It would seem that much of your anger should be aimed at your Teamsters' union who didn't insist on fixing troubled pensions years ago. If that meant much lower pension benefits for new hires or giving up a bunch of something else at the negotiating table in exchange for larger employer contributions or some other magic combination that returns various funds to health...gee, I wonder why the Teamsters didn't take that course?
ABF | Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions!
- Thread starter Freightmaster1
- Start date
It would seem that much of your anger should be aimed at your Teamsters' union who didn't insist on fixing troubled pensions years ago. If that meant much lower pension benefits for new hires or giving up a bunch of something else at the negotiating table in exchange for larger employer contributions or some other magic combination that returns various funds to health...gee, I wonder why the Teamsters didn't take that course?
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
I believe, if you've read the last post I made,.....I stated that Wall Street was terrified of large blocks of Union-owned stocks,.....I distinctly remember an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where the writer railed against Unions being able to do what he called "social engineering" with the stocks the pension funds owned. This was in response to a proposal by the trustees at CALPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) to dump, or sell off, stock of companies whose business practices as regards labor, were offensive and repressive. This editorial was way back in the late '90's,....back when all the funds were flush with money. The Wall Street Wizards had decided that having a moral position was too sanguine for a capitalist marketplace...............Morals being a laughable anachronism when it comes to investing money. So,...now that Citizen's United and the more recent Ferguson vs. FEC rulings have ripped the curtain back on the METHODS Wall Street uses to control the political process,....by making it LEGAL to HIDE your virtual buying of the political process,....with no accountability to anyone,...do you think the Teamster's leadership was the problem? Or,...was there a concerted effort by the moneyed people who control Wall Street and Congress to wreck defined-benefit pension funds, because they feared Unions and working people exerting control over the stock market? Wall Street just ended this year with 38 record-breaking weeks,....over 18,000 just recently. Aren't pension funds based and backed by the very same marketplace? In 1999 , the market was doing good if it broke 3,000,....I see a 600% increase in market value over 15 years,....shouldn't there have been a corresponding increase in the net worth of pension funds? Or,.....has Wall Street, with the complicity of the finest Congress money can buy, set up a different set of rules for pension fund investments? Sure seems that way......And,....whatever blundering that was done on the negotiating table was small potatoes compared to the ..."new"...negotiating tactics of the companies, which include deliberate lies about potential buyouts by competitors in the middle of contract talks,......deliberate lies about the worth of companies crying poverty during contract talks,....and immediately after ratification, building new corporate headquarters with such rapidity that an honest man....or woman...would blush, if they had so much as a shred of decency. No,....the Teamsters ...."leadership"....was outmanned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered by the day-traders and investors who only see the dollar signs,.....and not the humans who produce the dollars that they so gleefully roll around in. The very small part our...."leadership"....had in all this was mainly due to either lazy complicity,....or incompetency. The FedEx and Con-way organizational campaigns are proof of that. All those drives were done on a Local level,....and ONLY when there seemed to be some chance of snowballing sucess, did the IBT jump on and try to take credit. Your Local rank-and-file did all the leg work.........................and we will continue to do so, in spite of the credit going to Hoffa and Crew. "The end justifies the means." The only trouble with the Teamsters is at the very top,.......And we're getting ready to vote them out. You non-Union guys try and do that with your CEO yet?
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts. 15 years ago today the DJIA closed at 11,484, today 18,038. That's an annual increase of 3.056% for 15 years. Not even a 60% increase, much less 600%.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
Sorry,....I shot that off the top of my head,.....and if you knew how big my head was,.....you'd know that my facts are pretty high-altitude......Maybe I was thinking of 25 years ago,....or maybe less than that. Point is, though,....at one time, the DJIA WAS 3,000,....AND the pension funds WERE flush with money,....so let's adjust that to the outside numbers: Let's say that there was a 600% increase within the last 25 years,.....Heck,....Let's go with 30 years.......Still a 600% increase. Does that change my point any? I'm an old, old man,.....and my grasp on longevity and time are very tenuous,......I'll be the terror of the nursing home, when I bring up facts and figures of stuff that had happened,.....but I can't place in the right decade,....or century......All sounds rather facetious,....but the fact remains in that there HAS been a 600% increase of the DJIA,....while our pension funds were operating and viable..........And ,.....Our pension funds ARE based on the stock market,........Aren't they?....Which brings us to the actual point I was trying to make, in my overlong post.......To Wit: The Teamsters are a minor bit-player in the destruction of Defined-Benefit Funds,......After the '70's, and the Consent Order,....the only thing you could accuse the Teamster leadership of doing to Pension Funds was minor blundering. Mr. Hoffa and Crew have a vested,...(.literally),....interest in the viability of the Funds. The true damage,....on a vast scale,....was,....and is,....being done by Wall Street, and the politicians they bought. Google this one: May of 1998 was the first time defined-contribution savings plans (i.e.: 401(K)'s) exceeded defined-benefit pension plans in this nation as the vehicle of choice for corporations to offer their employees as a "retirement plan". Prior to the ERISA Act of 1974, any employer offering a retirement plan had to make it a defined-benefit plan, with full backing of PBGI and the Government , in the event of default. Who is selling Americans the idea that 401(K)'s,....defined-contribution savings plans,......are "retirement plans"?..........(....with,...of course,....NO Guarantee,.......Let the Buyer Beware....)...
