What's new

XPO | Interesting read.........

222lifer said:
Wow, and all this coming from a new (teamster) member to the site. All this time I thought this legislation was written to avoid any effect on the PBGC or the tax payers. Let the fund correct the problem through the market. What you also forgot to include was the nature of the bad investments you spoke of. Money on bad real estate loans wasn't it? Not so much the fund screwing you but the banks. The loans made to the mob saw a much better return on investment. Other funds are struggling and are recovering.
Click to expand...


38.5 yrs. a Teamsters to be exact, 3 different employers. I haven't been on this site in years due to the BS floating around but the pension issue got my blood boiling.

Your right, the legislation is designed to take the threat of insolvency away and not shift the burden on to PBGC. I didn't include real estate loans in my rant, but lets remember who controls where and when investments are made, the joint board of the fund. The board has the power to change banks if they choose, and the board has failed us in their fiduciary capacity miserably.

Other funds are recovering but Central States has had the most companies signatory to the fund go belly up or withdraw. In the early 90's I had a CS exec tell me she was attending an average of 3 closing meetings per month back then. They have been trying to play catch up by putting more investments in stock than is generally recommended over the last few years but that is akin to playing Russian roulette.
 
freight jockey said:
38.5 yrs. a Teamsters to be exact, 3 different employers. I haven't been on this site in years due to the BS floating around but the pension issue got my blood boiling.

Your right, the legislation is designed to take the threat of insolvency away and not shift the burden on to PBGC. I didn't include real estate loans in my rant, but lets remember who controls where and when investments are made, the joint board of the fund. The board has the power to change banks if they choose, and the board has failed us in their fiduciary capacity miserably.

Other funds are recovering but Central States has had the most companies signatory to the fund go belly up or withdraw. In the early 90's I had a CS exec tell me she was attending an average of 3 closing meetings per month back then. They have been trying to play catch up by putting more investments in stock than is generally recommended over the last few years but that is akin to playing Russian roulette.
Click to expand...
Do you know the terms on the notes I mentioned?
 
I don't have the exact figure on Central States top level 18 in front of me but it is within a few bucks of $300/ wk. We lost early out at any age at least 10 yrs. ago, 57 is the minimum now. That is unless you fall under the YRC penalty, then it is 65 without heavy penalties. They are allowing a few to grandfather out at 62 if they had 30 in before a certain date and met a minimum age requirement. YRC is only paying $75/ wk into pension for their companies.

CS C-6 H&W is close to $300/ wk. now also, and it is excellent insurance.
 
Last edited:
freight jockey said:
I don't have the exact figure on Central States top level 18 in front of me but it is within a few bucks of $300/ wk. We lost early out at any age at least 10 yrs. ago, 57 is the minimum now. That is unless you one of the YRC employees, then it is 65 without heavy penalties. They are allowing a few to grandfather out at 62 if they had 30 in before a certain date and met a minimum age requirement.
Click to expand...
I think that early out hurt the fund as much as anything. Seems to me that the hours worked and what was drawn formula was out of line also. I can remember one of the northeast funds took all future raises from a certain date and applied them to pension. All it took was a vote by the members. Smart cookies there.
 
What I could never figure out is why level 17b contribution rates were approx. 1/2 of level 18 rates but after 30 there was only $500/ mo. difference on payout, but that's why the pay the actuaries big bucks to figure that out. Level 18 included enhanced death benefits but they couldn't make that much difference I would think. It almost appeared the companies signed to level 18 were carrying the load.

I agree on the early out doing damage to the fund, on the other side of the coin though I worked with a guy that had 35 in, was only 53 yrs. of age and would have to wait to 65 to collect without getting wacked heavily under the YRC penalty.
 
freight jockey said:
What I could never figure out is why level 17b contribution rates were approx. 1/2 of level 18 rates but after 30 there was only $500/ mo. difference on payout, but that's why the pay the actuaries big bucks to figure that out. Level 18 included enhanced death benefits but they couldn't make that much difference I would think. It almost appeared the companies signed to level 18 were carrying the load.
Click to expand...
I know we can only draw what we contribute. 2080 hrs a year at a certain rate. Freight Teamster's were about $7 an hour. UPS package is upwards of $9.
 
freight jockey said:
What I could never figure out is why level 17b contribution rates were approx. 1/2 of level 18 rates but after 30 there was only $500/ mo. difference on payout, but that's why the pay the actuaries big bucks to figure that out. Level 18 included enhanced death benefits but they couldn't make that much difference I would think. It almost appeared the companies signed to level 18 were carrying the load.

I agree on the early out doing damage to the fund, on the other side of the coin though I worked with a guy that had 35 in, was only 53 yrs. of age and would have to wait to 65 to collect without getting wacked heavily under the YRC penalty.
Click to expand...
We operate off a PEER progam here. Age + years of service. We are on a PEER 80 in freight. There are 82 and 84 programs as well.
 
That would be a fairer way to administer the retirement benefits in my opinion, makes it impossible for a select few to fall through the cracks and come up short.
 
highspeeds said:
Every company has it's discount lanes. Every company has that one salesman that could sell an eskimo ice cubes.

More times than not, it's the cheapest price. Why do you think these low budget carriers never went under in the recession ?
Click to expand...
If you were to read studies on sales and customer preferences you would see that price generally is the 3rd or 4th criteria for choosing a carrier.
 
united1 said:
If you were to read studies on sales and customer preferences you would see that price generally is the 3rd or 4th criteria for choosing a carrier.
Click to expand...


Oh Gawd ! These sound like the Con-way propaganda " studies " ! Are those the studies you are referring to ?
 
Getoverit said:
Your not telling me that Con-Way would put out propaganda now are you??
Click to expand...


I didn't tell you anything. I spoke directly to United1.

Don't worry, being a brain washed union member, you know plenty well how people attempt to coerce others into thinking and doing as they wish.

Here they do little handouts and videos. It's all the same. Don't wreck and don't tear stuff up. You don't need a lean team to tell you that it costs money to replace damaged freight and equipment.
 
highspeeds said:
I didn't tell you anything. I spoke directly to United1.

Don't worry, being a brain washed union member, you know plenty well how people attempt to coerce others into thinking and doing as they wish.

Here they do little handouts and videos. It's all the same. Don't wreck and don't tear stuff up. You don't need a lean team to tell you that it costs money to replace damaged freight and equipment.
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of good come out of lean at our barn. Basically a lot of organizing. I think now is the time to back off of a group of guys walking around drinking coffee and not moving freight. Let one man stay at the barn one day a week and do the lean thing, and let the rest of the glean team move freight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top