It is not a matter of what I would prefer, it is equal across the board, that I want to hear. No exceptions for UPS and over 80. What exactly did the ORPHANS do to the fund, that is so terrible we need to be shot and run over by an 18 wheeler? If you are going to say, the others are paying into our pension, I do not think so, they may be paying into the PBGC insurance fund, which they do not want to do. Then charge us the insurance cost, matter of fact let all retirees pay this cost and have no exceptions, ever. This is not about the ORPHANS verses other retirees, it is about bailing out the PBGC and the mismanagement of the funds. Not by the Teamsters, but by the board members and financial planners. This is about making the first step, to wipe out the retirement funds of all Americans, because we are united and have some money to make waves. This is also about you, so start writing those letters. It is just me ESP
Yellow | I got a phone call from Tyson Johnson
- Thread starter electraglideatl
- Start date
- Credits
- 257
"Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind."
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 612
You make some very good points ESP! Central States has been under a Rehabilitation Plan since the PPA of 2006 went into effect. Yet the fund keeps giving the employers breaks (not demanding the 8% increase in contributions each year, allowing reduced contributions, etc), while demanding more cuts from the active employees, and now with the help of Congress, getting the opportunity to stick it to the retirees. Also ask Brother Muler where the $1.00 an hour August 1 fringe benefit increase under the NMFA and ABF NMFA has gone since 2010? Central States trustees froze the max contribution rate for pension at $342.00 a week, so where is the rest of $1.00 an hour contribution rate going to after Central States H&W takes it's cut? And you wonder why there is a cry for "transparency" at the IBT and Central States?
I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade here or sound too negative but......a 17 to 20 percent cut for the Orphans is just something I don't see. First off I am a orphan, and a 17 to 20 percent is a lot less of a cut than what I expect. I am planning on a cut closer to 60 percent. When I retired my employer was still paying into the fund. After reading what Tyson Johnson said my immediate reaction was believe it or not or not a bit of relief. I then reread the actual bill or document which can be found on the TDU website. Take a look at it. Specifically starting on page 81. That part of the document specifically addresses the Central States Plan without mentioning it by name. I'll paraphrase a bit here but it clearly states that benefit suspensions (cuts) will FIRST be applied to the "maximum extent permissible" for what amounts to the Orphans or those who's employers left without paying their withdrawal obligation. Maximum cut per this bill is 110 percent of the PBGC insured amount. The maximum PBGC amount equals $429.00 for each year of credit to an annual max of $12870.00 for 30 years. SECOND in line is everybody else except for the UPS retirees who are THIRD and again not mentioned by name. So the way I read this I am screwed. YRC and ABF retirees will in my opinion not be cut as much, maybe not at all but I really doubt that. Boston College did a study of CSPF it was published last fall under and is available on line. Just google "Boston College Spread the Pain". Looks to me after reading that study that everybody will be taking take some degree of a cut. Some more than others. Sorry....for the bad take here but that's my read. Once again, it looks like me and a lot of those like me are just plain screwed. Best of luck to all YRC and ABF retirees. Hope for the best and plan for the worst.
To single out the Brothers and Sisters of the now closed companies would just be the first step to divide us. Because if this criminal act against one sector of our union is allowed to go unpunished then the rest of us are sure to be punished on down the road in our pension benefits. I must admit I have not did my home work on the new pension laws that have recently been changed due to health issues work related.
But if I am not mistaken (and Freightmaster can help me here) we will ALL VOTE on any reductions to the benefits. If this is the case BEWARE!
If you screw the ORPHANS TODAY they will be voting on your cuts soon there after. And if the majority of Brothers and Sisters are already retired and think they can vote just to cut the pensions of those still working BEWARE!
So you see Brothers and Sisters we must get all the facts and decide what will work for us not those GREEDY BASTARDS that allowed our funds to get in this condition.
This will be the most important votes to how we live after working our whole lives. So lets not screw a Brother or Sister because it will soon come to roost at our own door steps.
Let's act on facts not fear. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
But if I am not mistaken (and Freightmaster can help me here) we will ALL VOTE on any reductions to the benefits. If this is the case BEWARE!
If you screw the ORPHANS TODAY they will be voting on your cuts soon there after. And if the majority of Brothers and Sisters are already retired and think they can vote just to cut the pensions of those still working BEWARE!
