What's new

XPO | Pension info

jpjet said:
I've been collecting pension for about 2 years. It's fully insured, I started collecting at age 65. Early 2000? Conway started contributing to 401K and stopped contributing to the pension fund, but its been sitting there since then. When i turned 65, I called 3 different phone numbers I had, they were all disconnected. Fourth phone number worked, very easy to get signed up, only took about 3 weeks to get first check. Pension office is in Portland OR. Should get about $100 month for every service till it was discontinued in 2000. You then have the option to take a lump sum buyout or monthly payment.
Click to expand...
It only took about 5 minutes on the phone, they send the paperwork. As long as you call before you 65 birthday you pay will be retroactive till then if it takes a month or 2 to get started.
jpjet said:
I've been collecting pension for about 2 years. It's fully insured, I started collecting at age 65. Early 2000? Conway started contributing to 401K and stopped contributing to the pension fund, but its been sitting there since then. When i turned 65, I called 3 different phone numbers I had, they were all disconnected. Fourth phone number worked, very easy to get signed up, only took about 3 weeks to get first check. Pension office is in Portland OR. Should get about $100 month for every service till it was discontinued in 2000. You then have the option to take a lump sum buyout or monthly payment.
Click to expand...
XSC 1994 One of Jerry Detter's kids, when he left, it went downhill from there.
 
jpjet said:
I've been collecting pension for about 2 years. It's fully insured, I started collecting at age 65. Early 2000? Conway started contributing to 401K and stopped contributing to the pension fund, but its been sitting there since then. When i turned 65, I called 3 different phone numbers I had, they were all disconnected. Fourth phone number worked, very easy to get signed up, only took about 3 weeks to get first check. Pension office is in Portland OR. Should get about $100 month for every service till it was discontinued in 2000. You then have the option to take a lump sum buyout or monthly payment.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by 100 month for every service? surely you're getting more than 100.00 dollars a month.
 
coffee cup said:
The Government took over control of the TEAMSTERS PENSION in 1982,so its their responsibility to keep it solvent, which they rightfully did.All the ney-sayers who hoped it would go broke I'm sure are crying but,GET OVER IT.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is accurate, 1982.
 
coffee cup said:
The Government took over control of the TEAMSTERS PENSION in 1982,so its their responsibility to keep it solvent, which they rightfully did.All the ney-sayers who hoped it would go broke I'm sure are crying but,GET OVER IT.
Click to expand...
It really wasn't control.

The 1982 consent decree between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and CSPF came about as a result of an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement of plan assets, and is intended to prevent their reoccurrence. In addition to reiterating the requirement that the plan comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)—the primary law governing the treatment of private-sector pensions in the United States—the consent decree further outlines requirements for the plan to help ensure fiduciary controls and plan management, including seeking court approvals for the appointment of new trustees and changes to the plan's investment policy. The consent decree also delineates roles for DOL and other stakeholders. For example, it allows DOL to object to or comment on certain proposed plan actions, but does not require the agency to do so. GAO's review of plan documents found that the agency provided oversight and technical assistance in the areas specifically identified for its involvement under the consent decree, such as vetting proposed trustees prior to the court's approval.

DOL is primarily responsible for enforcing the reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary provisions of ERISA for all tax-qualified pension plans, including CSPF. ERISA sets forth a “prudent man standard of care” in the execution of fiduciary duties that, according to DOL, focuses on the process for making proper fiduciary decisions. Plan fiduciaries are responsible for selecting and monitoring investment managers, but are generally not liable for the individual investment decisions of those managers. To enforce ERISA, DOL conducts examinations and investigations. Since the consent decree was established, DOL officials reported that the agency has completed two investigations of CSPF. The two investigations—completed in 1998 and 2004—were closed without adverse findings against the plan. Beyond the agencies' oversight role, DOL collaborated with CSPF and others on steps intended to improve the plan's financial position, including contributing to discussions on proposed legislation
 
the5tolls said:
It really wasn't control.

The 1982 consent decree between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and CSPF came about as a result of an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement of plan assets, and is intended to prevent their reoccurrence. In addition to reiterating the requirement that the plan comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)—the primary law governing the treatment of private-sector pensions in the United States—the consent decree further outlines requirements for the plan to help ensure fiduciary controls and plan management, including seeking court approvals for the appointment of new trustees and changes to the plan's investment policy. The consent decree also delineates roles for DOL and other stakeholders. For example, it allows DOL to object to or comment on certain proposed plan actions, but does not require the agency to do so. GAO's review of plan documents found that the agency provided oversight and technical assistance in the areas specifically identified for its involvement under the consent decree, such as vetting proposed trustees prior to the court's approval.

