ABF | First paragraph tells you how bad it is. 87 year old as a "new" employee!

[Homesick]

Sorry Brother you did say nine jobs but I read nineteen. I'm not pointing fingers at you or any one else. I am generalize that most people, union and non-union, place immediate gratification about future security. I think this will bear itself out if anyone took the time to find out how much young adults (25-35 yrs old) put into retirement accounts or savings accounts. They do make less income that 55-65 year old but they also have less bills and expenses. The vast majority of these young adults do not start with financial security but work into it. My parents refused to buy any of us kids our first vehicle or to pay for any schooling; 'you need to learn the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs' my dad said a lot. But most people seem to have missed learning the value of a dollar and only become concerned with the dollar when they need it and don't have it. People don't save for retirement because retirement is not an immediate threat.



I do see lobbyists fingerprints on deregulation but not the way you seem to. I see it as lobbying for freedom, freedom to own my own truck and have my own business. I see government concerned with teamster power to shut down commerce in the united states. I see Jimmy Hoffa testifying before congress and the Kennedy's in a condescending manger.



I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results). I also believe that MEPF like CSPF could easily be fixed with pension cuts to stabilize the pension. Basic math, if you have more expense than income cut expenses. And because those who are receiving the income have refused to accept pension cuts congress is refusing to guarantee/insure that income. And we all suffer because people did not save for the future and never learned 'the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs.'

 

[canaryinthemine]

Sorry Brother you did say nine jobs but I read nineteen. I'm not pointing fingers at you or any one else. I am generalize that most people, union and non-union, place immediate gratification about future security. I think this will bear itself out if anyone took the time to find out how much young adults (25-35 yrs old) put into retirement accounts or savings accounts. They do make less income that 55-65 year old but they also have less bills and expenses. The vast majority of these young adults do not start with financial security but work into it. My parents refused to buy any of us kids our first vehicle or to pay for any schooling; 'you need to learn the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs' my dad said a lot. But most people seem to have missed learning the value of a dollar and only become concerned with the dollar when they need it and don't have it. People don't save for retirement because retirement is not an immediate threat.



I do see lobbyists fingerprints on deregulation but not the way you seem to. I see it as lobbying for freedom, freedom to own my own truck and have my own business. I see government concerned with teamster power to shut down commerce in the united states. I see Jimmy Hoffa testifying before congress and the Kennedy's in a condescending manger.



I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results). I also believe that MEPF like CSPF could easily be fixed with pension cuts to stabilize the pension. Basic math, if you have more expense than income cut expenses. And because those who are receiving the income have refused to accept pension cuts congress is refusing to guarantee/insure that income. And we all suffer because people did not save for the future and never learned 'the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs.'

Yes, we do have different perceptions of how things are managed.

You are aware that I was a Union PAC fund treasurer for 10 years until I retired? I am very, very familiar with the legalities of operation of a PAC fund. Your perception of Union dues money and political contributions and the legal firewall between them are completely wrong.

The reason our Local set up our own PAC fund was so we could comply with the myriad of laws concerning Unions and political contributions.

If you notice, most Local Unions do not have a PAC fund established.......they rely on the Union’s state organization.

I had a three inch thick book of rules issued by the state of Pennsylvania,....and I was audited personally seven times a year. The rules are clear that the treasurer accepts all responsibility, and can not use Union or PAC fund money to pay for any fines incurred for late filings or errors in the seven audits per year. Must come out of the treasurer’s personal pocket.......

Kind of scares a lot of people off from volunteering for this position. Oh, yeah.........the position must be voluntary, by a rank-and-file member, and be unpaid..........all according to State and Federal campaign finance rules.

So I can tell you all about Union political donations. And,.....I can tell you your perception as to how money in Union funds are accounted for is not accurate.

Congress is trying to stifle the Union voice,........unless they jump through all the many, many legal hoops,.....

Then they line up to get that PAC money, with nebulous promises of taking “ care” of working people.....(...as long as the Union donates as much ....or more......than the corporate donors...)......

 

[Homesick]

Yes, we do have different perceptions of how things are managed.

