ABF | Is ABF ready to buy???

No, I don't have any facts to back that up. Do you have have any facts to back up that companies like ABF don't pay more than their fair share? .

Yes just look at the monthly report that your shop steward posts showing how much ABF has contributed to your pension fund. You are supposed to be a Teamster, you should know that ABF pays $X.XX amount for every straight time hour that you work, nothing more.
 
Yes just look at the monthly report that your shop steward posts showing how much ABF has contributed to your pension fund. You are supposed to be a Teamster, you should know that ABF pays $X.XX amount for every straight time hour that you work, nothing more.

Yes, that's what was negotiated, but how do we know that's a fair amount. Does fairness only count for the unions and the working class?

How do we know that negotiated amount that ABF pays in wouldn't be lower if there were more union companies in the NMFA? We don't.
 
Stick with your BROTHERS be a true union man. Just think what the old timers did like my dad They did it just for us ,so we could have something.
 
yah I would agree... whatever the faults are of central states or of how much different companies are contributing... I think most would agree at this point that it's hurting and SOMEthing needs to be done to preserve the retirement of everyone in the system. UPS bought out of it knowing this. ABF wants to and I'm sure if YRC had the cash they would be wanting to also... if YRC fails, ABF won't fail... central states will, but sooner than it would have before, in my opinion. The ONLY reason I even mentioned anything about this is there are many saying if YRC fails ABF will fail because they have to pick up the slack in central states... which isn't true.

dr
 
Get your own 401! I've got my own. Ask the con's about their 401! Just maybe conway, fedx, etc. will get more members.If we don't down the union and talk it up,or we'll be paying for ins. and recieve lesser pay,less VAC. etc. Being in the UNION is why we have what we have.Also, working hard and keeping the customers happy.
 
No, I don't have any facts to back that up. Do you have have any facts to back up that companies like ABF don't pay more than their fair share? Its all how we like to look at this in our own particular view. You don't think they more than their fair share. I think they do.

But regardless, these pension companies are in the same boat as S.S.I. in my opinion. they will paying our more than whats coming in. Maybe not every pension fund is in trouble right now. But as we all know, central isn't doing so good. And I think more will follow if we stay with the status qro.

Yes just look at the monthly report that your shop steward posts showing how much ABF has contributed to your pension fund. You are supposed to be a Teamster, you should know that ABF pays $X.XX amount for every straight time hour that you work, nothing more.

There it is. Thank you 2631. You posted bullshit Stoney and got called on it. Now it is your "opinion?" Why doesn't this surprise me.

Let's put your "usual" aside and continue on. My argument was the companies saying they had to pay for the "orphans." That is not a true statement. They are only required to sustain those that they employ. The trustees keep the fund going for retirees through investments. The companies are making it sound like the entire burden is on them...It is not.
 
There it is. Thank you 2631. You posted bullshit Stoney and got called on it. Now it is your "opinion?" Why doesn't this surprise me.

Let's put your "usual" aside and continue on. My argument was the companies saying they had to pay for the "orphans." That is not a true statement. They are only required to sustain those that they employ. The trustees keep the fund going for retirees through investments. The companies are making it sound like the entire burden is on them...It is not.

Uh, ok? I replied that the negotiated amount may be larger contribution than it would have been if there were more union companies paying in. I also said its how we may perceive what it is fair. You guys think the current amount is fair. I don't.
 
Its that hard. When the unions went to ABF, Yellow, and Roadway to up there payments to fund this Multi-employer-funded pension plan after CF, NW and other went out of business. And now with YRC in trouble, ABF is going to be left holding the bag. Which is why the Teamsters will have no choice but to let ABF out and negotiate their own contract like UPSF.

Its not that hard.

we share that burden by getting less of a raise during contract negotiations
if yrc folds abf will be the last one standing and they will have their own contract
i think the IBT would have let abf buy out of the fund IF abf would've paid the fee up front, they did not, so no deal
instead they wanted to pay it off over something like 10 years, again no deal and rightfully so

ups paid 4.6 billion up front and that is the reason why they were released
 
sci fi keep drinkin that green slime they've been dishin out and when you come to brooklyn i have a nice bridge i could sell you
 
Uh, ok? I replied that the negotiated amount may be larger contribution than it would have been if there were more union companies paying in. I also said its how we may perceive what it is fair. You guys think the current amount is fair. I don't.

