ABF | Hope for our pensions!

[nounionfool]

I would prefer a party that looks for solutions

You sure wouldnt be a democrat or a republican if that were truly the case. The solution is right in front of your eyes, all one has to do is follow our Constitution but you would see this if werent for the fact of being all wrapped up in the false left right paradigm. What better way to keep us divided and arguing amongst ourselves? Both sides get exactly what they want which is control and we the people are left blaming ourselves.It was your guys fault, no it was your guys fault. All of our rights will soon be lost and you will be part of the reason why. It seems like you make both the company and union leaders strictly adhere to the contract so why arent you doing the same for our Constitution?

 

[canaryinthemine]

You sure wouldnt be a democrat or a republican if that were truly the case. The solution is right in front of your eyes, all one has to do is follow our Constitution but you would see this if werent for the fact of being all wrapped up in the false left right paradigm. What better way to keep us divided and arguing amongst ourselves? Both sides get exactly what they want which is control and we the people are left blaming ourselves.It was your guys fault, no it was your guys fault. All of our rights will soon be lost and you will be part of the reason why. It seems like you make both the company and union leaders strictly adhere to the contract so why arent you doing the same for our Constitution?

Why, good point, Brother........labels do divide us.......Labeling someone burdens the labeler with a pre-supposed set of convictions that are quickly and easily digestible.............and eliminates most debate by moving the "starting point" of any debate way off into the corner most angry debaters paint themselves into eventually,.....by supposing their opponent will defend those pre-supposed positions to the "death",....as it were......I vote Democrat,....on most positions,.....I take an active part in the political process,.....I've never missed voting in an election since 1972......when the 18- year-olds got the vote, and I was the only one in my platoon to vote for George McGovern..........I'm the volunteer Political action fund treasurer for our Local,.........I take the time to research most positions, because I make recommendations for endorsements to the membership........sen. Joe Manchin of W. Va. has started a group several years ago , called "No Labels",.....and has many state and Federal legislators as members,.....unfortunately, most of them are.......Democrats.....The Republicans tend to want to fly their banner,...as it were.....Calling myself a "Democrat" is just my easy way of letting most people know I prefer to look for solutions,....instead of looking for people and things to blame,.....and hate....A funny game I play with people has to do with the Constitution........I ask some people who proclaim themselves as "Constitutionalists",....if they understand the Second Amendment........They usually quote it back to me , word for word.....Good,......now I ask them to define the three Freedoms and two Rights spelled out in the First Amendment,........and about 80% pretty much draw a blank......90%, if I ask which Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure......You see,....the American people were "sold" the Second Amendment,......because there is money to be made from it,....by gun, ammo, body armor,....and "security" firms.....As a Constitutionalist,....you know there's nothing within the Second Amendment about recreational firearm use,.....(.by the way,....which militia are you associated with?,).....but the reason that the Second Amendment is....the second,....and the First Amendment precedes it,.......is because the Second Amendment is the enforcement clause, in case the Government,.....OR ANY OTHER ENTITY,....infringes on your First Amendment rights,......seems to escape most people,....which is why they can quote the Second Amendment,...yet not have a clue of WHAT they're defending.....i.e:, the First Amendment.........Many people are nowadays ..."used"...to leaving their First Amendment rights at the time clock, when they punch in at work,......yet see nothing wrong with that. Business Trumps Everything,.....even the Constitution, apparently. I agree that many more people should READ the Constitution,......and PRACTICE it by speaking up.....You can't defend,....with firearms,.....something you know nothing about, or don't believe in.........

 

[sabresfan]

Great thread but I still have one question. Why is it OK for the PBGC to take over some pension plans but not teamster plans?

 

[canaryinthemine]

I think that would be with the qualifying levels, Brother,.....and the changes made by the Pension Reform Act of 2006, which set up differing levels of how badly your fund is doing, and what qualifies at that level. All Multi-Employer Pension Funds, and pretty much all Single-Employer Funds are covered under PBGI,....as long as they are a defined-benefit plan,....which, by law, pays an insurance premium to PBGI. Defined-contribution plans,....which are 401(k)-style plans,... aren't covered,......They do NOT pay any premium to PBGI, nor are they technically administered by an impartial board of trustees. Even the Teamsters' own 401(k) plan was moved to Prudential,.....without any say-so from any participant.

