What's new

FedEx Freight | Congress Passed Pension Cuts

GreenHornet1970 said:
Yes, I'm suggesting that the fund managers as well as union leadership be held accountable.
Click to expand...
But Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Vietnam...and all kinds of others should recieve the time and money and troops to defend them.
But our government should not figure out a way for our own retirees to recieve what they're due.....it should just get thrown into a multipart bill and passed in the middle of the night on a Saturday?

Thats all the help our own should get?
Some served in Vietnam, etc......They should be forced to sell their homes to survive?

Sell all foreign bases and let the world defend themselves.
WE can't afford it.
 
Its our tax dollarz going to other parts of the world. If our people are not getting what they worked for our mation has no business sending money or help too other parts of the world. If ya cant take care of your own ya dont spend it elsewhere.

GreenHornet1970 said:
Oh....2 wrongs make a right. Throw good money after bad.

Tax dollars sent to other parts of the world have nothing to do with bailing out organizations that have mismanaged their funds. It was wrong with the banks, it was wrong with GM and it will be wrong with the pensions. At some point people have to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
 
slavenomore said:
Its our tax dollarz going to other parts of the world. If our people are not getting what they worked for our mation has no business sending money or help too other parts of the world. If ya cant take care of your own ya dont spend it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I think you should devote your time running for a political office somewhere. I mean what other profession can you spew utter nonsense and feel good about what you said. Your opinions of wisdom are giving Joe Biden a run for his money.
 
The union busting proffession is my answer to...."what other profession...etc."

GreenHornet1970 said:
I think you should devote your time running for a political office somewhere. I mean what other profession can you spew utter nonsense and feel good about what you said. Your opinions of wisdom are giving Joe Biden a run for his money.
Click to expand...
 
EX396 said:
I don't know how you assign ZERO responsibility to the participants. Did they just receive their annual statements and circular file them? How come they didn't demand some accountability from the fund managers before it was too late?

Why should a taxpayer that had ZERO involvement, be on the hook for any of this mess?
Click to expand...
Well Ex, Here we go... Again. I'm not, by any means, a pension expert. I don't have a need to be, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm always willing to learn.

The Taxpayer, via their elected representatives, do have involvement. I don't like it, but it is true.

The participants (employees), had an agreement, most going back MANY years. Your Government has changed the rules, more than once, sometimes benefiting the beneficiaries, sometimes not.

Pension plans have been regulated and future retirees, over the years have been given guarantees, by your US government.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - PBGC A non-profit corporation that functions under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and that guarantees the payment of certain pension benefits under defined-benefit plans that have been terminated with insufficient money to pay benefits.
This federal corporation was established to ensure that defined-benefit plan participants aren't left out in the cold if there isn't enough money in the pension plan to meet the needs of people about to retire (i.e. in the event of a pension shortfall).

Let's also understand that these defined benefit plans ARE NOT ONLY promised to Teamsters. These plans cover state and local government employees, teachers, police, firefighters, among others.
  • Private single-employer plans - The vast majority of "private" plans offered by companies fall in this category, with about 26,000 U.S. plans covering more than 30 million participants, according to the PBGC.
  • Three layers of security support benefit promises of these plans:
    1. current assets and investment results
    2. contributions that employers are required to make to keep plans funded
    3. guarantees provided by the PBGC in case these plans are not able to meet obligations
  • Private multiemployer plans - These plans are negotiated by unions on behalf of workers at multiple companies. They have been steadily declining and as of 2010 insures about 1,460, representing approximately 10 million participants, according to the PBGC. As of 2008, the multiemployer program's net position declined by $396 million increasing the program's deficit to $869 million. They have the same three-legged support as private single-employer plans, except contributions are made by more than one employer.
PART of the accurate funding problem, for these plans is the fact that people are living longer. Most assets can be valued accurately, but the valuation of liabilities is far more complex. Performed by a qualified actuary, liability valuation must include an estimate of how many participants will qualify for benefits and how long those participants may live.