We gave up raises{took a lower raise}so more would go into the pension but that is not enough for you,so how much do you think is Fair???So should the company or companies have paid more or did we ask for too much??I just do not get where you are coming from,seems you want the best of two worlds,union protection and the company to do what they want..Sooner or later you will have to make a choice and from what I have seen about you coming from a union family you will make the right choice....
 
We gave up raises{took a lower raise}so more would go into the pension but that is not enough for you,so how much do you think is Fair???So should the company or companies have paid more or did we ask for too much??I just do not get where you are coming from,seems you want the best of two worlds,union protection and the company to do what they want..Sooner or later you will have to make a choice and from what I have seen about you coming from a union family you will make the right choice....

Ya, I want the best of both worlds. I want a safe, profitable retirement program, not a busted one. Along with my union protection. Isn't that what we all want.

Right now the pension plan in my opinion is busted. Its in the same boat as SSI. SSI is the perhaps the worst program the government has ever come up with. Now our pension faces the same doom.
 
Ya, I want the best of both worlds. I want a safe, profitable retirement program, not a busted one. Along with my union protection. Isn't that what we all want.

Right now the pension plan in my opinion is busted. Its in the same boat as SSI. SSI is the perhaps the worst program the government has ever come up with. Now our pension faces the same doom.

We all want a nice retirement. There are many avenues in which to draw multiple streams of retirement income from. The pensions are not busted. The Western is alive and doing quite well. Some are having difficulty now but they are not busted. It will take some time and effort to stabilize the Central states but it can be done.

Now we are on the Social Security platform? It wasn't what you say it was. It is what it is now because of the looting that has been going on over the years. I gave you the facts and figures on this awhile ago on another thread.

If all politicians were forced to use Social Security as their only means of retirement it wouldn't have the short comings it has....Guaranteed! I would also be willing to bet that the health care system would be in different shape also.:Off-Topic:
 
We all want a nice retirement. There are many avenues in which to draw multiple streams of retirement income from. The pensions are not busted. The Western is alive and doing quite well. Some are having difficulty now but they are not busted. It will take some time and effort to stabilize the Central states but it can be done.

Now we are on the Social Security platform? It wasn't what you say it was. It is what it is now because of the looting that has been going on over the years. I gave you the facts and figures on this awhile ago on another thread.

If all politicians were forced to use Social Security as their only means of retirement it wouldn't have the short comings it has....Guaranteed! I would also be willing to bet that the health care system would be in different shape also.:Off-Topic:


I was comparing the two programs. And ya i know you think SSI is such a great moral program. I think it as theft from the government. That's all I'm going to say about that on this forum. You right there's another place for this discussion.
 
Well in this case it just happens that what will benefit ABF in the long run is also what would benefit the employees in the long run... so either way it works out...

please spare us the ::shit::
if you read the "deal" abf wanted you would see what i mean
the deal was abf paying what they thought was the withdrawal liability figure, roughly 640 mil and then pay it off over a long term plan roughly 10 yrs if not more
then replace the old pension & health plan with one of their own
the actual withdrawal liability would have been in reality somewhere in the 1 bill range
the pension plan would have been one of the 401k kind and we all now truly know how susceptible to a bad economy they can be in comparison to a plan like we currently have
our plans got hit hard but not as hard as 401ks did

furthermore the health plan without union representation would have opened the door really wide for you to contribute heavily to such coverage which you do not currently consequently any future raises would just go from your pocket to theirs

think about it for a second why employee contribution was not an issue in the recent contract negotiations
in fact it wasn't even broached upon
why you say
the reason is simply the company would not have total control over it and that is what they wish
having total control would be an ideal situation for them
notice i said for them