 

[nounionfool]

Why, good point, Brother........labels do divide us.......Labeling someone burdens the labeler with a pre-supposed set of convictions that are quickly and easily digestible.............and eliminates most debate by moving the "starting point" of any debate way off into the corner most angry debaters paint themselves into eventually,.....by supposing their opponent will defend those pre-supposed positions to the "death",....as it were......I vote Democrat,....on most positions,.....I take an active part in the political process,.....I've never missed voting in an election since 1972......when the 18- year-olds got the vote, and I was the only one in my platoon to vote for George McGovern..........I'm the volunteer Political action fund treasurer for our Local,.........I take the time to research most positions, because I make recommendations for endorsements to the membership........sen. Joe Manchin of W. Va. has started a group several years ago , called "No Labels",.....and has many state and Federal legislators as members,.....unfortunately, most of them are.......Democrats.....The Republicans tend to want to fly their banner,...as it were.....Calling myself a "Democrat" is just my easy way of letting most people know I prefer to look for solutions,....instead of looking for people and things to blame,.....and hate....A funny game I play with people has to do with the Constitution........I ask some people who proclaim themselves as "Constitutionalists",....if they understand the Second Amendment........They usually quote it back to me , word for word.....Good,......now I ask them to define the three Freedoms and two Rights spelled out in the First Amendment,........and about 80% pretty much draw a blank......90%, if I ask which Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure......You see,....the American people were "sold" the Second Amendment,......because there is money to be made from it,....by gun, ammo, body armor,....and "security" firms.....As a Constitutionalist,....you know there's nothing within the Second Amendment about recreational firearm use,.....(.by the way,....which militia are you associated with?,).....but the reason that the Second Amendment is....the second,....and the First Amendment precedes it,.......is because the Second Amendment is the enforcement clause, in case the Government,.....OR ANY OTHER ENTITY,....infringes on your First Amendment rights,......seems to escape most people,....which is why they can quote the Second Amendment,...yet not have a clue of WHAT they're defending.....i.e:, the First Amendment.........Many people are nowadays ..."used"...to leaving their First Amendment rights at the time clock, when they punch in at work,......yet see nothing wrong with that. Business Trumps Everything,.....even the Constitution, apparently. I agree that many more people should READ the Constitution,......and PRACTICE it by speaking up.....You can't defend,....with firearms,.....something you know nothing about, or don't believe in.........

Thank you for the pragmatic and well executed reply canaryinthemine. I agree with you 100% that labels do divide us and refrain the notion of labeling myself at all when politics are concerned. It is in my opinion that the party system worked well in the early days when those elected were moderately honest when stating their intentions and representing each of their respectful parties. But that dramatically changed once corruption and the struggle for control took a foothold. Since then the two party system ideals changed even more than the names did. The two party system of today is nothing but a game to divide thus controlling the masses by giving them the sense of false hope. One thing that those corrupt and power hungry politicians know is that people will never rebel as long as hope exists. Thats the exact same route that our union companies are taking these days in case you havent noticed.

I see that you have labeled me a Constitutionalist, why is that? Have you now succumbed to labeling someone even though you just stated how labeling someone burdens the labeler with a pre-supposed set of convictions that are quickly and easily digestible? Yes, I believe in the very strict reading and application of the US Constitution. But I consider myself an American that just believes in the values to which this country was founded. How about you, dont you believe in the very strict reading and application of the NMFA? That would be like making a new label and now referring to you as a Contractualist instead of a Teamster, wouldnt you say?