Personally I think everyone in this debate has well made points. The problem is that they all deal with past mistakes and problems. Crystal, Ex396 and Canary, you are all very smart people with valid points that should not be overlooked or ignored. But, I am more concerned with the future. We don't want to continually make the same mistakes over and over again but what do we do to make the pension fund stable for the immediate future and last into the non-foreseeable future? The pension fund has been voted on and is now open to changes. So how do we get the changes implemented that will save the fund going into the future?
They way I see it Homesick is some tough decisions have to be made, and some folks are going to be upset.
One approach might get everybody a little upset, while another approach may infuriate a small percentage of the plan members.
Would you rather have a few people really mad, or a whole bunch not very mad at all.
How much are current retires willing to sacrifice so those brothers and sisters currently working have some pension?
How much are those currently close to retirement willing to reduce their future benefits to leave the currently retired folks' pensions alone?
What about the guys that have been in for 15 years? Do we want to tell them "sorry you aren't getting anything beyond the insured amount" ?
Where do you draw that line?
If we demand that our employers contribute enough so that the funds are solvent, how much are we willing to give up elsewhere? Yes, that money is coming from somewhere out of that pie.
One approach might get everybody a little upset, while another approach may infuriate a small percentage of the plan members.
Would you rather have a few people really mad, or a whole bunch not very mad at all.
How much are current retires willing to sacrifice so those brothers and sisters currently working have some pension?
How much are those currently close to retirement willing to reduce their future benefits to leave the currently retired folks' pensions alone?
What about the guys that have been in for 15 years? Do we want to tell them "sorry you aren't getting anything beyond the insured amount" ?
Where do you draw that line?
If we demand that our employers contribute enough so that the funds are solvent, how much are we willing to give up elsewhere? Yes, that money is coming from somewhere out of that pie.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
How about "expanding" the pie? Congress is about 95% responsible for the mess our pensions are in, ....starting with the Surface Transportation Act of 1980,.......and all the rest of the subsequent punitive, insufficient, untimely Bills and Laws that their handlers from Wall Street had them pass. This current "Crimenibus" bill has provisions that bail out,....with tax dollars mind you, just like back in 2008,....and back in the Frontier Savings and Loan scandal in the '80's,....and other banking scandals...( Remember Glass-Steagal?)... Wall Street bankers who deal in derivatives that go sour,.....Wasn't it just two years ago, that Dodd-Frank required bankers to take responsibility for their "unfortunate" ventures into derivatives? I know, I know,......These are Bankers,......much more valuable to American Society than stinky old truck drivers.....it would be almost socialistic to bail out private industry pension funds,......not as American as bailing out private banks that are " Too large to fail..." Watching the news this morning, all the fluffy media were crowing about how this was the sixth year in a row that Wall Street broke record profit levels,....with 39 record high DJIA weeks out of 52 this year alone. No one can tell me WHY....our pension funds,....who have professional investors overseen by groups of trustees,......haven't profited at least one-tenth as much as,...oh,...say,...Morgan Stanley,....or Wells-Fargo. ...Why does any "sacrifice" have to come on the backs of people who literally shed blood, sweat, and tears to provide this country food, clothing and shelter,.....when we , as a nation, are not too sanguine about bailing out bankers with public funds, for their own profit?
In my opinion tax payers should not be bailing out anybody with any additional revenue...."too large to fail" included.