So you see Brothers and Sisters we must get all the facts and decide what will work for us not those GREEDY BASTARDS that allowed our funds to get in this condition.
This will be the most important votes to how we live after working our whole lives. So lets not screw a Brother or Sister because it will soon come to roost at our own door steps.
Let's act on facts not fear. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
One example is to look at what CSPF settled with con way. They excepted pennies on the dollar for all the hundreds of millions that would have been owed the fund because of the way they did CF.
Con-way, Teamsters fund settle withdrawal liability
By Barry B. Burr | January 5, 2009 3:55 pm | Updated 4:56 pm
Con-way Inc. and the $26.8 billon Teamsters Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund settled a dispute over an alleged $662 million in withdrawal liability from Consolidated Freightways Corp., a Con-way subsidiary spun off to stockholders in 1996, according to an SEC filing Dec. 31 by the San Mateo, Calif.-based company.
In the settlement, Con-way agreed to pay $8 million to the pension fund and assign any future proceeds from the Consolidated Freightways bankruptcy. In 2002, Consolidated Freightways filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Con-way filed claims totaling $35.8 million, said Gary Frantz, Con-way director of communications.
As you can see they owed 662 million and the fund settled for 8 million. Now I ask is it the fault of the Brothers and Sisters that worked at CF or is it the fault of the heads of our CSPF? YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
http://www.pionline.com/article/200...ay-teamsters-fund-settle-withdrawal-liability
Con-way, Teamsters fund settle withdrawal liability
By Barry B. Burr | January 5, 2009 3:55 pm | Updated 4:56 pm
Con-way Inc. and the $26.8 billon Teamsters Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund settled a dispute over an alleged $662 million in withdrawal liability from Consolidated Freightways Corp., a Con-way subsidiary spun off to stockholders in 1996, according to an SEC filing Dec. 31 by the San Mateo, Calif.-based company.
In the settlement, Con-way agreed to pay $8 million to the pension fund and assign any future proceeds from the Consolidated Freightways bankruptcy. In 2002, Consolidated Freightways filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Con-way filed claims totaling $35.8 million, said Gary Frantz, Con-way director of communications.
As you can see they owed 662 million and the fund settled for 8 million. Now I ask is it the fault of the Brothers and Sisters that worked at CF or is it the fault of the heads of our CSPF? YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
http://www.pionline.com/article/200...ay-teamsters-fund-settle-withdrawal-liability
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 612
This might help answer your question Brother Muler (from the TDU Pension F.A.Q. story)...
Will Teamsters and retirees get a vote prior to any cuts?
A ‘fact sheet’ issued by the bills sponsors claims that workers and retirees will get a vote before cuts could be made. But this is no fair vote.
First, those in Central States can have their vote overruled, because it is a large fund and its failure could seriously impact the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
To add insult to injury: a majority of all participants – not just voters – would be required for a No result.
Who gets to vote?
It is our understanding that all participants would get to vote: retirees and working Teamsters. Even if the vote can be overruled – as explained above – it can be a very important tool for us to organize and unite Teamsters and retirees, and we plan to use it.
This is how they want us to think. We have to become more informed as to what our rights are. And we had better do it damn fast. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
Last edited:
We as Teamsters have screwed each other for decades unfortunately. There was a time when all Teamsters on a job got the same rate of pay (in each classification) starting on day 1. Then along came the multi-tiered pay schedule which all the older guys accepted since it didn't affect them. Same thing with casuals, different rate all together for them. Casuals used to get the same rate as seniority guys. Some guys used to work their whole careers as casuals just because they didn't want to be tied down to one job. We gave up a lot over the years just because it didn't affect us, just the "other" guy.
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 612
You're right on the mark Brother Muler! CSPF didn't fight Con-way hard enough and THEY let CF/Con-way off the hook for that $662 million in withdrawal liability! Now CSPF should not be able to reclassify former CF retirees as orphans! It's good to see you back on the boards after your medical problems!
And look where it has gotten us. Back when we were all equal we stuck together. Now we run to the light like a moth. Sad but true. I for one have had enough. I came into this thing as a unified TEAMSTER and damn it I will go out as one. YOUR PISSED OFF BROTHER ALWAYS!