in a real way we have been contributing in the past by taking less of a raise each contract and diverting more of the contractual rate agreed upon to H&W so why does that not satisfy the company?
because again they wish to have total control

here's another bonus for them
since abf would administer the plans they would be entitled to administrative fees which more than likely be a windfall for them
also since they would be administering and setting rules for the fund they would entitle themselves to borrow from the fund at very attractive (cheap) interest rates for operating capital
sort of what you can currently do with a 401k that you may have individually
if you wanted to buy a car for example you could borrow the money from yourself and then pay it back to yourself over a long term low interest rate

just be cautioned with the prospect that if they controll it totally it may evolve more than likely into an employee only fund meaning they will no longer contribute on your behalf
refer to the conway situation

and in the worst case scenario what if abf borrows very large amounts of capital and then goes belly up and cannot pay it back
who gets stuck with the bill? simple answer YOU DO, WE DO:nutkick:

so when their rhetoric sounds too good to be true it usually is too good to be true

lets see
did you read the bear stearns analysis prospective on withdrawal from the fund?
well i ask you what do you think of a company (ABF) who relies on information provided by a company (BEAR STEARNS) who themselves cannot keep their own house in order!
bear stearns shortly after issuing this analysis prospective went belly up themselves, filing chapter 11:TR10driving03:
so if you really want to participate in a company controlled 401k then join the abf 401k currently in existence and then ask them to contribute a little something weekly or monthly on your behalf
when you ask that all you will hear is more than likely a prolonged silent pause
but i thought they really cared for you brother!!!!

i rest my case counselor:eck13:
 
please spare us the ::shit::
if you read the "deal" abf wanted you would see what i mean
the deal was abf paying what they thought was the withdrawal liability figure, roughly 640 mil and then pay it off over a long term plan roughly 10 yrs if not more
then replace the old pension & health plan with one of their own
the actual withdrawal liability would have been in reality somewhere in the 1 bill range
the pension plan would have been one of the 401k kind and we all now truly know how susceptible to a bad economy they can be in comparison to a plan like we currently have
our plans got hit hard but not as hard as 401ks did

furthermore the health plan without union representation would have opened the door really wide for you to contribute heavily to such coverage which you do not currently consequently any future raises would just go from your pocket to theirs

think about it for a second why employee contribution was not an issue in the recent contract negotiations
in fact it wasn't even broached upon
why you say
the reason is simply the company would not have total control over it and that is what they wish
having total control would be an ideal situation for them
notice i said for them

in a real way we have been contributing in the past by taking less of a raise each contract and diverting more of the contractual rate agreed upon to H&W so why does that not satisfy the company?
because again they wish to have total control

here's another bonus for them
since abf would administer the plans they would be entitled to administrative fees which more than likely be a windfall for them
also since they would be administering and setting rules for the fund they would entitle themselves to borrow from the fund at very attractive (cheap) interest rates for operating capital
sort of what you can currently do with a 401k that you may have individually
if you wanted to buy a car for example you could borrow the money from yourself and then pay it back to yourself over a long term low interest rate

just be cautioned with the prospect that if they controll it totally it may evolve more than likely into an employee only fund meaning they will no longer contribute on your behalf
refer to the conway situation

and in the worst case scenario what if abf borrows very large amounts of capital and then goes belly up and cannot pay it back
who gets stuck with the bill? simple answer YOU DO, WE DO:nutkick:

so when their rhetoric sounds too good to be true it usually is too good to be true

lets see
did you read the bear stearns analysis prospective on withdrawal from the fund?
well i ask you what do you think of a company (ABF) who relies on information provided by a company (BEAR STEARNS) who themselves cannot keep their own house in order!
bear stearns shortly after issuing this analysis prospective went belly up themselves, filing chapter 11:TR10driving03:
so if you really want to participate in a company controlled 401k then join the abf 401k currently in existence and then ask them to contribute a little something weekly or monthly on your behalf
when you ask that all you will hear is more than likely a prolonged silent pause
but i thought they really cared for you brother!!!!

i rest my case counselor:eck13:

:clap::clap:
 
Top