Ex 396, you and everyone else who think that participant's promised benefits should just be cut, need to know that certain promises were made. Not just by the companies, and unions, but also promised protection by your Government. The highest amount of liability, and burden to guarantee, lies on these entities. Those who had agreements with the above, it seems to me, should have the least amount of exposure to loss.

You know I'm not a Big Government guy, but promises made should be promises kept, up to the amount provided by law..

Sources:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pbgc.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/08/safe-db-plan.asp

http://www.pbgc.gov/
 
SwampRatt said:
Well Ex, Here we go... Again. I'm not, by any means, a pension expert. I don't have a need to be, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm always willing to learn.

The Taxpayer, via their elected representatives, do have involvement. I don't like it, but it is true.

The participants (employees), had an agreement, most going back MANY years. Your Government has changed the rules, more than once, sometimes benefiting the beneficiaries, sometimes not.

Pension plans have been regulated and future retirees, over the years have been given guarantees, by your US government.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - PBGC A non-profit corporation that functions under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and that guarantees the payment of certain pension benefits under defined-benefit plans that have been terminated with insufficient money to pay benefits.
This federal corporation was established to ensure that defined-benefit plan participants aren't left out in the cold if there isn't enough money in the pension plan to meet the needs of people about to retire (i.e. in the event of a pension shortfall).

Let's also understand that these defined benefit plans ARE NOT ONLY promised to Teamsters. These plans cover state and local government employees, teachers, police, firefighters, among others.
  • Private single-employer plans - The vast majority of "private" plans offered by companies fall in this category, with about 26,000 U.S. plans covering more than 30 million participants, according to the PBGC.
  • Three layers of security support benefit promises of these plans:
    1. current assets and investment results
    2. contributions that employers are required to make to keep plans funded
    3. guarantees provided by the PBGC in case these plans are not able to meet obligations
  • Private multiemployer plans - These plans are negotiated by unions on behalf of workers at multiple companies. They have been steadily declining and as of 2010 insures about 1,460, representing approximately 10 million participants, according to the PBGC. As of 2008, the multiemployer program's net position declined by $396 million increasing the program's deficit to $869 million. They have the same three-legged support as private single-employer plans, except contributions are made by more than one employer.
PART of the accurate funding problem, for these plans is the fact that people are living longer. Most assets can be valued accurately, but the valuation of liabilities is far more complex. Performed by a qualified actuary, liability valuation must include an estimate of how many participants will qualify for benefits and how long those participants may live.

Ex 396, you and everyone else who think that participant's promised benefits should just be cut, need to know that certain promises were made. Not just by the companies, and unions, but also promised protection by your Government. The highest amount of liability, and burden to guarantee, lies on these entities. Those who had agreements with the above, it seems to me, should have the least amount of exposure to loss.

You know I'm not a Big Government guy, but promises made should be promises kept, up to the amount provided by law..

Sources:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pbgc.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/08/safe-db-plan.asp

http://www.pbgc.gov/
Click to expand...


Industry

• Transport Topics • Dec. 22

Retired Teamsters may face pension cuts under rules included in spending law

Pensions for some of the hundreds of thousands of retired Teamsters members who worked for UPS Inc., YRC Worldwide and ABF Freight System could be cut under new rules contained in the federal spending law signed by President Obama.
The pension rules create a process for cutting benefits at multi-employer pension funds that could become insolvent in as little as 10 years, Kevin Williams, a pension and transport specialist at Washington law firm Ford Harrison, told
Transport Topics.

