Discussion in 'ABF Freight System' started by Triplex, Jun 1, 2015.
Please post all those links that you posted.
This fund sure took these clerks into it knowing that there was a day of reckoning coming.
Roadway Express Clerks Join Local 707
Docksteward, Mar 6, 2007
yrc forum page number 612.
Look at this from Freightmaster way back in 2007.
Brothers and sisters we're down to the 11th hour on the UPS attempt to destroy the Central States Pension Fund! Jim H. and Ken H. say it is a good deal, UPS execs say it is a good deal, and the analysts say it is a good deal....but what about our pension fund trustees? What about our UNION TRUSTEES?! Where is Fred G., Chuck W., Jerry Y., and George W.?! Where is the Executive Director of Central States, Tom N.?! Why the "dead silence" from the Fund?!
Freight members like me want to hear from our trustees what is going on with the fund! Not that we don't trust our IBT officials, or the UPS execs, but when push comes to shove in the next 5 to 10 years, and another "perfect storm" comes along and kills the stock market and the fund suffers again big time, we want to make sure that UPS kicked enough into the fund to protect ALL the active and retired participants of the Central States Pension Fund!
The media and the analysts sometimes like to make us think that Central States only consists of ABF, Roadway, USF Holland, Yellow, and UPS! In reality the Central States Pension Fund covers Teamster employees at approximately 2400 employers! Yes there are Central States participants in Airline, Bakery & Laundry, Brewery & Soft Drink, Building Materials & Construction Trade, Carhaul, Dairy, Food Processing, Freight, Graphic Communications, Industrial Trades, Motion Picture & Theatrical, Newspaper, Magazine & Electronic Media, Parcel & Small Package, Port, Public Services, Rail, Solid Waste, Tankhaul, Trade Show & Convention Center, and Warehouse! 2400 EMPLOYERS WHO PROVIDE THEIR 143,631 ACTIVE AND 212,021 RETIRED EMPLOYEES WITH PENSIONS THROUGH THE CENTRAL STATES PENSION FUND!
I WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR TRUSTEES THAT MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS ARE A GOOD THING AND THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 355,652 PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR 2400 EMPLOYERS TO LET OUR BIGGEST AND STRONGEST EMPLOYER TO PULL OUT OF OUR PENSION FUND AND PUT THE REMAINING ACTIVE AND RETIRED MEMBERS LEFT IN THE FUND AT RISK!
Let's keep the heat on Central States to give us the real story! Let's draw the line in the sand with our pension fund, and let ALL the employers who would like to destroy it know that we WILL NOT LET IT HAPPEN!
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE PARCEL & SMALL PACKAGE DIVISION VS. THE FREIGHT DIVISION...IT'S ABOUT ALL 20 TEAMSTER DIVISIONS VS. OUR GREEDY EMPLOYERS!
/////STAY UNITED AND FIGHT THE POWER////:USA:
Freightmaster1, Sep 30, 2007 Report
#1 Like Reply
.yrc page # 586
Post away! You evidently are OBSESSED. You seem to have way too much time on your hands. You really do flatter me. You think that my opinions swayed other Teamsters to vote yes? Even I'm not that narcissistic!
What part of the second paragraph don't you understand? You don't seem to be able to accept that a 4.59 retiree to 1 working Teamster, regardless of how much employers contribute, is unsustainable.
What you don't seem to understand is I was talking about when the funds were started. 4 to 1 now would mean nothing to us if the funds had held the exiting companies to their LIABILITIES!
You keep harping on the 4to1 I know what a 4to1 is. And if you really want to get technical most of the 4to1 is survivors getting partial benefits.
So can you understand that the fund would not be in any danger if the exiting companies had paid in FULL what the owed the funds?
That was my point. But all you wanted to do was start trouble. I have never seen anything you have ever posted the benefited us here on the abf forum.
I guess all that money that the funds let ccx get out of paying did not hurt the funds any now did it? That was my point from the beginning and if you can't understand that by now then you are to slow to retain it.
To much time on my hands. You have 4.406 post and counting to my 1,911. I would say it is you who has ay to much time on your hands over here trying to start trouble all the time. I see you did not even start posting until the yes vote period.
Could be a company friendly type on here doing their bidding just saying. But hey it was probably just another of a long list of bad things that I have heard about you. So now are you ready to vote yes on pension cuts? I bet you are. YESBAG sort of has a ring to it.If only you could vote in all the funds voting.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THE FUND MANAGERS HAVE GIVEN RELIEF TO THE EXITING COMPANIES AND THAT HAS DAMAGED OUR FUNDS. GET IT?
