I'm wondering how pensions like CSPF will be affected if YRC pays 50% to 100% into the pension starting in April 2019? The calculations for shutting CSPF down in 2025 are based on YRC continuing to pay 25% into the fund. YRC is buying so many new white road tractors that I find it extremely hard to believe they are not making a healthy profit (but I have not looked at their financial statements in 3 or 4 years).
ABF | How will the pension be affected if YRC contributes more
- Thread starter Homesick
- Start date
Are they "buying them" or Leasing them? When CFCC started to get new White tractors they were Leased and they owned the leasing company and it wasn't too long after that got merged in to ABF . Just asking YRC may be buying them,
Green$dawg
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 364
According to YRC CFO tractors are being purchased Also numbers are a little cloudy about number of units being purchased Alot of their so called new pirchases are simply buy backs of previously leased equipment As for increased pension contributions forget it They have established their own contribution rate and they are paying it Same as pay scale not ever going to get back what was given up
LTLAnonymous
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 387
So there's just no hope of them ever fully contributing to the pension nor paying what they're supposed to?
Sorry Green, I may not have stated what I was asking. April 1, 2019 is the first day of YRC new contract. I'm wondering how the pension will be affected if the union negotiations an increase in the pension in this next contract?
Green$dawg
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 364
According to yrc people pension cuts are frozen for an additional 3 yrs I believe this means no increase in benefits until at least 2022 But I've been around long enough to understand that YRC has no intensions of ever paying the RATE again Even if they increased their contribution rate the increase would probably go to YRC people first Thereby reducing the amount of the reduction they have taken I know this sucks for those of us that work for a company that has been paying the full rate It is the way our short sighted government people set it up in the beginning
Even if the YRC companies had been paying the full rate since 2008, the Pension fund would not be funded enough. Like dawg said. Short sighted government, along with Wall Street having management of the fund since the 80’s. Many on the 25-30 and out at any age, plus people living longer, along with less and less paying into the fund for last 20 years....
Last edited:
I don't understand how pension cuts are frozen has anything to do with government regulation. Please enlighten me if anyone knows.
Also, YRC may have no intention of contributing more to the pension but isn't that what unions negotiations are about?
Green$dawg
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 364
The government is in control of central states When multiemployer pension funds were set up the goverment/ IRS set up the rules and regulations The prnsion fund is structured like many government programs This means just pay it forward When the time comes to collect your money the members working will pay your pension The government took over central states when consent decree was signed in the eighties not sure exact date with out looking The IRS appoints the people to oversee and run the fund As for the union negotiating a increase in contributions They have pretty much said since 2007 that YRC can do as they please The union was wrong to let YRC slide in the first place Their argument that yhe pension fund would collapse without YRC contributions doesn't really hold water While remaining companies would have to restructure and change the rules it would be in better shape than it is now Change happens all the time usually we all survive There is no way anyone or company could possibly make up the amount the Teamsters have let slide with YRC Like I said earlier you never get back what you give up
This is only my own opinion, but in 2019 I would be much more inclined to vote yes for a pay increase than an increase to a pension that will be out of money by the time I retire or shortly thereafter! I am hoping for some sort of a 401k contribution which would actually be there in ten or fifteen years!
Green$dawg
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 364
In 41 years
Green$dawg
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 364
[QUOTE="Green$dawg, Sorry hit reply early I have never believed that a person should vote for the next contract But vote for what's best for the next generation So if you believe that there will be a workable solution for you and your generation I would encourage you to follow that path We are from a different generation I'm ready to retire you have a way's to go I wish you the best Educate and protect your self No one is watching your back but you
I disagree with the statement that if yrc had been paying full that the fund would still be solvent in 2025. Proper question is, how much, ( in billions) have not been contributed? Plus gains, losses. None of us can do that math. I think a lawsuit in order. The fraction vs thrm going under threat blows!
Seriously up for discussion?
FYI, reality check on the state of pensions in general...
"For the past century, a public pension was an ironclad promise. Whatever else happened, retired policemen and firefighters and teachers would be paid.
That is no longer the case.
Many cities and states can no longer afford the unsustainable retirement promises made to millions of public workers over many years. By one estimate they are short $5 trillion, an amount that is roughly equal to the output of the world’s third-largest economy."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pe...ates-is-the-size-of-japans-economy-1532972501
"For the past century, a public pension was an ironclad promise. Whatever else happened, retired policemen and firefighters and teachers would be paid.
That is no longer the case.
Many cities and states can no longer afford the unsustainable retirement promises made to millions of public workers over many years. By one estimate they are short $5 trillion, an amount that is roughly equal to the output of the world’s third-largest economy."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pe...ates-is-the-size-of-japans-economy-1532972501
FYI it was never iron clad, if it was we wouldn't be in the dilemma we are. Let's look all the way back to borrowing of social security, falls along same avenues compounded by deregulation and right wing silver spoons.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
Don't forget that the Wall Street Journal has an axe to grind about defined-benefit pensions. It was on their editorial pages that they stated that "Unions had no right to do Social Engineering with stocks that they OWNED.
That is a stunning statement for any publication purported to be the voice of Free Markets and Lazzeiz-Faire Capitalism.
They've never retracted or apologized for that editorial.......which leads one to the conclusion that they think "Free Markets" only apply to bankers,.......the rest of us are either too stupid or unbalanced to properly manage our own money/stock/bonds....
Sorry about the Gol-Darned Caps........Once I turned them on to make my point,..I couldn't turn them off.....
Where's that hammer?..........
A couple of quick points, (1) the wall street journal is just a newspaper and doesn't speak for most businesses. They sort of (in a slanted, entertaining and biased way) report the unusual and out of the ordinary items. (2) Free markets and lazzeiz-faire capitalism never existed. Government has regulations regarding business for thousands (worldwide) of years. The Boston Tea Party is an example for America but European governments have regulated businesses since before the Roman empire existed.