"Plans have done everything they can to try to stabilize themselves," Williams said, including increasing contributions from employers. "Things are still getting worse. They have to cut benefits."
There are between 100 and 150 of the 1,400 multi-employer plans that are considered deeply troubled and subject to eventual benefit cuts, Williams said. One is the Central States Pension Fund, whose more than 400,000 participants include retired Teamsters from ABF and YRC, as well as other less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers that have failed.
Thomas Nyhan, executive director of the Central States Fund, is among those supporting the changes through the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Pensions (NCCMP). His fund’s obligations are nearly $3 billion annually, while employer contributions are about $650 million, federal reports show. There are about four retirees for every active worker at companies such as ABF that pay into the fund.
Assets dwindled because failed LTL companies stopped paying into the plan, but Central States and other funds’ retirees continued to receive benefits.
Williams said it likely will be a year or more before reductions begin. The process begins with an assessment of whether a fund can meet its long-term commitments. If not, trustees must develop a reduction plan that is approved by a majority. Fund participants, including pensioners, then vote on the trustees’ plan. If it is rejected and there is more than $1 billion in unfunded liability, the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can step in and order a reduction.
 
wobbelator shaft said:
Industry

• Transport Topics • Dec. 22

Retired Teamsters may face pension cuts under rules included in spending law

Pensions for some of the hundreds of thousands of retired Teamsters members who worked for UPS Inc., YRC Worldwide and ABF Freight System could be cut under new rules contained in the federal spending law signed by President Obama.
The pension rules create a process for cutting benefits at multi-employer pension funds that could become insolvent in as little as 10 years, Kevin Williams, a pension and transport specialist at Washington law firm Ford Harrison, told
Transport Topics.

"Plans have done everything they can to try to stabilize themselves," Williams said, including increasing contributions from employers. "Things are still getting worse. They have to cut benefits."
There are between 100 and 150 of the 1,400 multi-employer plans that are considered deeply troubled and subject to eventual benefit cuts, Williams said. One is the Central States Pension Fund, whose more than 400,000 participants include retired Teamsters from ABF and YRC, as well as other less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers that have failed.
Thomas Nyhan, executive director of the Central States Fund, is among those supporting the changes through the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Pensions (NCCMP). His fund’s obligations are nearly $3 billion annually, while employer contributions are about $650 million, federal reports show. There are about four retirees for every active worker at companies such as ABF that pay into the fund.
Assets dwindled because failed LTL companies stopped paying into the plan, but Central States and other funds’ retirees continued to receive benefits.
Williams said it likely will be a year or more before reductions begin. The process begins with an assessment of whether a fund can meet its long-term commitments. If not, trustees must develop a reduction plan that is approved by a majority. Fund participants, including pensioners, then vote on the trustees’ plan. If it is rejected and there is more than $1 billion in unfunded liability, the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can step in and order a reduction.
Click to expand...


Sounds just like the same problems we have with social security ... too many collecting and not enough workers depositing. I already have to work 2 1/2 more years than I was originally supposed to. The government needs me to pay in for a couple more years while they try and stop the bleeding in the social security department. Now that these pension problems are known, all the major players have been going forward with new plans (one of which is a hybrid pension plan) that are designed to correct those problems. Only time will tell. Another great depression can take everything away including a 401(k). You have to think positive and have faith sometimes .
 
SwampRatt said:
Well Ex, Here we go... Again. I'm not, by any means, a pension expert. I don't have a need to be, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm always willing to learn.
Click to expand...

I'm not a pension expert either...for many of the same reasons. However, I have done a "little" bit of reading on the topic and had discussions with close friends and family who will likely have to deal with this mess.

SwampRatt said:
Ex 396, you and everyone else who think that participant's promised benefits should just be cut, need to know that certain promises were made. Not just by the companies, and unions, but also promised protection by your Government. The highest amount of liability, and burden to guarantee, lies on these entities. Those who had agreements with the above, it seems to me, should have the least amount of exposure to loss.

You know I'm not a Big Government guy, but promises made should be promises kept, up to the amount provided by law.
Click to expand...

Are promised benefits being cut? My understanding is that the PBGC only insures these plan benefits up to $13,000/year and that's for those with 30 years of service. That's all that was "promised", everything above that was just "planned", and what was the fine print on those guarantees made by the employers and unions?

I agree about the highest amount of liability, and burden to guarantee, lies on these entities, up to the amount promised.
 
I don't control Wall St, but I can benefit from it. As my risk tolerance changes I can change how and where my monies are invested. You don't have that luxury with your pension. Further, 100% of that 401(k) can be left to your heirs.
 