You are aware that I was a Union PAC fund treasurer for 10 years until I retired? I am very, very familiar with the legalities of operation of a PAC fund. Your perception of Union dues money and political contributions and the legal firewall between them are completely wrong.

The reason our Local set up our own PAC fund was so we could comply with the myriad of laws concerning Unions and political contributions.

If you notice, most Local Unions do not have a PAC fund established.......they rely on the Union’s state organization.

I had a three inch thick book of rules issued by the state of Pennsylvania,....and I was audited personally seven times a year. The rules are clear that the treasurer accepts all responsibility, and can not use Union or PAC fund money to pay for any fines incurred for late filings or errors in the seven audits per year. Must come out of the treasurer’s personal pocket.......

Kind of scares a lot of people off from volunteering for this position. Oh, yeah.........the position must be voluntary, by a rank-and-file member, and be unpaid..........all according to State and Federal campaign finance rules.

So I can tell you all about Union political donations. And,.....I can tell you your perception as to how money in Union funds are accounted for is not accurate.

Congress is trying to stifle the Union voice,........unless they jump through all the many, many legal hoops,.....

Then they line up to get that PAC money, with nebulous promises of taking “ care” of working people.....(...as long as the Union donates as much ....or more......than the corporate donors...)......

Brother Canary, you have a lot more expertise with PACs than I do. It will take me a couple of days to find the legislation I am referring to (last night was driving in the rain all night, this morning I have no power at the house) but I will find it. I promise you I didn't make this opinion up. And thanks for serving as treasurer. I know it is a thankless job but it was appreciated by your local (or you would have been removed) and by a lot of us who had nothing to do with your local. Volunteers like you, my wife and many other (especially retirees) is what keeps Anerica running, keeps politicians on the correct political path, keeps American strong. Even though we disagree on a lot of things I do respect you and your beliefs.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Brother Canary, you have a lot more expertise with PACs than I do. It will take me a couple of days to find the legislation I am referring to (last night was driving in the rain all night, this morning I have no power at the house) but I will find it. I promise you I didn't make this opinion up. And thanks for serving as treasurer. I know it is a thankless job but it was appreciated by your local (or you would have been removed) and by a lot of us who had nothing to do with your local. Volunteers like you, my wife and many other (especially retirees) is what keeps Anerica running, keeps politicians on the correct political path, keeps American strong. Even though we disagree on a lot of things I do respect you and your beliefs.

Curious to see what the legislation is that you’re referring to. Standing by,......but in the meantime, get yourself a good night’s sleep......

And,.....Mr. Hoffa testifying before Mr. Kennedy in a.....”condescending “ manner?
You’ve never seen the famous “finger” photograph?

The testimony was pretty contentious.......Cats and dogs......

Good talking to you, Brother......intelligent debate is always stimulating......

 

[Homesick]

Curious to see what the legislation is that you’re referring to. Standing by,......but in the meantime, get yourself a good night’s sleep......

And,.....Mr. Hoffa testifying before Mr. Kennedy in a.....”condescending “ manner?
You’ve never seen the famous “finger” photograph?

The testimony was pretty contentious.......Cats and dogs......

Good talking to you, Brother......intelligent debate is always stimulating......

Thanks for the Hoffa finger. It came up as soon as I googled it. The Hoffa condescend manner was a statement I read from one of the senators at the hoffa questioning in reference to his 'breaking someone's back testimony.'

 

[icuicp]

Curious to see what the legislation is that you’re referring to. Standing by,......but in the meantime, get yourself a good night’s sleep......

And,.....Mr. Hoffa testifying before Mr. Kennedy in a.....”condescending “ manner?
You’ve never seen the famous “finger” photograph?

The testimony was pretty contentious.......Cats and dogs......

Good talking to you, Brother......intelligent debate is always stimulating......

Canary , this is a cut and paste from a Motley Fool article about upcoming proposed changes to retirement law. Your thoughts?

What changes are being proposed?
The so-called Tax Reform 2.0 is a combination of several bills -- three, according to the latest information. One would contain provisions to make the recent tax rate cuts for individuals permanent, instead of expiring in 2025 as they're currently set to do.