DOL is primarily responsible for enforcing the reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary provisions of ERISA for all tax-qualified pension plans, including CSPF. ERISA sets forth a “prudent man standard of care” in the execution of fiduciary duties that, according to DOL, focuses on the process for making proper fiduciary decisions. Plan fiduciaries are responsible for selecting and monitoring investment managers, but are generally not liable for the individual investment decisions of those managers. To enforce ERISA, DOL conducts examinations and investigations. Since the consent decree was established, DOL officials reported that the agency has completed two investigations of CSPF. The two investigations—completed in 1998 and 2004—were closed without adverse findings against the plan. Beyond the agencies' oversight role, DOL collaborated with CSPF and others on steps intended to improve the plan's financial position, including contributing to discussions on proposed legislation
Click to expand...
Not control but they are supposed to be watching the people they appointed to run the fund, which somehow lost the 6 billion that UPS gave them to get out of the fund in short order....I'm not in this fund but I basically agree with the poster.....not his attitude but his content...
 
ABF381 said:
Not control but they are supposed to be watching the people they appointed to run the fund, which somehow lost the 6 billion that UPS gave them to get out of the fund in short order....I'm not in this fund but I basically agree with the poster.....not his attitude but his content...
Click to expand...
The midstates teamster pension fund lost $30 BILLION since 1985 due to poor investments by management. And two thirds of the members are retired and drawing benefits, so that leaves one third of the working members to support the system. Easy to forecast the outcome.
 
jpjet said:
The midstates teamster pension fund lost $30 BILLION since 1985 due to poor investments by management. And two thirds of the members are retired and drawing benefits, so that leaves one third of the working members to support the system. Easy to forecast the outcome.
Click to expand...
Wall streeters robbed it worse than the mob
 
coffee cup said:
The Government took over control of the TEAMSTERS PENSION in 1982,so its their responsibility to keep it solvent, which they rightfully did.All the ney-sayers who hoped it would go broke I'm sure are crying but,GET OVER IT.
Click to expand...

I would also like to point out that the government is only watching the books. The union and the companies involved have changed the variables many times. It is not the governments responsibility to maintain solvency. If it was they should have refused to allow YRC to do the 25% agreement. Fund the pension properly or go broke.

Even worse is that the government gave hundreds of millions in “stimulus” to YRC. Not just socialism. But targeted. Shifting competitive balance in the industry. The companies I have worked for did not receive this kind of money.

The people working for YRC have gotten these advantages off the backs of the rest of us, and owe us all restitution.
 
the5tolls said:
It really wasn't control.

The 1982 consent decree between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and CSPF came about as a result of an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement of plan assets, and is intended to prevent their reoccurrence. In addition to reiterating the requirement that the plan comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)—the primary law governing the treatment of private-sector pensions in the United States—the consent decree further outlines requirements for the plan to help ensure fiduciary controls and plan management, including seeking court approvals for the appointment of new trustees and changes to the plan's investment policy. The consent decree also delineates roles for DOL and other stakeholders. For example, it allows DOL to object to or comment on certain proposed plan actions, but does not require the agency to do so. GAO's review of plan documents found that the agency provided oversight and technical assistance in the areas specifically identified for its involvement under the consent decree, such as vetting proposed trustees prior to the court's approval.
Click to expand...
As you can see by the comments, reality and truth is never accepted on this board.
The government is responsible for everything, Deregulation, the Consent Decree, covid vaccines, all government conspiracies to break the union and destroy the middle class. Now it's up to the government save the pensions but they all hate socialism.
 
Razorblade said:
As you can see by the comments, reality and truth is never accepted on this board.
The government is responsible for everything, Deregulation, the Consent Decree, covid vaccines, all government conspiracies to break the union and destroy the middle class. Now it's up to the government save the pensions but they all hate socialism.
Click to expand...
I think the shot came from the grassy knoll also
 
Razorblade said:
As you can see by the comments, reality and truth is never accepted on this board.
The government is responsible for everything, Deregulation, the Consent Decree, covid vaccines, all government conspiracies to break the union and destroy the middle class. Now it's up to the government save the pensions but they all hate socialism.
Click to expand...
You had help screwing over your creditors (bankruptcy) by the government and you claim to hate socialism. What a hypocrite!
 
