.

This was Congressman Bishop's comments for the record because he or none of the others were given enough time to actually read the Kline-Miller bill. This has to be either the best damn amendment ever written or the biggest mistake we ever done and he went on to say this is a lousy way of doing business. Now go ahead and try and spin that

 

[canaryinthemine]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was Thomas Nyhan, Executive Director of the Central States Teamster Pension Fund, who lobbied heavily for Kline-Miller,.....or so it was reported in the TDU paper. Representative Miller (D Calif. ), a thirty year member of Congress who is retiring, was told that this bill would save multi-employer pensions by keeping Pension Benefit Insurance backed by the Government solvent, and that would be his....."legacy"......to working people. As far as debate, or speediness,.....apparently the two Congressmen were told that may pension funds simply don't have the time for debate,.....they are perilously close to insolvency now. In my,...and many others'......opinions, this is patently false,....a political smokescreen to push through an unpopular proposal, before anyone has a chance to look at it, let alone debate it............as Congressman Bishop said: " a lousy way of doing business.....". If it is true that Mr. Nyhan was the main architect and chief lobbyist of this provision,.....then, once again, the Teamster rank-and-file are stabbed in the back by people purported to be our leaders.. Obviously, if Mr. Nyhan had conceived of this as a way for Central States to cut benefits and stay solvent longer on the backs of retirees....(....and keeping his cushy job afloat longer, too....)......Mr. Hoffa would've been informed long, long before any of this was made public,...or so you would think. Yet, Mr. Hoffa only publicly voiced his outrage when the language in the bill was already crafted, made public, and awaiting immediate ratification,.....leaving very little time to mount any sort of viable opposition to this provision. Let us not forget that the same "Crimenibus" bill has provisions that gut out Dodd-Frank,....and bails out bankers who invest in derivatives that go sour. Dodd-Frank made those bankers take responsibility for their bad decisions, and had restricted Government bailouts. Believe me,...they probably discussed that with the appropriate lobbyists for months on end,....if not since Dodd-Frank was passed two years ago...So I think the argument of "not enough time", is specious and disingenuous. Did not our Solons of Justice in Congress ever consider that maybe it was time to bail out some Pension Funds, instead of Hedge Funds? Too much of a .....hurry.....I guess. And,......I'm waiting for Mr. Hoffa to remove Mr. Nyhan from the Central States Fund,......if Mr. Hoffa's opprobrium and bluster about this provision are real, and not feigned........(....Lord Preserve us from so-called working-class "leaders".....who use Robber Baron tactics.....)......

 

[Crystal]

Miller appeared to be a decent guy and who knows maybe the bi-partisan Kline-Miller bill is the right way to handle the pension problem. It's the way in which it was passed that concerns me the most. I don't know what compromises were made by the Kline & Miller staffers who actually wrote the bill. Who knows what the bill would look like if Congress had been given the time to actually read and debate it. But I'd like to believe that the $2 billion loophole written specifically for UPS wouldn't have made it through actual House and Senate debate.........................The last minute sneaking of Kline-Miller through Congress as an a amendment is indeed a "lousy way of doing business"

 

[Homesick]

Crystal you are correct and you did not say that the pension was your only form of income in retirement. I made that assumption because you keep repeating that the pension fund should have been debated on instead of rushed through congress. That was my assumption and I apologize if it was incorrect. “I am sorry if I miss-spoke.” As far as time enough to debate the bill is concerned, I believe you and Canary are incorrect. UPS got out of the fund in 2006 after stating that the fund was loosing money and that UPS was worried that the pension fund would eventually cost them their competitive advantage. I am not saying that what UPS said is true or not true; I don't know. What I am saying is that the fund was loosing money long before 2006 and that it was common knowledge before that. And that the Kline-Miller bill was passed in 2014. That is eight years of loosing money, not including the time before UPS bailed on the pension fund. When you are speaking of compounding interest on billions of dollars over 10 years, or more, that is billions of dollars in lost income. I also believe that 8-10-12 years is enough time to get the problem before congress, get it debated and find a solution. If it was not enough time, then in my opinion, it should have been rushed through. It is now a hot topic and I hope a solution to the problem will be found before much more revenue is lost!

 

[Crystal]

From what I have read the CSPF doesn't have any control over it's investments. It appears that since the government consent decree that it's the Wall St broker's with their high risk investments with high commissions and fees that lost the funds money. So I don't see the logic in a loss of compound interest being justification for rushing the bill through Congress.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Brother Crystal may be right in that cutting retiree's pensions,....and future benefits,.....may "save" the Funds,...and the PBGI,.....What I am incensed about is the lack of prior debate to a long-festering problem that was ignored until,.... apparently,....the only "solution" is cutting benefits off of people who can least afford it,.....and who most certainly EARNED those benefits, literally with blood, sweat, youth, and to the detriment of family life,.........far, far more than any soft-handed, pot-bellied, stock trader can say he..."earned"....his filthy lucre,......or the right to have the Government bail him out, so he doesn't have to take responsibility for his stupidity. If you remember correctly, back in 2002, the government passed a bill giving relief of amortizations of loans, to SINGLE-EMPLOYER Pension funds,.........at that time, the default and insolvency rate of single-employer defined-benefit funds about 30%,............Multi-Employer funds had a default and insolvency rate of about 5%. Why didn't Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, extend the same opportunity to Multi-Employer funds,?...in spite of the fact that Trustees all across the nation were crying for it,......namely because,....once again, by Act of Congress,....no Fund could be funded more than 100%,...you had to disperse any surplus to retirees,....(...many funds gave out a 13th check...)....and Funds could NOT set aside surpluses in the event of "rainy days"........or "rainy decades".....Multi-Employer Funds had to wait for the Pension Protection Act of 2006, to allow the same amortization of loans, that Single-Employer plans had since 2002,.....a stop-gap measure, at best. Wall Street was terrified of the potential grouping of large blocks of stocks under Union control.