Another bill is specifically intended to make changes to retirement savings in the United States. Known as the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, the bill would make some pretty significant changes. While a draft of the bill hasn't been made public yet, here's what we know about the changes it could make:

Some of the changes are intended to make it easier for smaller companies to offer 401(k) plans. For example, one provision would allow smaller employers to jointly offer 401(k) plans, thereby spreading out the administrative costs and lowering fees. Plans from smaller employers tend to come with significantly higher fees than those from larger companies, so this could help level the playing field. In addition, the bill would increase the annual tax credit designed to offset small business' costs of starting new retirement plans from $500 to as much as $5,000.
The bill would also make it easier for workers to guarantee their annual income by requiring plans to disclose the amount of monthly annuity income participants could expect to get based on their account balance. It would also encourage 401(k) plans to offer annuities by providing certain legal protections that currently don't exist.
The bill would give employees to pre-emptively save some of their tax return into their 401(k) plans and would also make it easier for employers to automatically enroll employees in their plans.
The bill supposedly contains a new type of retirement savings account. While we know it would be more of an "open-ended" account than those currently available, we don't have many details yet, other than that it would be easier for account owners to use their funds in an emergency.
The bill would repeal the rule that prohibits people over age 70 1/2 from contributing to traditional IRA accounts. Currently, traditional IRA contributions cannot be made beyond this age, even if the account owner is still working. There's currently a required minimum distribution provision that goes into effect at this age, and it's unclear as to whether this would be repealed as well.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Canary , this is a cut and paste from a Motley Fool article about upcoming proposed changes to retirement law. Your thoughts?

What changes are being proposed?
The so-called Tax Reform 2.0 is a combination of several bills -- three, according to the latest information. One would contain provisions to make the recent tax rate cuts for individuals permanent, instead of expiring in 2025 as they're currently set to do.

Another bill is specifically intended to make changes to retirement savings in the United States. Known as the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, the bill would make some pretty significant changes. While a draft of the bill hasn't been made public yet, here's what we know about the changes it could make:

Some of the changes are intended to make it easier for smaller companies to offer 401(k) plans. For example, one provision would allow smaller employers to jointly offer 401(k) plans, thereby spreading out the administrative costs and lowering fees. Plans from smaller employers tend to come with significantly higher fees than those from larger companies, so this could help level the playing field. In addition, the bill would increase the annual tax credit designed to offset small business' costs of starting new retirement plans from $500 to as much as $5,000.
The bill would also make it easier for workers to guarantee their annual income by requiring plans to disclose the amount of monthly annuity income participants could expect to get based on their account balance. It would also encourage 401(k) plans to offer annuities by providing certain legal protections that currently don't exist.
The bill would give employees to pre-emptively save some of their tax return into their 401(k) plans and would also make it easier for employers to automatically enroll employees in their plans.
The bill supposedly contains a new type of retirement savings account. While we know it would be more of an "open-ended" account than those currently available, we don't have many details yet, other than that it would be easier for account owners to use their funds in an emergency.
The bill would repeal the rule that prohibits people over age 70 1/2 from contributing to traditional IRA accounts. Currently, traditional IRA contributions cannot be made beyond this age, even if the account owner is still working. There's currently a required minimum distribution provision that goes into effect at this age, and it's unclear as to whether this would be repealed as well.

Thanks for the article,.....Very interesting!

The provision where it would require disclosure of the amount of monthly annuity income participants could expect,....tells me that some Senators and Congresspeople recognize what many have been saying all along,...about how MOST people have no idea how to retire on a defined-contribution style "pension",......or, more specifically,....what they NEED to retire......

As we all know,.....the fees charged are ALWAYS passed along to the 401(k) participant,...even if the employer made the initial outlay. Administrative "costs" in a small company,....is having Marge in payroll make sure the 401(k) deductions are coming out of each paycheck.....

So,....a "tax credit" increase for setting up an employee retirement defined-contribution "scheme"? And you say they aren't trying to sell these schemes?