highspeeds said:
I would also like to point out that the government is only watching the books. The union and the companies involved have changed the variables many times. It is not the governments responsibility to maintain solvency. If it was they should have refused to allow YRC to do the 25% agreement. Fund the pension properly or go broke.
Click to expand...
No true. The government appointed the firms and they do have the power to change that at any time...I was going to start posting links but that is pretty well covered in this thread....you just want to keep bringing up the same things that have already been answered, but since the answers don't agree with your thoughts on the subject you want to keep rehashing it....go back and look....the 25% isn't the problem, the fund has rules on that, go to central states pension fund to read on that...
highspeeds said:
Even worse is that the government gave hundreds of millions in “stimulus” to YRC. Not just socialism. But targeted. Shifting competitive balance in the industry. The companies I have worked for did not receive this kind of money.
Click to expand...
The government loaned the money to them, it has to be paid back. The government also got a stake in the company, just like GM and Chrysler. You should be thankful your companies aren't in such dire circumstances that they needed it. I know I am.
highspeeds said:
The people working for YRC have gotten these advantages off the backs of the rest of us, and owe us all restitution.
Click to expand...
That is an unbelievable comment.....the people you speak of are just like you, and had nothing to do with this, that would be the company (mis)management...they have taken cuts to keep the company afloat...which brings me to this question for you....If your coworker has an accident involving a bus with 50 people on it, all dead, should you have to make restitution as you work for that company? Thought not....
 
ABF381 said:
No true. The government appointed the firms and they do have the power to change that at any time...I was going to start posting links but that is pretty well covered in this thread....you just want to keep bringing up the same things that have already been answered, but since the answers don't agree with your thoughts on the subject you want to keep rehashing it....go back and look....the 25% isn't the problem, the fund has rules on that, go to central states pension fund to read on that...

The government loaned the money to them, it has to be paid back. The government also got a stake in the company, just like GM and Chrysler. You should be thankful your companies aren't in such dire circumstances that they needed it. I know I am.

That is an unbelievable comment.....the people you speak of are just like you, and had nothing to do with this, that would be the company (mis)management...they have taken cuts to keep the company afloat...which brings me to this question for you....If you coworker has an accident involving a bus with 50 people on it, all dead, should you have to make restitution as you work for that company? Thought not....
Click to expand...

You can try to justify it all you want. I have to make my own wages. Plus pay to keep the lights on at a company that is under cutting rates and wages. Destroying competitive balance. Plus fund your retirement. It’s not your money if you took it from someone else.
 
ABF381 said:
No true. The government appointed the firms and they do have the power to change that at any time...I was going to start posting links but that is pretty well covered in this thread....you just want to keep bringing up the same things that have already been answered, but since the answers don't agree with your thoughts on the subject you want to keep rehashing it....go back and look....the 25% isn't the problem, the fund has rules on that, go to central states pension fund to read on that...

The government loaned the money to them, it has to be paid back. The government also got a stake in the company, just like GM and Chrysler. You should be thankful your companies aren't in such dire circumstances that they needed it. I know I am.

That is an unbelievable comment.....the people you speak of are just like you, and had nothing to do with this, that would be the company (mis)management...they have taken cuts to keep the company afloat...which brings me to this question for you....If you coworker has an accident involving a bus with 50 people on it, all dead, should you have to make restitution as you work for that company? Thought not....
Click to expand...

The bus comment is ridiculous. You know that the guy behind the wheel takes the fall on that. It’s the risk we all take doing this job.
 
ABF381 said:
No true. The government appointed the firms and they do have the power to change that at any time...I was going to start posting links but that is pretty well covered in this thread....you just want to keep bringing up the same things that have already been answered, but since the answers don't agree with your thoughts on the subject you want to keep rehashing it....go back and look....the 25% isn't the problem, the fund has rules on that, go to central states pension fund to read on that...

The government loaned the money to them, it has to be paid back. The government also got a stake in the company, just like GM and Chrysler. You should be thankful your companies aren't in such dire circumstances that they needed it. I know I am.

That is an unbelievable comment.....the people you speak of are just like you, and had nothing to do with this, that would be the company (mis)management...they have taken cuts to keep the company afloat...which brings me to this question for you....If you coworker has an accident involving a bus with 50 people on it, all dead, should you have to make restitution as you work for that company? Thought not....
Click to expand...

The 25% isn’t the problem ? Is it the solution ? Are you kidding me ?
 
highspeeds said:
You can try to justify it all you want. I have to make my own wages. Plus pay to keep the lights on at a company that is under cutting rates and wages. Destroying competitive balance. Plus fund your retirement. It’s not your money if you took it from someone else.
Click to expand...
I have funded my own retirement.... you can justify it by saying it's not the government's fault, but apparently they don't agree with you....this is what they put on the table....I've said it before, but if they had come up with a different solution, such as dividing up the fund and giving it to the members I would have supported that...it isn't fair to guys putting money in there right now to get nothing when they retire....I'm not in central states by the way....my fund has no insolvency date, unless they take the money, then it has an insolvency date of 2051....I will most likely be dead by then or close to it and I hope they don't take the money for the sake of the younger guys after me...that wouldn't be fair to them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top