I agree that many are ignorant when it comes to our Constitution. But you leave out the democratic party when referring to that ignorance, why? Are you saying that democrats are immune to ignorance when it comes to the Constitution? As far as you giving me your interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, your interpretation. Im sure you know all about interpretation, after all, thats what makes for many grievances being filed when dealing with contract issues. I never try to convince others my interpretation of the Constitution. Wouldnt you say the best way would be is to let them read it for themselves and come up with their own interpretation? The Bible is another good example who many try to pass their interpretation as an absolute truth which I believe is just absurd. That is unless you are an absolute authority on the inner thoughts of the author or authors at the time of the writing. Then by all means, tell everyone what it means, including myself.

 

[Songremainsthesame]

Way to go y'all this has turned into quite an interesting thread! Good reading all around!

 

[canaryinthemine]

Thank you for the pragmatic and well executed reply canaryinthemine. I agree with you 100% that labels do divide us and refrain the notion of labeling myself at all when politics are concerned. It is in my opinion that the party system worked well in the early days when those elected were moderately honest when stating their intentions and representing each of their respectful parties. But that dramatically changed once corruption and the struggle for control took a foothold. Since then the two party system ideals changed even more than the names did. The two party system of today is nothing but a game to divide thus controlling the masses by giving them the sense of false hope. One thing that those corrupt and power hungry politicians know is that people will never rebel as long as hope exists. Thats the exact same route that our union companies are taking these days in case you havent noticed.

I see that you have labeled me a Constitutionalist, why is that? Have you now succumbed to labeling someone even though you just stated how labeling someone burdens the labeler with a pre-supposed set of convictions that are quickly and easily digestible? Yes, I believe in the very strict reading and application of the US Constitution. But I consider myself an American that just believes in the values to which this country was founded. How about you, dont you believe in the very strict reading and application of the NMFA? That would be like making a new label and now referring to you as a Contractualist instead of a Teamster, wouldnt you say?

I agree that many are ignorant when it comes to our Constitution. But you leave out the democratic party when referring to that ignorance, why? Are you saying that democrats are immune to ignorance when it comes to the Constitution? As far as you giving me your interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, your interpretation. Im sure you know all about interpretation, after all, thats what makes for many grievances being filed when dealing with contract issues. I never try to convince others my interpretation of the Constitution. Wouldnt you say the best way would be is to let them read it for themselves and come up with their own interpretation? The Bible is another good example who many try to pass their interpretation as an absolute truth which I believe is just absurd. That is unless you are an absolute authority on the inner thoughts of the author or authors at the time of the writing. Then by all means, tell everyone what it means, including myself.

I believe, Brother, that there is a generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution,.....with minor grey areas that will keep lawyers busy for years, if not decades,....After all,...it is a 200 year old document.......As far as the Bible is concerned,.....I believe in the teachings of Yehoshua Bin Yusef.........a wonderful philosopher,....especially his Sermon on the Mount,........

 

[nounionfool]

I believe, Brother, that there is a generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution,.....with minor grey areas that will keep lawyers busy for years, if not decades,....After all,...it is a 200 year old document......

I disagree, I dont think there is nothing at all minor when it comes to our Constitution, especially when it involves the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendment, the most controversial ones of today. Maybe that's why so many dont get upset when our elected officials consistently violate their oath of office, they just think of them as minor violations. Then you will always have the ones that think its ok to violate the Constitution when they personally are not in agreement with one of the admendments. Just like it remains true when it comes to our contract too.

 

[Volnuck]

Thats a very good question. But the misunderstanding is the Rank and File is the union not it's leadership. The leadership tries its best to make everyone believe that they are in itself the union but the leadership's job is represent our best interests which is obviously clear to most by now that they have not been doing for a long time.I cant speak for anyone else but I do not support the international leadership, as a matter of fact and for the record, I loathe this leadership. The union is just like our country, one can only hope that the one elected chooses to represent those they were elected to do. That question could also be applied with " How do you justify a country that supports the democrats primarily who LOVE illegals?

I myself vote 95% Republican because they represent what my "faith" stands for more than the Democrats. In reality I do not trust or respect either party anymore because they do not represent their constituents as they did 50 years ago. It is all about how much kickback they can get from Lobbiests.