Front page MSN news today!
When President Obama signed the omnibus budget and spending bill in December 2014, he also signed into law sweeping changes, through the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, to private sector multiemployer plans. (The pension-reform measure was folded into the larger omnibus bill.) The most controversial proposal in the pension act allows deeply troubled multiemployer plans to suspend—read “cut”—benefit payments to retirees and accrued benefits for participants.
We are sympathetic to the notion that multiemployer plans headed for insolvency need an additional tool, but are deeply concerned about whether the current proposal is ready for prime time. We are particularly concerned that the regulatory agencies—the Treasury Department, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the Department of Labor (DOL)—do not have the individual plan data to analyze the impact of benefit cuts on the long-term financial health of the plan.
Multiemployer defined benefit plans, which are created by bargaining agreements between a labor union and two or more employers, cover about 10 million unionized participants. These plans expanded benefits during the stock market boom in the 1990s and then lost substantial assets in the wake of two financial crises after the turn of the century. In addition, many plans are in industries—such as construction—hurt by the prolonged recession, or in others such as trucking that face a shrinking pool of unionized workers.
The great majority of multiemployer plans have responded to the financial pressures by cutting future benefits for active workers and raising employer contribution rates, allowing them to navigate to relatively secure footing. A significant number of plans, however, could run out of money in the next 20 years. The PBGC, which guarantees pension benefits for insolvent plans, does not have the resources to solve the problem.
The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 creates a new plan status known as “critical and declining status” for plans likely to become insolvent in the next 15 to 20 years. Plans in this status can apply to the Treasury to suspend benefits for retirees and reduce accrued benefits for active workers. The sponsor must show that it has taken all reasonable measures to forestall insolvency and that the proposed benefit suspension will ensure solvency. A participant’s benefit cannot be reduced below 110% of the PBGC guarantee. Limitations to benefit reductions are provided for those 75 and older, and those 80 and older are exempt from reductions. Suspensions must first be allocated to a participant’s service for an employer that withdrew from the plan without paying its full withdrawal liability.
Procedurally, the plan sponsor applies to the Treasury for the right to suspend benefits, simultaneously notifying participants, beneficiaries, contributing employers, and the respective union representatives. If the Treasury approves, the suspension is subject to a vote of all participants and union representatives within 30 days. If the suspension is rejected, the Treasury, in consultation with the PBGC and the DOL, must decide if the plan is “systemically important”—that is, whether it would increase PBGC’s projected liabilities by more than $1 billion. If so, the Treasury, again in consultation with the PBGC and the DOL, can override the negative vote.
We analyzed the impact of such a proposal for the Central States Teamsters plan, the plan for which the proposal was originally designed. Our analysis suggests that, using widely accepted preference parameters, overall welfare would be higher in a world where the accrued benefits of all participants were reduced to return the plan to solvency. However, these calculations highlight the sensitivity of the outcome to assumptions and shows that while achieving solvency, the plan would be operating at an extremely low level of funding.
The possibility of cutting accrued benefits violates the central anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and could set a dangerous precedent. So its applicability needs to be carefully circumscribed. Most important, the Treasury, the PBGC, and the DOL should have access to the detailed plan data underlying the actuarial plan reports, and perform stochastic modeling of returns to assure that the painful remedy would actually result in solvency. In short, while we agree that multiemployer plans need an additional tool to survive, we worry whether the current proposal is really ready for prime time.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/new-law-allows-cuts-in-multiemployer-pensions/ar-AA7SB6M
When President Obama signed the omnibus budget and spending bill in December 2014, he also signed into law sweeping changes, through the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, to private sector multiemployer plans. (The pension-reform measure was folded into the larger omnibus bill.) The most controversial proposal in the pension act allows deeply troubled multiemployer plans to suspend—read “cut”—benefit payments to retirees and accrued benefits for participants.
We are sympathetic to the notion that multiemployer plans headed for insolvency need an additional tool, but are deeply concerned about whether the current proposal is ready for prime time. We are particularly concerned that the regulatory agencies—the Treasury Department, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the Department of Labor (DOL)—do not have the individual plan data to analyze the impact of benefit cuts on the long-term financial health of the plan.