If you compared the proverbial Apples to Apples,.........would you rather retire on a defined-contribution, or a defined-benefit pension? Under perfect conditions for both,....which one is better, in that it requires no maintenance by the participants...(..and their spouses..)...?

Notice that all the tax credits proposed ,...go to businesses and employers. Employees are "allowed" to "pre-emptively" save some of their previously over-taxed, and-to-be-returned income into their 401(k).....Woo-Hoo!

Admitting that "certain legal protections" don't exist for defined-contribution 401(k)-style schemes,..........should raise red flags for anyone involved in such schemes...........The only reason Government admits something like that,..is when they see an impending disaster,.......and are trying to staunch the arterial bleeding with Hello Kitty Band-Aids........

Repeal the "over age 70-and-a-half" rule?.............Sure,.....Keep the ol' geezers at the work station by dangling that carrot out there.....That'll "solve" the Early Retirement problem.......Now,...What do we do with all these ol' geezers dying on company premises?

A "new type" of a "retirement account"....where you can tap your funds in case of an...."emergency"?.......How many people are having "emergencies",..that it now requires more legislation to let people have access to their money beyond the Hardship clauses? Re-defining what a "hardship" is,.......merely opens the door for more people to take out principal funds,.....thereby stretching further down the road(age)..their ability to retire.

Which solves Big Business' scarce employee problem. Keep 'em at the workstation longer..........

And people think that Wall Street has no influence over proposed legislation?

 

[canaryinthemine]

And,..........The Tax Cuts should have been permanent for citizens from the get-go,.......Just like it is for businesses.

 

[Homesick]

Yes, we do have different perceptions of how things are managed.

You are aware that I was a Union PAC fund treasurer for 10 years until I retired? I am very, very familiar with the legalities of operation of a PAC fund. Your perception of Union dues money and political contributions and the legal firewall between them are completely wrong.

The reason our Local set up our own PAC fund was so we could comply with the myriad of laws concerning Unions and political contributions.

If you notice, most Local Unions do not have a PAC fund established.......they rely on the Union’s state organization.

I had a three inch thick book of rules issued by the state of Pennsylvania,....and I was audited personally seven times a year. The rules are clear that the treasurer accepts all responsibility, and can not use Union or PAC fund money to pay for any fines incurred for late filings or errors in the seven audits per year. Must come out of the treasurer’s personal pocket.......

Kind of scares a lot of people off from volunteering for this position. Oh, yeah.........the position must be voluntary, by a rank-and-file member, and be unpaid..........all according to State and Federal campaign finance rules.

So I can tell you all about Union political donations. And,.....I can tell you your perception as to how money in Union funds are accounted for is not accurate.

Congress is trying to stifle the Union voice,........unless they jump through all the many, many legal hoops,.....

Then they line up to get that PAC money, with nebulous promises of taking “ care” of working people.....(...as long as the Union donates as much ....or more......than the corporate donors...)......

Brother Canary, this are not exactly the information I was looking for but they make the same point I was trying to make when I wrote “I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results).”

Employee Retirement Income Security Act - History Leading Up To Erisa
During and after World War II, pension coverage expanded greatly, as did reports of mismanagement and abuse of pension funds. For example, Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was alleged to have abused his union's Central and Southern States Pension Fund. The need for government regulation of private pensions culminated in the passage of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (WPPDA) in 1959. The WPPDA required plan sponsors (e.g., employers and labor unions) to file plan descriptions and annual financial reports with the Department of Labor, and these materials were also made available to plan participants and beneficiaries. The WPPDA was amended in 1962 to give the Department of Labor additional enforcement, interpretive, and investigatory powers over employee benefit plans. The WPPDA had a very limited scope, and eventually it was replaced by ERISA's much more comprehensive system for pension regulation.

This is from the TDU's website:
Hoffa was tried and convicted in 1964 for the jury tampering, and also convicted by a Chicago jury of defrauding the Central States Pension Fund to line his own pocket in a Florida land scam.

Elwood posted this article on TB in October 2015
Cutting retirees’ pensions has generally been illegal, except under the most dire circumstances. But the executive director of the Central States fund, Thomas Nyhan, said that reducing payouts to make the money last longer was the only realistic way of avoiding a devastating collapse in the next few years.