Purple Hammer said:
Sure makes me glad I've got my 401k, which I CONTROL. Not being dependent on a Ponzi scheme is the better way.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that a common stance amongst the anti-union side is NOT controlling anything.
Letting the company control.
Letting the market decide.

That's why China is now #1.
And we are #2.

Our people wanted to be number one and have the best we could get from every minute we worked.
That takes control.
Not letting the market decide our worth.
But us standing up and saying our own worth. Not giving our time away.
Defined benefit pensions may not be liked by the market people but they are best for stability of retirees.
Theresa Giuaralducci was appointed to YRC's board. She wrote a book about them. Look it up if your interested. I probably spelled her name wrong.

Letting the market decide isnt good for the trade or our country.
Look at all the outright dumb jobs in trucks since deregulation.
We're #2 & China's #1 now......that ideal benefits a few....and destroys the nation.
Nations begin to benefit the people, not the market.
 
Thats a great plan for you ex because you either have the time or intelligence for it.

But its not at all a good plan for Labor, most of whom have no clue about investing or finance. If most of Labor has to manage our own....most will lose more than we gain..
..and the good capitalists on Wall st know that very well. They cant wait for us all to be divided and handing our cash to them.....

what used to be covered by contract through cheap dues.....now i read Finance takes 35% of what we put in
..We might be living in cardboard boxes after a lifetime of moving freight.

EX396 said:
I don't control Wall St, but I can benefit from it. As my risk tolerance changes I can change how and where my monies are invested. You don't have that luxury with your pension. Further, 100% of that 401(k) can be left to your heirs.
Click to expand...
 
Purple Hammer said:
Sure makes me glad I've got my 401k, which I CONTROL. Not being dependent on a Ponzi scheme is the better way.
Click to expand...
There are a whole lot of people that had to continue working after their expected retirement dates because they lost all of their 401K savings when wall street crashed and they had no other retirement plans to fall back on. We only control our 401k plans to a very small degree. I have been investing in a 401K for almost 30 years now and I invest in much more conservative funds now that I am close to retirement, but I do realize my investments could be all gone tomorrow. I hope this will be a nice supplement to my pension. Because we never know how the market will react from a day to day basis my plan is to take 75% of my investments out of the 401k plan and invest it into a much more secure savings. The other 25% I will leave in there to hopefully make a little more money for me while I am sitting on the porch watching the LTL industry fall to just another low level entry job.
 
Thats a great plan for you ex because you either have the time or intelligence for it.

But its not at all a good plan for Labor, most of whom have no clue about investing or finance. If most of Labor has to manage our own....most will lose more than we gain..
..and the good capitalists on Wall st know that very well. They cant wait for us all to be divided and handing our cash to them.....

what used to be covered by contract through cheap dues.....now i read Finance takes 35% of what we put in
..We might be living in cardboard boxes after a lifetime of moving freight.

EX396 said:
I don't control Wall St, but I can benefit from it. As my risk tolerance changes I can change how and where my monies are invested. You don't have that luxury with your pension. Further, 100% of that 401(k) can be left to your heirs.
Click to expand...
GreenHornet1970 said:
I think you should devote your time running for a political office somewhere. I mean what other profession can you spew utter nonsense and feel good about what you said. Your opinions of wisdom are giving Joe Biden a run for his money.
Click to expand...
Biden is a funny guy.
Ya know how rightwing radio guys go by a script and don't let opposing callers get a word in? The hosts talk louder and hang up on them. They do it every day.

That's what Biden did to Paul Ryan in front of the whole world in their debate, at the most crucial time.
Great gameplan.
Very entertaining.
He whooped him.
 
EX396 said:
I don't control Wall St, but I can benefit from it. As my risk tolerance changes I can change how and where my monies are invested. You don't have that luxury with your pension. Further, 100% of that 401(k) can be left to your heirs.
Click to expand...
You do have that luxury if you have a 401K and a pension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top