Calm down, there is no need to yell. I'll reiterate, the ratio has everything to do with the collapse of the funds. Why do you dwell upon a subject that cannot be resolved? Did CF pay a withdrawal penalty? How about Smith or Jones or Transcon or PIE? Did you fail basic arithmetic? Whether you acknowledge it or not the ratio IS the reason.
Why don't you offer up a viable solution ?
Why isn't Western States Fund in bad shape then, have they organized more members than they lost?
This a very informative article.
central states had to take on multiple broken funds. That is why central states covers so much of the country now. Western states has yet had to take on bad influences
UPS dropped a big bag of cash on them just as the financial crisis was building up steam, they invested the money into a falling market rather than sitting on the cash, cash was king at the time, I don't know who was managing their money but they did'em dirty. That big chunk of cash probably took a 50% haircut in less than a year.
There is not just one reason for the shape things are in it's a multiple of reasons. It seems like everything that could go wrong did and anything that could have gone right did not.
I wonder how much of the six billion dollars actually disappeared into the,"falling market".
Correct on both premises. Legislation is the best alternative to real hardship on current retirees. I'm just not very optimistic that will occur. So the question becomes, what is the least that can be cut; that will allow the funds to be viable?
I see that you talk in half truths when attempting to persuade others to accept your point of view to be sound.But for the so called half truth propaganda scheme to be successful, one has to deliberately omit the parts that would show their reasoning to be unsound to have any chance at all to succeed or it would contradict their own argument. I will kindly ask you to answer the rest in the series of questions since you neglected to ask. Did YRC not pay any pension contributions at all for two years? Did YRC not only contribute 25% thereafter? How much does YRC still owe the pension fund? Those questions are also relevant whether you acknowledge it or not.
Now lets presume that the shoe was on the other foot, lets say abf teamsters were the ones that selfishly voted to accept an agreement that greatly affected an already troubled pension fund knowing there were many others also in that plan not just themselves. You even acknowledge the fund was in already in trouble by bringing up CF, Smith, Jones, Transcon and PIE. Or is that your argument, everyone else has done it so why cant we? What do you think the main topic over on the yrc forum would be? One can only guess what the yrc teamsters reaction to the shoe being on the other foot would of been and what that answer to the question I have just asked but I could take an educated guess and say that the reaction would be unfavorable seeing how there is already a thread titled "This affecting YRC in any way?".
Why cant you understand that a viable solution wasnt what they were looking for? Do you really think that the government cares about the workers pensions getting cut? Do you really think that the bankers and wall street care about the workers pensions getting cut? Do you really think that the pension fund managers care about the workers pensions? Do you really think that the IBT representatives in Washington care about the workers pensions getting cut? Maybe you even think that the companies care.
For your information, there were alternatives to solutions not bailouts and the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. But its understandable that you would have no knowledge of them because of your half truth ideology prevents you from truly seeking the truth, just a means to deceive others to accept your point of view. Unlike yourself, I will prove the statement that I just made, here is one alternative by the Bank of New York Mellon.
If yous want to duke it out go ahead. Neither is going to enlighten the other but keep it civil. Those who don't will be banned from posting in the thread. 1st and only notice.
Why did you deem it necessary to give a warning or are you saying that it is now frowned upon to debate on this forum?
Maybe because he is in charge. I like his statement. Keep it civil or goodbye. I really liked the part that said 1st & only warning. Warms my heart. And for what it is worth, this back & forth insults or uncivil like conversation that has increased on this board & others is a web site killer. A perfect example is the old trucknet.com board. It was the constant bickering & lack of balls by someone to remove the ability to bicker. that will kill a web site forum. Regardless of my position on many subjects talked about on this board, which most of you know, it doesn't take but a click of the mouse to find my entertainment somewhere else. von.
I will ask you the question then since you felt the need to harp right in. Why do you feel he deemed it necessary now that the responses were getting mild compared to the previous 6 turbulent pages? Was it "because he can" like you proudly just stated? Have you grown so accustomed to being treated as a child by our leadership that you just automatically bow and comply to anyone that carries the slightest bit of authority? Members like you are part of the problem why our leadership is out of control. I, like you will click the mouse to find my entertainment somewhere else but unlike you, will first confront those I disagree with, no matter what position they hold. I will not just bow down and comply when ordered to.
Separate names with a comma.