Multiemployer defined benefit plans, which are created by bargaining agreements between a labor union and two or more employers, cover about 10 million unionized participants. These plans expanded benefits during the stock market boom in the 1990s and then lost substantial assets in the wake of two financial crises after the turn of the century. In addition, many plans are in industries—such as construction—hurt by the prolonged recession, or in others such as trucking that face a shrinking pool of unionized workers.
The great majority of multiemployer plans have responded to the financial pressures by cutting future benefits for active workers and raising employer contribution rates, allowing them to navigate to relatively secure footing. A significant number of plans, however, could run out of money in the next 20 years. The PBGC, which guarantees pension benefits for insolvent plans, does not have the resources to solve the problem.
The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 creates a new plan status known as “critical and declining status” for plans likely to become insolvent in the next 15 to 20 years. Plans in this status can apply to the Treasury to suspend benefits for retirees and reduce accrued benefits for active workers. The sponsor must show that it has taken all reasonable measures to forestall insolvency and that the proposed benefit suspension will ensure solvency. A participant’s benefit cannot be reduced below 110% of the PBGC guarantee. Limitations to benefit reductions are provided for those 75 and older, and those 80 and older are exempt from reductions. Suspensions must first be allocated to a participant’s service for an employer that withdrew from the plan without paying its full withdrawal liability.
Procedurally, the plan sponsor applies to the Treasury for the right to suspend benefits, simultaneously notifying participants, beneficiaries, contributing employers, and the respective union representatives. If the Treasury approves, the suspension is subject to a vote of all participants and union representatives within 30 days. If the suspension is rejected, the Treasury, in consultation with the PBGC and the DOL, must decide if the plan is “systemically important”—that is, whether it would increase PBGC’s projected liabilities by more than $1 billion. If so, the Treasury, again in consultation with the PBGC and the DOL, can override the negative vote.
We analyzed the impact of such a proposal for the Central States Teamsters plan, the plan for which the proposal was originally designed. Our analysis suggests that, using widely accepted preference parameters, overall welfare would be higher in a world where the accrued benefits of all participants were reduced to return the plan to solvency. However, these calculations highlight the sensitivity of the outcome to assumptions and shows that while achieving solvency, the plan would be operating at an extremely low level of funding.
The possibility of cutting accrued benefits violates the central anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and could set a dangerous precedent. So its applicability needs to be carefully circumscribed. Most important, the Treasury, the PBGC, and the DOL should have access to the detailed plan data underlying the actuarial plan reports, and perform stochastic modeling of returns to assure that the painful remedy would actually result in solvency. In short, while we agree that multiemployer plans need an additional tool to survive, we worry whether the current proposal is really ready for prime time.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/new-law-allows-cuts-in-multiemployer-pensions/ar-AA7SB6M
Seeing is believing!
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 612
That's why the fund trotted out Al Nelson and others to the Locals a few months back and told people that they needed at 30% "across the board" cut, and the fund would be OK for the long term. Once that word got out, they then dropped it to 17% (according to rumor from Tyson Johnson), and everybody says "that's better than 30%!" maybe 17% isn't so bad?! WTF! Let's keep the heat on Congress, the IBT, Central States, Local officials, etc...We don't want our benefits cut unfairly, without a lot of input from actives and retirees!
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 612
Brother Muler, our Local leaders are waiting for marching orders from the IBT and Hoffa. Maybe IBT VP and "Pension Committee Chairman" John Murphy is coming out with a big campaign to help us out?!
Maybe they could find all of us "orphans" foster homes.Brother Muler, our Local leaders are waiting for marching orders from the IBT and Hoffa. Maybe IBT VP and "Pension Committee Chairman" John Murphy is coming out with a big campaign to help us out?!
Funny he is in charge and we would not know him if he came to our front doors. So I will put it in a way that a truck driver can understand. Every animal that can harm you is unseen until just before it harms you. So I don't expect to ever see this Murphy guy until he harms us. After all he stays hidden in the shadows now. YOUR BROTHER WITH HIS HEAD ON A SWIVEL ALWAYS!Brother Muler, our Local leaders are waiting for marching orders from the IBT and Hoffa. Maybe IBT VP and "Pension Committee Chairman" John Murphy is coming out with a big campaign to help us out?!
