you are not talking to the right guys . for every yrc lover you seem to know . i can point out 100 that would like to burn it all down.
living on the road i guess you dont get to see all them
Yellow | Local 707 Pension Fund
- Thread starter LEHIGH vALLEY
- Start date
living on the road i guess you dont get to see all them
LB, I've persevered as a road driver. Did what I had to do to finally achieve some measure of normalcy in my life.
I work to live these days. Only gone 28-30 hours. And have Friday nights and all day Saturday off.
And as you can see I am NO shrinking violet. I talk to anyone who wants to talk. Whether we agree or not. I know MANY dock and yard men. And I think the ratio you cited is off considerably.
I work to live these days. Only gone 28-30 hours. And have Friday nights and all day Saturday off.
And as you can see I am NO shrinking violet. I talk to anyone who wants to talk. Whether we agree or not. I know MANY dock and yard men. And I think the ratio you cited is off considerably.
i still talk to many who dont work at yrc now day by no fault of their own . i will tell you that the 120 guys that have transferred from stroudsburg to kernersville then charlotte will do nothing but punch in and punch out . not 1 thing extra .only thing keeping them there is the central pa pension not anything that yrc does
I didn't mention anything about love LB. We are making the best of the situation, playing the hand that has been dealt. Trying to get this Ship off the Reef. No other Trucking Company Union or not has been able to achieve what we have.
Our biggest hurdle now will be in attracting new Employees in all Classifications.
This is somewhat scary.....I agree with that also. I wouldn't be here as a 21 yr. old, there are other options today. Times change, not even the Roman Empire lasted. But, like a Shark, we must move forward or die.
You guys are making someone uncomfortable again !!!!!!
John Kelder
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
707 Pension update - McCaffrey has sent to the jobs the letters from the Dept. Of Labor regarding the pension fund audit and the findings....
IMO -
1 - If he sent a notice telling the participants there was an ongoing audit , that would have been timely and proper.
2- if he sent out a notice that the audit was completed in July of LAST YEAR ,right after the audit was completed , that would have been timely and proper .
3 - To send it out now , AFTER the notice of Insolvency and the fundraising for the retainer for the Forensic Audit has began is not timely ( unless you are him ) and insulting .
Please remember that there is a difference between an audit and a forensic audit .It is OUR Pension , why all the secrets ??
And the same government that audited the Fund is the same government that watched OUR pension go broke .The same government that audited OUR pension is the same government that changed the law and allowed OUR pension benefits , that WE worked for , for DECADES ,to be slashed by over 60 % .
IMO -
1 - If he sent a notice telling the participants there was an ongoing audit , that would have been timely and proper.
2- if he sent out a notice that the audit was completed in July of LAST YEAR ,right after the audit was completed , that would have been timely and proper .
3 - To send it out now , AFTER the notice of Insolvency and the fundraising for the retainer for the Forensic Audit has began is not timely ( unless you are him ) and insulting .
Please remember that there is a difference between an audit and a forensic audit .It is OUR Pension , why all the secrets ??
And the same government that audited the Fund is the same government that watched OUR pension go broke .The same government that audited OUR pension is the same government that changed the law and allowed OUR pension benefits , that WE worked for , for DECADES ,to be slashed by over 60 % .
Bust their asses John !!!
captain cardboard
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
What's your best guess as to how much the cuts will be? What is the max. cut allowed, 66% ?
- Credits
- 538
The Miller-Kline Bill allows for a MINIMUM of 30% up to a MAXIMUM of 60%.....KK
While I am not familiar with the 707 plan it appears by the notice posted at the top of this discussion that the plan is expected to become insolvent within 12 months. It is my understanding that the The Kline Miller legislation or MPRA law can only be applied to those plans where it would prevent insolvency. It appears to me that it is too late for the 707 Pension Plan to avoid insolvency. If that is the case participants in this particular plan would receive no more than the maximum PBCC insured rate. The maximum allowed would be $12870.00 annually.
yrc hasnt achieved anything. Still a money losing, bottom feeder with terrible service. If thats an achievement then you need to set your bar a bit higher.
The legislation sets a maximum benefit cut to 110% of the PBGC guarantee which is $12,870 (for thirty years of service) as referenced above by Cooper. I have seen 30% used as an example in some documents that were circulated but it was only as an example. The interesting item that came up yesterday in the regulations was the definition of what they mean by keeping a plan out of insolvency. From what I can tell it is a thirty year time frame that the benefits suspensions must keep the plan solvent. There is something like a 5% variance for that calculation. Only a 5% error rate over a 30 year period? Wow that must be an actuaries dream calculation.
I have not seen a 30 or 60% floor or cap, just the 110% of the PBGC guarantee.
If someone has a connection with the Pension Rights Center we should ask them to clarify. It is important we get this right as we are potentially talking about lifestyle changing cuts/suspensions here.
On thing that did look good yesterday was the appointment of the mediator to oversee the process. This issue deserves a ton of attention and seems like the person they selected is a solid choice base on past work.
I have not seen a 30 or 60% floor or cap, just the 110% of the PBGC guarantee.
If someone has a connection with the Pension Rights Center we should ask them to clarify. It is important we get this right as we are potentially talking about lifestyle changing cuts/suspensions here.
On thing that did look good yesterday was the appointment of the mediator to oversee the process. This issue deserves a ton of attention and seems like the person they selected is a solid choice base on past work.
Actually.....I don't think there is "maximum". Not to split hairs with you but take the case of a "orphan" presently drawing $3000.00 per month. In this senario under MPRA the orphans must be the first to take cuts and those cuts must be made the fullest extent allowed under the law before any actives etc. can be cut. The cut in this case would be made to 1.10 percent of the PBGC insured rate. 1.10 percent of the maximum PBGC rate ($12870.00) would result in an annual pension of $14157.00. That is closer to 61 percent in this case. The bottom line is this.....a pension of $36000.00 being now reduced to $14157.00. Again....it appears to me that the 707 plan is too far gone. In that case MPRA would not apply instead the PBGC maximum of $12870.00 would be the maximum a participant would be able to receive.
I think you are spot on right with your calculation. What I meant by the max was that the cut cannot be more than 110% of the PBGC max which you nailed the number. Takes your breath away to see that in print as that is huge amount of money. The definition of insolvency now must have the plans at work to see how much they cut to meet that number. Thanks
Yes that will be interesting. Since the maximum cut allowed for orphans is to 110 percent of the PBGC insured amount there is no doubt in my mind that this will be the amount applied. Remember Nyhan stated that this would be the last cut made to the participants pensions, so why not apply the full cut? Another thought is that since no one else can be cut until the orphans take the maximum cut there is no other way to move on to a cut the actives until the orphans are first cut. This is where the Fund could have a problem. If they cut the actives too much and the employers see that they are not receiving a meaningful return on their contributions they are likely to seek a way to exit the fund altogether. This senario would only exacerbate the total failure of the fund.
captain cardboard
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Would I be considered an orphan, 10yrs at St.Johnsbury, 10yrs At CF, and finished up at Roadway. All 707 jobs with no breaks in service.
If it benefits the fund, you'll be considered an orphan.