If a company is really too big to fail, prioritize where the government spends our tax dollars so they don't fail. Do it with the some of the $2.5T-$3T they already have to spend.
canaryinthemine said:
Same reason UPS doesn't profit one-tenth as much as Apple; different businesses. Looking at your pension funds in isolation, it is obvious that investment profits are being consumed by the huge expenses satisfying current liabilities. I can make 15% profit on the market year in, year out, but if I am spending more than I am making those profits shrink considerably.
- Credits
- 241
Dodd-Frank LMFAO only in America can you get legislation to correct a problem that is named after the 2 clowns that fostered the problem.
Good discussion, the disturbing facts, there will be no White Knight.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
- Well,........ that's nice that you can regularly pull in 15% profit from the stock market, year in and year out. You're doing better than the four professional investment firms that our pension fund has on retainer to handle our stocks and bonds. Would you like a job?
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
Oh Boy, did I butcher up that last reply,..........# 1 is my answer to the first thing you said,....and, of course , #2 is the second thing I replied with......
- Credits
- 241
I think he was saying "in theory" even if you could make 15%. Anybody that could turn out 15% year after year would have people beating down their door.
Canary, I think there is 0 chance of getting the government to bail out our pension. The reason is that our pension fund still maintains enough capital to pay out a decent divined. It just needs a little more flexibility in order to maintain the fund into the future. Several people are claiming their dividend checks will go from $4,000 to $1,000. I don't believe that for a minute. They MAY go from $4,000 to $3,000 but that is because $4,000 was too aggressive anyway. That is like EX396 saying he can maintain a 15% ROR year over year. I don't believe that is probable and that if he was to budget his expenses on that premise, then at some point he would go broke (insolvent).
I do think EX396 was meaning “in theory.”
I do think EX396 was meaning “in theory.”
Yes, the "I can make 15% in the market year in, year out, but..." statement was in theory. Stating that even if I could get great returns when the money is going out faster than it's coming in those funds are going to dry-up. In other words, it isn't about the fund managers doing a bad job on the investing front, it's about too many people on the wrong side of the ledger.
Homesick, not enough income vs. expense, agreed.
Take the Teamsters' Central States plan for example: 3.26 people collecting on Teamsters' Central States for every one person contributing.
Max contribution is less than $15K/year while many are collecting $36K/year.
So 15K in and 117.36K out potential.
If you don't increase the number of people paying in, you need the contribution rate to be raised to over $54/hr just to satisfy benefits.
Increase in people paying in x increase in contribution rate needs to equal 782%....however you want to get there.
Take the Teamsters' Central States plan for example: 3.26 people collecting on Teamsters' Central States for every one person contributing.
Max contribution is less than $15K/year while many are collecting $36K/year.
So 15K in and 117.36K out potential.
If you don't increase the number of people paying in, you need the contribution rate to be raised to over $54/hr just to satisfy benefits.
Increase in people paying in x increase in contribution rate needs to equal 782%....however you want to get there.
EX396, Are the numbers your quoting accurate? I mean, is the AVERAGE retiree collecting 36K, is the average payee paying 15k and is the average payer to payee ratio 1:3.26? I am asking because I don't know.
I would like to point out something you forgot; the ROI (return on investment). Let's assume you are correct and the pension fund has a valuation of $500,000 for every retiree (I have no idea what the valuation is, I made this up for example only). And lets assume that $500,000 per retiree is earning 5% long term (again I don't know but 5% should be sustainable over the long term). That would give you $25,000 per year for every retiree before you even had to touch the principal. If you then take 36k -25k=11k reduction in principal. If you lower that 36k by 10% ($3,600) a year you have $32,400 (paying to retiree)-$25,000 (ROI)=$7,400 reduction in principal. Just my thoughts on matter.
I would like to point out something you forgot; the ROI (return on investment). Let's assume you are correct and the pension fund has a valuation of $500,000 for every retiree (I have no idea what the valuation is, I made this up for example only). And lets assume that $500,000 per retiree is earning 5% long term (again I don't know but 5% should be sustainable over the long term). That would give you $25,000 per year for every retiree before you even had to touch the principal. If you then take 36k -25k=11k reduction in principal. If you lower that 36k by 10% ($3,600) a year you have $32,400 (paying to retiree)-$25,000 (ROI)=$7,400 reduction in principal. Just my thoughts on matter.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
Anything I can do to help a brother out.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
And I hope you're not stuck in that slithering motel in Wythville, VA where the floor moves when the lights are out.