Anyone noticed that Central Transport Sterling Heights Mi. closed in 1983.Could this be a partial list of "orphans"? See below...
LTL Bankruptcy List 1980 - 2004
LTL TRUCKING COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES & SHUTDOWNS
1980s
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS YEAR CEASED OPERATION NOTES
Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight Inc. St.Paul MN early 1980s only LTL operations closed
American Freight System Overland Park KS 1988 _
Bender & Loudon Motor Freight Akron OH 1989 _
Blue Line Express Nashua NH 1989 _
Boss-Linco Lines Inc. Buffalo NY 1982 _
Branch Motor Express New York, NY 1984 _
Brigg’s Transportation St. Paul MN 1984 _
Brown Express Inc San Antonio, TX 1988 subsidiary of U.S. Truck Lines
Campbell’s 66 Express Inc Springfield MO 1986 _
Central Transport Sterling Heights MI 1983 _
Central Truck Lines Inc. Tampa, FL 1989 subsidiary of U.S. Truck Line since 1965
Chippewa Motor Freight Inc. Eau Claire WI 1980 _
Clairmont Transfer Co. Escanaba MI 1985 _
Cleveland, Columbus, & Cincinnati Highway Inc. Cleveland OH 1988 subsidiary of U.S. Truck Lines
Commercial-Lovelace Motor Frieght Columbus OH 1985 _
Cooper-Jarrett Motor Freight Lines Inc. Orange NJ 1981 _
C.W. Transport Inc. Wisconsin Rapids WI 1988 _
Davidson Transfer & Storage Co. Baltimore, MD 1983 _
Eazor Express Pittsburgh PA 1983 _
Gateway Transportation La Crosse 1983 subsidiary of Maislin Brothers
Glendenning Motorways Inc. St. Paul MN 1983 _
Gordon’s Transports Inc Memphis TN 1983 _
Gross Common Carriers ?? late 1980s _
Hall’s Motor Transit Co. Harrisburg PA 1986 _
Hannibal-Quincy Truck Lines Inc. Quincy IL 1983 only LTL operations closed
Hemingway Transportation New Bedford MA 1982 _
Holmes Route USA Framingham MA? 1989 _
Horn’s Motor Express Inc. Chambersburg PA 1989 _
Illinois-California Express (ICX) Denver CO 1984 _
IML Freight Inc Salt Lake City,UT 1984 _
Intercity Transportation Easton MA 1980 _
Interstate Motor Freight System Grand Rapids, MI 1984 _
Johnson Motor Lines Charlotte NC 1980 _
Jones Motor Co Inc Spring City PA 1981 only LTL operations closed
Lee Way Motor Freight Inc. Oklahoma City OK 1985 _
Maislin Brothers Transport Ltd. La Salle, Que,CAN 1983 _
Mason & Dixon Lines Inc Kingsport TN 1984 _
McLean Trucking Co. Winston-Salem NC 1986 subsidiary of Meridian Express
Milne Truck Lines Inc Salt Lake City UT 1987 subsidiary of Sun Carriers Inc.