 

[mud]

Iam a registered Indepent

I myself vote 95% Republican because they represent what my "faith" stands for more than the Democrats. In reality I do not trust or respect either party anymore because they do not represent their constituents as they did 50 years ago. It is all about how much kickback they can get from Lobbiests.

I am a registered Independent. I will vote for the candidate that will help me and my family. That's what politics in this country has become. That's why I gave D.R.I.V.E. a dollar a week from my paycheck for years.

 

[cropduster]

This is turning into a deep discussion for this forum. My 2 cents worth is I think the people we elect to represent "US" fail to do so. They may talk a good game to get elected but then fall into the abyss that is the system. We need to change things among both hardheaded parties to get stuff done that is good for the majority of the people. Everyone has thier own agenda and their stubbornness to stick to it is what makes change hard. IMO

 

[DeTrucker]

I like what y'all are saying, I really do. And I agree wholeheartedly. But how do you justify a union that supports the democrats primarily who LOVE illegals? Just a question.

Unions support democrats because democrats support unions. Or some act as they do. Supporting a party that wants to abolish you is not the best option, even when some of the things the democrats support doesnt make sense.

 

[canaryinthemine]

I disagree, I dont think there is nothing at all minor when it comes to our Constitution, especially when it involves the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendment, the most controversial ones of today. Maybe that's why so many dont get upset when our elected officials consistently violate their oath of office, they just think of them as minor violations. Then you will always have the ones that think its ok to violate the Constitution when they personally are not in agreement with one of the admendments. Just like it remains true when it comes to our contract too.

Many people don't get upset because they've abdicated their responsibility as a citizen of this nation to educate themselves so they could understand the issues . During the Robber Baron era, corporate crooks routinely used their interpretation of the Constitution to deny employees the right to organize. There was a judge here in Cambria County that had actually threatened to put U. S. Senators investigating miner abuse in jail for interfering with the rights of mine owners to make a profit. In this day, with all the education opportunities and mass media, there is no reason not to participate in elections, yet almost 50% of the citizens do not vote. There's a growing class of people who claim all politicians are crooked, therefore they don't bother to participate.......much to the relief of the wealthy, who can spend less of their money trying to trick people into voting their way. Is this apathy to voting by design? Should there be a Constitutional amendment requiring people to vote? The Constitution itself exists by the will of the people,......When it no longer reflects that will , it must be changed.....(..see: Articles of Confederation). People are more important than a document,... no matter how sacred it is held. Many of us regarded the NMFA as almost a sacred document, but we now see how easily the core principles of Unionism can be corrupted..... by the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce that contract.

 

[Deleted member 5115]

Should there be a Constitutional amendment requiring people to vote?

Sadly I have to say, "No, there should not be an amendment requiring people to vote", but only because voting is a right, not an obligation and requiring it would infringe on the principles of our country. What I would like to see is more "popular" voting or at least a polling of the constituents before passing a law. Not that it would make a difference but at least I would feel like I had some say so in the legislation.

 

[nounionfool]

Many people don't get upset because they've abdicated their responsibility as a citizen of this nation to educate themselves so they could understand the issues . During the Robber Baron era, corporate crooks routinely used their interpretation of the Constitution to deny employees the right to organize. There was a judge here in Cambria County that had actually threatened to put U. S. Senators investigating miner abuse in jail for interfering with the rights of mine owners to make a profit. In this day, with all the education opportunities and mass media, there is no reason not to participate in elections, yet almost 50% of the citizens do not vote. There's a growing class of people who claim all politicians are crooked, therefore they don't bother to participate.......much to the relief of the wealthy, who can spend less of their money trying to trick people into voting their way. Is this apathy to voting by design? Should there be a Constitutional amendment requiring people to vote? The Constitution itself exists by the will of the people,......When it no longer reflects that will , it must be changed.....(..see: Articles of Confederation). People are more important than a document,... no matter how sacred it is held. Many of us regarded the NMFA as almost a sacred document, but we now see how easily the core principles of Unionism can be corrupted..... by the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce that contract.