To conclude, it is my belief that if Jimmy Hoffa had not invested in Nevada gambling and political organizations (like Nixon commuting his prison sentence), then congress would not have passed WPPDA which let to Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and would have allowed Thomas Nyhan and other pension fund executives to make small cuts in pension payments that would have avoided this possible pension collapse.

 

[seabreeze]

Brother Canary, this are not exactly the information I was looking for but they make the same point I was trying to make when I wrote “I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results).”

Employee Retirement Income Security Act - History Leading Up To Erisa
During and after World War II, pension coverage expanded greatly, as did reports of mismanagement and abuse of pension funds. For example, Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was alleged to have abused his union's Central and Southern States Pension Fund. The need for government regulation of private pensions culminated in the passage of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (WPPDA) in 1959. The WPPDA required plan sponsors (e.g., employers and labor unions) to file plan descriptions and annual financial reports with the Department of Labor, and these materials were also made available to plan participants and beneficiaries. The WPPDA was amended in 1962 to give the Department of Labor additional enforcement, interpretive, and investigatory powers over employee benefit plans. The WPPDA had a very limited scope, and eventually it was replaced by ERISA's much more comprehensive system for pension regulation.

This is from the TDU's website:
Hoffa was tried and convicted in 1964 for the jury tampering, and also convicted by a Chicago jury of defrauding the Central States Pension Fund to line his own pocket in a Florida land scam.

Elwood posted this article on TB in October 2015
Cutting retirees’ pensions has generally been illegal, except under the most dire circumstances. But the executive director of the Central States fund, Thomas Nyhan, said that reducing payouts to make the money last longer was the only realistic way of avoiding a devastating collapse in the next few years.

To conclude, it is my belief that if Jimmy Hoffa had not invested in Nevada gambling and political organizations (like Nixon commuting his prison sentence), then congress would not have passed WPPDA which let to Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and would have allowed Thomas Nyhan and other pension fund executives to make small cuts in pension payments that would have avoided this possible pension collapse.

"You're saying, it would have survived deregulation?"

 

[Homesick]

"You're saying, it would have survived deregulation?"

According to the people who run CSPF the answer is yes.
Teamsters’ Pension Fund Warns 400,000 of Cuts
There is a very good research article in the university library system from about 2 years ago. I no longer have access to that secure research (failed to pay alumni dues) but it broke down the CSPF history and its financial data. I think that is where I read it. It was an extremely compelling article.

 

[seabreeze]

Sorry Brother you did say nine jobs but I read nineteen. I'm not pointing fingers at you or any one else. I am generalize that most people, union and non-union, place immediate gratification about future security. I think this will bear itself out if anyone took the time to find out how much young adults (25-35 yrs old) put into retirement accounts or savings accounts. They do make less income that 55-65 year old but they also have less bills and expenses. The vast majority of these young adults do not start with financial security but work into it. My parents refused to buy any of us kids our first vehicle or to pay for any schooling; 'you need to learn the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs' my dad said a lot. But most people seem to have missed learning the value of a dollar and only become concerned with the dollar when they need it and don't have it. People don't save for retirement because retirement is not an immediate threat.



I do see lobbyists fingerprints on deregulation but not the way you seem to. I see it as lobbying for freedom, freedom to own my own truck and have my own business. I see government concerned with teamster power to shut down commerce in the united states. I see Jimmy Hoffa testifying before congress and the Kennedy's in a condescending manger.



I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results). I also believe that MEPF like CSPF could easily be fixed with pension cuts to stabilize the pension. Basic math, if you have more expense than income cut expenses. And because those who are receiving the income have refused to accept pension cuts congress is refusing to guarantee/insure that income. And we all suffer because people did not save for the future and never learned 'the value of a dollar and what that dollar really costs.'