Motor Freight Express System York PA 1982 _
Murphy Motor Freight Lines Inc. St. Paul MN 1987 _
Mushroom Transportation Philadelphia PA 1986 _
Oneida Motor Freight Inc. Carlstadt NJ 1985 _
Pilot Freight Carriers Inc. Winston-Salem NC 1989 _
Quinn Freight Lines Brocton MA 1983 subsidiary of Maislin Brothers
Richmond Cartage Inc. ? 1983 subsidiary of Maislin Brothers
Rimes Trucking Co. Chardon OH early80s _
Ringsby Truck Lines Inc. Denver CO 1984 _
Smith’s Transfer Corp. Staunton VA 1988 purchased 1987 by American Freight System
Spector-Red Ball Dallas TX 1982 _
Sterling Transit Company Inc. Montebello CA 1989 _
Suburban Motor Freight Inc. Columbus OH 1987 _
System 99 Oakland CA 1987 _
Taynton’s Freight System Inc. Wellsboro PA 1985 _
T.I.M.E.-D.C. Inc. Lubbock TX 1988 _
Tose-Fowler Inc. Bridgeport PA 1989 _
Transport Motor Express Inc. Ft. Wayne IN 1980 _
Tucker Freight Lines South Bend IN 1983 _
Wilson Freight Co. Cincinnati OH 1980 _
LTL TRUCKING COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES & SHUTDOWNS
1990s
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS YEAR CEASED OPERATION NOTES
AAA Trenton NJ 1990 _
Allegheny Freight Lines Winchester VA 1990 _
ANR Advance Transportation Co. Milwaukee WI? 1998 _
Arrow Carrier Corp North Bergen NJ 1990 _
Atlanta Motor Lines Conley GA 1997 _
Bee Line Motor Freight Co. Omaha NE 1996 _
Be-Mac Transport Co St. Louis MO 1992 subsidiary of U.S. Truck Lines
Birmingham Nashville Express _ 1996 only LTL operations closed
Bowman Transportation Gadsden AL/Atlanta GA 1990 _
Brown Transport Corp. Atlanta GA/Charlotte NC 1990 Thurston Motor Lines bought 1987
Central Storage & Transfer Co. Harrisburg PA 1991 _
Charlton Brothers Hagerstown MD 1996 _
Churchill Truck Lines Inc Chillicothe MO 1994 _
Coles Express Inc. Bangor ME 1997 shut down, subsidiary of Roadway
Commercial Motor Freight Inc. of IN Indianapolis IN 1983 _
Edson Express Casper WY/Denver CO 1991 _
Fore-Way Express Inc. Wausau WI 1996 _
Friiedman’s Express Wilkes-Barre PA 1993 _
Holmes Freight Lines Omaha NE 1998 _
Hover Trucking Co. South Bend IN 1996 _
Hyman Freightways Inc. St. Paul MN 1997 _
Ideal Truck Lines Norton KS 1996 _
Inter-City Truck Lines Mississauga, Ont,CAN 1993 _
Interlink Freight Systems Toronto, Ont,CAN 1997 ex CP Express & Transport
Jones Truck Lines Inc. Springdale,AR 1991 subsidiary of Sun Carriers Inc.
Merchants Fast Motor Lines Inc Abilene TX 1997 _
Middlewest Freightways Inc. St. Louis MO 1992 acquired by Be-Mac 1992
Motorways Ltd Toronto, Ont,CAN 1993 subsidiary of Federal Industries
Nationsway Transport Services Commerce City CO 1999 _
North Penn Transfer Lansdale PA 1992 _
Penn Yan Express Penn Yan NY 1990 subsidiary of Consolidated Freightways
P.I.E. Nationwide Inc Jacksonville FL 1990 subsidiary of Olympia Holding Co.
Preston Trucking Inc. Preston MD 1999 _
Spartan Express Inc. Greer SC 1997 shut down, subsidiary of Roadway
Standard Trucking Co. Charlotte NC 1993 subsidiary of Sun Carriers Inc
St. Johnsbury Trucking Co Inc. St. Johnsbury VT 1993 subsidiary of Sun Carriers Inc.
Transcon Lines Los Angeles CA 1990 subsidiary of Olympia Holding Co.
Riss & Co. Inc Kansas City MO 1990 _
Willig Freight Lines San Francisco CA 1995 _
LTL TRUCKING COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES & SHUTDOWNS
2000s
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS YEAR CEASED OPERATION NOTES
A-P-A Transport Corp North Bergen NJ 2002 _
Alterman Transport Lines Opa Locka, FL 2003 _
Consolidated Freightways Corp. Vancouver WA 2002 _
Crescent Truck Lines Haywood CA 2003 _
Crouse Cartage Co. Carroll IA 2000 _
Guaranteed Overnite Delivery _ 2004 only LTL operations closed
H&W Motor Express Dubuque IA 2002 _
K&R Express Systems Blue Ridge IL 2004 _
Nussbaum Trucking Normal IL 2002 only LTL operations closed
Parker Motor Freight Grand Rapids MI 2004 _
Rudolf Express Bourbonais IL 2002 _
USF Red Star Newark NJ 2004 _
As I recall from my days as a member of Detroit Local 299 from 1974 until 1981, Central Transport was a strong Teamster company with ties to the Hoffa family. Almost over night, they shut down and reopened as a non-union carrier. So what becomes of those orphans of the CSPF?