You say that people don't get upset because they failed to educate themselves so they could understand the issues.What do you consider "understanding the issues"? Could it be to come to the understanding that our Constitution is "outdated" so its time to start considering to run it as a democracy not a republic? After all, thats the impression I got of your definition of "understanding the issues" are from what you stated in this post. Did you ever take the time to consider why so many are upset? Did you even consider that they did take the time to educate themselves and know that it is the republic that ensures that the Constitution remains intact in order to protect certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government. Ah, but a democracy can destroy the very fabric of our Constitution which to those that do come to an "understanding of the issues" have come to realize. Did you ever consider, even just one moment that those who get upset do so because they are the ones who educated themselves and realize what you call "understanding of the issues" is nothing more than getting the masses to accept that our country is a democracy, not a republic. So, that would make those who think they have an "understanding of the issues" being the ones who are ignorant not the ones who are angry.

You state that there's a growing class of people who claim all politicians are crooked. Did you even consider they claim this because its true? Many wont even consider that possibility because that would mean that their "understanding of the issues" was only an illusion and the country as they know it will come crumbling down.

You asked "Should there be a Constitutional amendment requiring people to vote? Now thats a classic example of democracy at its best. Lets just have the majority ditch the Constitution and give the government all the authority it needs to start mandating everything we should be doing and saying on a daily basis. After all, those with an "understanding of the issues" want to have the government force their views and opinions on the way they think life should be on everyone.

Your statement, "Many of us regarded the NMFA as almost a sacred document, but we now see how easily the core principles of Unionism can be corrupted..... by the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce that contract." Are you actually saying that since we cant count on the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce the contract that we should just change the contract now to one these individuals we know we cant trust to one they want to follow? Kind of insane, wouldnt you say? Thats the same reasoning you are using when you said why the Constitution needs to be changed. I have a wild idea, how about the members start demanding that the leaders enforce the contract that already exists just like the people start demanding that the politicians enforce our Constitution?

Im not one that understands all the issues so maybe you could shed some light on this issue that Im having a difficult time understanding. Remember back when they mandated auto insurance? It is my understanding that the government cant force the people to make purchases such as insurance so it was ruled that its not unconstitutional for the government to mandate one to have auto insurance because driving is a privilege not a necessity. They stated that it is a choice and if you choose to drive then you must purchase insurance. I dont like it but it is understandable.The problem is that I having a hard time understanding the mandated health insurance.Wouldnt they be saying that living is now a choice and if you choose to live then you must purchase insurance if they were to use the same philosophy? Are they now saying that living is a privilege? I know what the courts ruled on the mandated health insurance so will you give me that ruling along with your explanation?

 

[canaryinthemine]

You say that people don't get upset because they failed to educate themselves so they could understand the issues.What do you consider "understanding the issues"? Could it be to come to the understanding that our Constitution is "outdated" so its time to start considering to run it as a democracy not a republic? After all, thats the impression I got of your definition of "understanding the issues" are from what you stated in this post. Did you ever take the time to consider why so many are upset? Did you even consider that they did take the time to educate themselves and know that it is the republic that ensures that the Constitution remains intact in order to protect certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government. Ah, but a democracy can destroy the very fabric of our Constitution which to those that do come to an "understanding of the issues" have come to realize. Did you ever consider, even just one moment that those who get upset do so because they are the ones who educated themselves and realize what you call "understanding of the issues" is nothing more than getting the masses to accept that our country is a democracy, not a republic. So, that would make those who think they have an "understanding of the issues" being the ones who are ignorant not the ones who are angry.

You state that there's a growing class of people who claim all politicians are crooked. Did you even consider they claim this because its true? Many wont even consider that possibility because that would mean that their "understanding of the issues" was only an illusion and the country as they know it will come crumbling down.

You asked "Should there be a Constitutional amendment requiring people to vote? Now thats a classic example of democracy at its best. Lets just have the majority ditch the Constitution and give the government all the authority it needs to start mandating everything we should be doing and saying on a daily basis. After all, those with an "understanding of the issues" want to have the government force their views and opinions on the way they think life should be on everyone.