This is where your parents and I differ, I put a son thru UNC, a daughter thru N.C. State, both graduated not
owing a dime.
I bought each a vehicle before they had a drivers license, I will also help put 2 grand kids thru college if necessary.
A third one already knows more than the teachers and doesn't need to go to college.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Brother Canary, this are not exactly the information I was looking for but they make the same point I was trying to make when I wrote “I see congress changing pension laws because pensions are paying out more money than is being earned by the fund and pension recipients being unwilling to accept pension cuts that would balance income with expenses. I believe these excessive pension checks are because of congresses concern over the large amount of money in the pension funds and congress trying to ensure that that money went to the employees rather than to PAC's or other political organizations (good intentions from congress with bad results).”

Employee Retirement Income Security Act - History Leading Up To Erisa
During and after World War II, pension coverage expanded greatly, as did reports of mismanagement and abuse of pension funds. For example, Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was alleged to have abused his union's Central and Southern States Pension Fund. The need for government regulation of private pensions culminated in the passage of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (WPPDA) in 1959. The WPPDA required plan sponsors (e.g., employers and labor unions) to file plan descriptions and annual financial reports with the Department of Labor, and these materials were also made available to plan participants and beneficiaries. The WPPDA was amended in 1962 to give the Department of Labor additional enforcement, interpretive, and investigatory powers over employee benefit plans. The WPPDA had a very limited scope, and eventually it was replaced by ERISA's much more comprehensive system for pension regulation.

This is from the TDU's website:
Hoffa was tried and convicted in 1964 for the jury tampering, and also convicted by a Chicago jury of defrauding the Central States Pension Fund to line his own pocket in a Florida land scam.

Elwood posted this article on TB in October 2015
Cutting retirees’ pensions has generally been illegal, except under the most dire circumstances. But the executive director of the Central States fund, Thomas Nyhan, said that reducing payouts to make the money last longer was the only realistic way of avoiding a devastating collapse in the next few years.

To conclude, it is my belief that if Jimmy Hoffa had not invested in Nevada gambling and political organizations (like Nixon commuting his prison sentence), then congress would not have passed WPPDA which let to Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and would have allowed Thomas Nyhan and other pension fund executives to make small cuts in pension payments that would have avoided this possible pension collapse.

I absolutley agree with you about James Hoffa's pension fund abuses. He had many enablers as Trustees on various funds,...notably Jackie Presser of the CSPF and President of two Ohio Locals, and an IBT Vice(ironic) President, President....and eventually an FBI informant..
Or Roy Williams,.....Kansas City's Overlord of Labor,....and neck-deep in crime

Here in. Western Pa......we had a gentleman by the name of Mel Humphries,...Trustee on our Fund,......who was one of the heroes of the Labor movement.
While Hoffa and his cronies were putting the arm on Teamster pension funds to build Las Vegas casinos,.......Mr. Humphries was able to take our Fund and place it into a partnership with PNC Bank,.....which made it more or less immune from "requests" for funds from the IBT.
I don't have all the particulars,......but my Father and Uncles,......all stewards and Trustees of Local #249,......told me to remember Mr. Humphries' name as the man who kept the....mob...out of Western Pa. Pension funds.
And,.....surely our Fund was one of the most solvent,...through deregulation, the '80's,...the '90's.......We were issuing 13th Retiree checks all the way through 2005,....to prevent our Fund from being 100% funded,.....which, under ERISA law, would've resulted in employers with our fund no longer having to make any contributions.......(..Thanks! Federal Government rules not allowing pension funds to save for a "Rainy Day".........)

The collapse of 2008.....finally did our fund the crippling blow that the "social engineers" on Wall Street were able to..."manufacture"...
But,.....Prior to that,.......Our Fund,...and many others like ours,....were pretty solvent,...and seemed to be able to weather the deregulation storm without too much bleeding,......as we were responsibly managed for decades....

Unlike the CSPF,....which had been abused by the likes of Hoffa, Presser, Williams, and other IBT..."leaders"...of that ilk,....until the crippling and bleeding couldn't be staunched. UPS's withdrawal,....The IBT's allowing of YRC's non-payment of pension contributions,...and Thomas Nyhan's lobbying for the Omnibus Bill of 2010,....were the final stab in the back for that Fund...

