What's new

ABF | Pension

Would you vote to opt out of CSPF

  • stay in my current plan!

    Votes: 19 32.2%

  • open for change!

    Votes: 40 67.8%
  • Total voters
    59
rgdg5 said:
Muler, I was wondering what rail increase are you talking about. It has been 28% since 1998 if I remember right.
Click to expand...
No it was to be reduced to 26%. Below you will see the 2003 NMFA Article 29 language.

4. Total intermodal rail miles included on line 303 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report shall not exceed 28
percent of the Employer's total miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any
calendar year. In the event intermodal rail miles exceed this 28 percent maximum, the Employer shall be required to
remove an appropriate amount of freight from the rail and add a corresponding number of drivers at each affected
domicile. Effective for Calendar Year 2005 and thereafter, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percent of total miles
as calculated above will be reduced from 28% to 26%.

And now for the 2008 Article 29 agreement.

The parties recognize that the current shipping markets demand
expedited delivery of freight in a manner that may not be accomplished
by hauling certain freight by rail. These market demands
create a need to reduce the amount of freight hauled by rail and to
use alternative methods of substitute service. As contemplated by
Article 20, Section 4, new business opportunities may be pursued
that promote new Teamster job opportunities while protecting existing
Teamster jobs, benefits, and working conditions. With these
facts in mind, the rail miles as a percentage of total miles will be
reduced as follows: effective Calendar Year 2010, the maximum
amount of rail miles as a percentage of total miles as calculated
above will be reduced from 24% to 21.5%. Effective Calendar Year
2011, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percentage of total
miles as calculated above will be reduced from 21.5% to 21%.
Effective Calendar Year 2012, the maximum amount of rail miles as
a percentage of total miles as calculated above will be reduced from
21% to 19%.

1. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Employer shall be permitted to utilize companies for over-the-road
purchased transportation substitute service. The parties shall designate
at least one (1) Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased
transportation substitute service under this Section. Until
December 31, 2009, the maximum amount of over-the-road purchased
transportation shall be limited to 4% of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2010, the
maximum amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall
be increased from 4% to 6.5% of the Employer’s total miles as
reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report
during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2011, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be
increased from 6.5% to 7% of the Employer’s total miles as reported
on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during
any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2012, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be increased
from 7% to 9% of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301
of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar
year. In the event the parties fail to designate at least one (1)
Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased transportation substitute
service, the maximum amount of rail miles provided for in
Section 3(b)(4) of the Article shall be returned to 26% for the
remainder of this Agreement. It is agreed that any Preferred
Company utilized under this Section shall be permitted to drop and
pick-up trailers at the Employer’s terminal locations, but shall be required to do so in areas of the terminal specifically designated for
such exchange.

AS you can see they did increase the percentage up 2% from the 2003 agreement that was to see it reduced to 26%.And you see they are now back up to 28%. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Muler said:
No it was to be reduced to 26%. Below you will see the 2003 NMFA Article 29 language.

4. Total intermodal rail miles included on line 303 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report shall not exceed 28
percent of the Employer's total miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any
calendar year. In the event intermodal rail miles exceed this 28 percent maximum, the Employer shall be required to
remove an appropriate amount of freight from the rail and add a corresponding number of drivers at each affected
domicile. Effective for Calendar Year 2005 and thereafter, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percent of total miles
as calculated above will be reduced from 28% to 26%.

And now for the 2008 Article 29 agreement.

The parties recognize that the current shipping markets demand
expedited delivery of freight in a manner that may not be accomplished
by hauling certain freight by rail. These market demands
create a need to reduce the amount of freight hauled by rail and to
use alternative methods of substitute service. As contemplated by
Article 20, Section 4, new business opportunities may be pursued
that promote new Teamster job opportunities while protecting existing
Teamster jobs, benefits, and working conditions. With these
facts in mind, the rail miles as a percentage of total miles will be
reduced as follows: effective Calendar Year 2010, the maximum
amount of rail miles as a percentage of total miles as calculated
above will be reduced from 24% to 21.5%. Effective Calendar Year
2011, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percentage of total
miles as calculated above will be reduced from 21.5% to 21%.
Effective Calendar Year 2012, the maximum amount of rail miles as
a percentage of total miles as calculated above will be reduced from
21% to 19%.

1. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Employer shall be permitted to utilize companies for over-the-road
purchased transportation substitute service. The parties shall designate
at least one (1) Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased
transportation substitute service under this Section. Until
December 31, 2009, the maximum amount of over-the-road purchased
transportation shall be limited to 4% of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2010, the
maximum amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall
be increased from 4% to 6.5% of the Employer’s total miles as
reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report
during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2011, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be
increased from 6.5% to 7% of the Employer’s total miles as reported
on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during
any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2012, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be increased
from 7% to 9% of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301
of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar
year. In the event the parties fail to designate at least one (1)
Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased transportation substitute
service, the maximum amount of rail miles provided for in
Section 3(b)(4) of the Article shall be returned to 26% for the
remainder of this Agreement. It is agreed that any Preferred
Company utilized under this Section shall be permitted to drop and
pick-up trailers at the Employer’s terminal locations, but shall be required to do so in areas of the terminal specifically designated for
such exchange.

AS you can see they did increase the percentage up 2% from the 2003 agreement that was to see it reduced to 26%.And you see they are now back up to 28%. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Muler. I didn't know it got reduced in 2003
 
Driver.
From my past dealing's with these people they will do what ever they want.It is impossible to be at a Break-Bulk watching them 24-7.

A TEAMSTER FOREVER.
 
loopfred said:
Driver.
From my past dealing's with these people they will do what ever they want.It is impossible to be at a Break-Bulk watching them 24-7.

A TEAMSTER FOREVER.
Click to expand...
Back in the day, stewards and rank and file monitored the sign-in, sign-out sheets at the barns and rail-heads! Is anybody still doing this?
 
Now here is a quote from the Plumber on the yrc forum." Maybe you should wait before you conclude you made a good move..thanks to Muler there are those who would consider exiting the pension in favor of a company 401. The company loves to see that. But then the IBT is there to protect you people..from yourselves" Now everybody on this forum can attest that I myself have always been against a company 401K. But yet he got a couple likes even though it was a FALSE STATEMENT. I don't understand how others can agree to something that is completely false. joe knows that his pension is in our hands and he knows he may not be happy with the outcome. But hey we were not the Brothers that let their company quit then reduce their payments. We are not the Brothers that were lied and tricked by the parties responsible to them. But yet now some want ABF Teamsters to DEMAND ABF fund the pensions for the multitudes. That is not how it works. Each contributing employer has the RESPONSIBILITY to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE yrc ISN'T! So I just wanted to say that joe's quote is a lie and that is that. YOUR WATCHING JOE LIE BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Muler far be it for me to speak for joe IMO he was merely suggesting that GO40s move to ABF may not net the result he had hoped. I don't believe a 401k is within the realm of possibility.
 
albag said:
Muler far be it for me to speak for joe IMO he was merely suggesting that GO40s move to ABF may not net the result he had hoped. I don't believe a 401k is within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
It was joe's statement that I would endorse a 401K in anyway that is a lie. I have worked for and will fight for a DEFINED Pension. It is attainable in many ways and ABF knows how to get it but it will not happen unless we are willing to stand up for it.
 
Muler said:
It was joe's statement that I would endorse a 401K in anyway that is a lie. I have worked for and will fight for a DEFINED Pension. It is attainable in many ways and ABF knows how to get it but it will not happen unless we are willing to stand up for it.
Click to expand...



Couple things Muler, You're posting a lot of hypothetical bs with the quote below..There is no option for ABF to leave CSPF for a plan similar to the UPS plan. You the ABF teamster don't get to choose the terms. The UPS deal was for NE UPS teamsters. It's costing UPS $2.2B to fund the old plan. They have no future liabilities in the new plan in the event of a YRC shutdown. If YRC does not pay full rate soon it will eventually call for the trustees to make more cuts in benefits that will affect future retirees and maybe present retirees.

As long as ABF is 100% in contributions it does not affect you. (I could be wrong on this) You the ABF teamsters have nothing to do with YRC teamsters or retirees as far as pension pay outs. I read where the Central States UPS company funded pension is sub par and under funded. You can bet the new New/England UPS teamsters fund will suck too. ABF has no options unless they do something unheard of. Please remember: lie to me one time and you don't ever have to worry about telling me the truth again. There will be no more chances. I know you're lying to me brother always

How many Brothers would vote to leave CSPF if ABF would agree to the UPS plan for the members that left CSPF? I am sure ABF doesn't want to have to pay the pension liabilities. But hey yrc didn't pay theirs. So if we choose to have ABF say pay 2% of the 1965 rate what is to stop us. After all tyson said ABF was in trouble back in 2009. And remember our vote was on whether or not to defer out of CSPF! YOUR CURIOUS BROTHER ALWAYS!
Click to expand...
 