Your statement, "Many of us regarded the NMFA as almost a sacred document, but we now see how easily the core principles of Unionism can be corrupted..... by the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce that contract." Are you actually saying that since we cant count on the very people we elected to uphold and reinforce the contract that we should just change the contract now to one these individuals we know we cant trust to one they want to follow? Kind of insane, wouldnt you say? Thats the same reasoning you are using when you said why the Constitution needs to be changed. I have a wild idea, how about the members start demanding that the leaders enforce the contract that already exists just like the people start demanding that the politicians enforce our Constitution?

Im not one that understands all the issues so maybe you could shed some light on this issue that Im having a difficult time understanding. Remember back when they mandated auto insurance? It is my understanding that the government cant force the people to make purchases such as insurance so it was ruled that its not unconstitutional for the government to mandate one to have auto insurance because driving is a privilege not a necessity. They stated that it is a choice and if you choose to drive then you must purchase insurance. I dont like it but it is understandable.The problem is that I having a hard time understanding the mandated health insurance.Wouldnt they be saying that living is now a choice and if you choose to live then you must purchase insurance if they were to use the same philosophy? Are they now saying that living is a privilege? I know what the courts ruled on the mandated health insurance so will you give me that ruling along with your explanation?

Hah! Brother nounionfool,....I thought I had the reputation for long-term winded posts..... I see I have some competition.........No, you're not going to back me into a corner defending the mandated Provisions of what eventually became the Affordable Cars Act.......after everyone threw their monkeywrench into what was originally a great idea..... Medicare isn't mandatory, yet almost 99.99% of citizens sign up for an essentially Socialist program......Economics triumphs over principles , in this case. Pardon me if I cut this short,...the buzzer just went off signifying the end of lunch, so back to work I go.....

 

[Muler]

So in other words this looks like the taxpayers would be bailing out the pension plans.

Wrong we have been paying premiums to the government for decades. As a matter of fact it would more than likely be cheaper to shore up CSPF than to let it slide into default. But a bailout is not even in word to be used in this instance we have paid for any money our fund receives.

 

[nounionfool]

Hah! Brother nounionfool,....I thought I had the reputation for long-term winded posts..... I see I have some competition.........No, you're not going to back me into a corner defending the mandated Provisions of what eventually became the Affordable Cars Act.......after everyone threw their monkeywrench into what was originally a great idea..... Medicare isn't mandatory, yet almost 99.99% of citizens sign up for an essentially Socialist program......Economics triumphs over principles , in this case. Pardon me if I cut this short,...the buzzer just went off signifying the end of lunch, so back to work I go.....

Im sorry but you already backed yourself into that corner when you made the remark "Many people don't get upset because they've abdicated their responsibility as a citizen of this nation to educate themselves so they could understand the issues". They get upset because they did take the time to educate themselves and knew that the mandatory Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional from the get go, not after everyone threw their monkeywrench into what was originally a great idea like you want everyone to believe.

 

[a9faninnc]

Wrong we have been paying premiums to the government for decades. As a matter of fact it would more than likely be cheaper to shore up CSPF than to let it slide into default. But a bailout is not even in word to be used in this instance we have paid for any money our fund receives.

By that reasoning,the government should refund my 401 losses,for when the stock market tanked several years ago.I,ve been paying "premiums" for decades,also.I sincerely hope something can be done for the pension issues that you guys have,anything short of a taxpayer bailout.

 

[sabresfan]

Wrong we have been paying premiums to the government for decades. As a matter of fact it would more than likely be cheaper to shore up CSPF than to let it slide into default. But a bailout is not even in word to be used in this instance we have paid for any money our fund receives.

Good to know. I'm not a fan of taxpayers taking over, bailing out or whatever other term people want to use to take from one and give it to another. If these plans are not going to receive any special treatment other than what people like my in-laws have received than so be it. I'm absolutely not a fan of groups receiving special treatment. Bernie is buying votes in my eyes. If the teamsters/trustees & companies that are still involved with these plans said/did nothing before they were broke or close to it its no one's fault but their own.