Don't forget Wall Street's...."cheerleading"...on the side, in the form of lobbying,......for the collapse of that Fund......

Conclusion:.........IF there was no Wall Street "meddling",...and no thievery from IBT past "leadership",....and no back-stabbing from current IBT "leadership",.......then perhaps ALL of the MEPFs,...including CSPF,......would've survived Deregulation,...and entered a new generation of Teamsters, just as strong as ever.....

Our eternal "gratitude"..(in the ironic sense..)....to the IBT leaders who let this happen on their watch......I hope they've set aside some trust out of their ill-gotten gains,....to pay for the re-seeding of their gravesites for at least a hundred years....
It might take that long for rank-and-file members to forget how badly they were served by these "leaders",...and quit showing up to urinate on their graves.........

 

[canaryinthemine]

This is where your parents and I differ, I put a son thru UNC, a daughter thru N.C. State, both graduated not
owing a dime.
I bought each a vehicle before they had a drivers license, I will also help put 2 grand kids thru college if necessary.
A third one already knows more than the teachers and doesn't need to go to college.

And,....we're cut from the same cloth, Bro. Seabreeze.......

I put four through college,.......helped with cars and other stuff,......and somehow,....we've raised four very successful, flourishing, loving, healthy,.....BIG,....(..Good Lord, we had to FEED them!..)....children,....who are self-sustaining,...and just as opinionated as their....Father.
Other than the "opinionated" part,.....must've been my wife........We may be considered "broke" by some,.......but in other ways, we're very, very rich......

 

[Homesick]

And,....we're cut from the same cloth, Bro. Seabreeze.......

I put four through college,.......helped with cars and other stuff,......and somehow,....we've raised four very successful, flourishing, loving, healthy,.....BIG,....(..Good Lord, we had to FEED them!..)....children,....who are self-sustaining,...and just as opinionated as their....Father.
Other than the "opinionated" part,.....must've been my wife........We may be considered "broke" by some,.......but in other ways, we're very, very rich......

Speaking for myself, I would never consider you "broke." You have friends, you have family, you have self worth and self respect, never broke my friend

 

[DCM_Doc]

Speaking for myself, I would never consider you "broke." You have friends, you have family, you have self worth and self respect, never broke my friend

A man's true wealth cannot be valued by material possessions.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Speaking for myself, I would never consider you "broke." You have friends, you have family, you have self worth and self respect, never broke my friend

A man's true wealth cannot be valued by material possessions.

Aw,..Shucks guys..........You’re making me blush like a Baptist preacher caught in the lingerie department.......

Working people don’t quantify everything in terms of dollars and cents. There is treasure in the world that you can’t cash in at the bank........

SHHH! ....Don’t tell that secret to the parasites who make their profits by selling us “services” and “advice”....and who would regard a callus on their hand as a major medical event.......

It would break their tiny little hearts if they knew there was more important things than money....Break their cash register, too.......

 

[DCM_Doc]

Aw,..Shucks guys..........You’re making me blush like a Baptist preacher caught in the lingerie department.......

Working people don’t quantify everything in terms of dollars and cents. There is treasure in the world that you can’t cash in at the bank........

SHHH! ....Don’t tell that secret to the parasites who make their profits by selling us “services” and “advice”....and who would regard a callus on their hand as a major medical event.......

It would break their tiny little hearts if they knew there was more important things than money....Break their cash register, too.......

However I do want to be compensated for helping my employer make a profit. There were some lyrics in a Charlie
Rich song several years ago. "Can't take it with you when you're gone, but I want enough to get there on".

 

[canaryinthemine]

When I was complimented by management for “voluntarily” working massive overtime,.....at the expense of my family life......
I always told him I was saving up for that solid gold coffin I had my eye on........

 

[DCM_Doc]

When I was complimented by management for “voluntarily” working massive overtime,.....at the expense of my family life......
I always told him I was saving up for that solid gold coffin I had my eye on........

I always believed in giving a days work for a day's pay. That is the way I was brought up. I didn't respect fellow workers who felt no obligation to fulfill their part of the contract. If the company upholds their obligation & follows the contract so should Teamsters.