Joe the plumber said:
Couple things Muler, You're posting a lot of hypothetical bs with the quote below..There is no option for ABF to leave CSPF for a plan similar to the UPS plan. You the ABF teamster don't get to choose the terms. The UPS deal was for NE UPS teamsters. It's costing UPS $2.2B to fund the old plan. They have no future liabilities in the new plan in the event of a YRC shutdown. If YRC does not pay full rate soon it will eventually call for the trustees to make more cuts in benefits that will affect future retirees and maybe present retirees.

As long as ABF is 100% in contributions it does not affect you. (I could be wrong on this) You the ABF teamsters have nothing to do with YRC teamsters or retirees as far as pension pay outs. I read where the Central States UPS company funded pension is sub par and under funded. You can bet the new New/England UPS teamsters fund will suck too. ABF has no options unless they do something unheard of. Please remember: lie to me one time and you don't ever have to worry about telling me the truth again. There will be no more chances. I know you're lying to me brother always
Click to expand...
Where did that say 401K joe. It didn't! I have always been a defined pension plan believer and I still am. YOUR STILL STANDING BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Well I can't wait for you to research things joe because you don't. Let's start with this article.

That lack of fairness and sustainability was recognized both by the agreement between UPS and the New England Teamsters, and an August decision in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the Pension Protection Act of 2006 doesn't prohibit an employer from leaving a multiemployer plan that is in critical status, defined by the PPA as less than 65% funded.


http://www.pionline.com/article/20120903/PRINTSUB/309039997
 
Joe the plumber said:
Your link has an error of $1B in the withdrawal penalty muler. It's $2.1B and it's still the NETTIPF Fund. Couple things..does ABF have this option and if so..withdrawal money? I don't think so

UPS, Teamsters to Restructure New England Pension Plan - Yahoo! Finance
UPS, Teamsters to Restructure New England Pension Plan
Click to expand...
I think if it were spread over a fifty year period they would have no problem with that cost. They were going to pay off $700,000,000.00 in less than twenty years. So fifty would be no problem. The option is not available as we speak unless they follow the same path that UPS did. But the Nyhan has applied for the same option for CSPF. And look joe I don't make this stuff up I post the links to show that it is. YOUR JUST PUTTING THE FACTS OUT THERE BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
This is why these threads were started. We need to get all ABF Teamsters informed. There are many things being discussed and we need to know what is and isn't in our best interest. Please read all the information and feel free to copy it and pass it around at your terminals. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
nothumbleenough said:
Thanks for putting the poll together. I am open for change. Every contract I have voted on since 2001 has rapidly increased our pension contribution while our wages have struggled to keep up with inflation. And still no pension resolution.

It was explained to me many years ago the multiemployer pension plan mimicks many strong men trying to lift a very heavy object. Every time someone stops lifting(as when a union LTL goes out of business, too many examples to cite) the burdon falls on those still lifting the object. In the days when most of LTL freight companies were union, this model functioned well because the former employee of the bankrupt union company could go to work for another union company. That new union company would then start paying into the pension, and after a few years, the employee would be fully vested again in the pension because it continued to receive his contributions. Unfortunately, the unionized percentage of the LTL is a fraction of what is was when this multiemployer plan was first offered. Therefore, nobody is able to sustain the substantial weight of the pension. It will ultimately crush the remaining companies still trying to lift.

There are many ethical question such as: Am I voting to abandon those teamsters currently retired or their spouses currently getting a pension check? Should ABF be contractibly liable for those teamsters who never worked a day for ABF? How can the union allow one company to pay a fraction of its contribution and still allow it to compete against a company that has honorably paid its obligations? The list goes on, but answers are not so easy.
Click to expand...

Your analogy of how multi-employer pension plans work is essentially correct.....Multi-employer plans were, and still can be, very viable and attractive due to the facts that you point to.....However the problem began with participating employers going out of business and leaving a heaver lift, if you will, for others....It was short sighted, in my view, of the Teamster leadership that didn't recognize this as a problem before it became critical, especially magnified by the economic downturn of 08. YRC attempted to get congressional help with this very issue before the concessionary adjustments were made...i.e. pay cuts and pension relief, among other things, They had the same argument regarding why they (YRC) should have to pay for the pensions of those that never worked for YRC...On the surface it seems the point has validity.... In the broader picture, the Union trustees, actually make pension decisions based on all monies that comes into the fund from whatever remaining contributors there are left and make benefit adjustments accordingly. So it's not entirely true that ABF is paying directly for the pensions of those that have never been employed by ABF, just the same as YRC never directly paid for pensions of those that never worked there either...but each Company does pay increased amounts to keep the funds funded at levels that are required by laws....This leads to the ethical questions you expressed....if your voting to exit the current pension arrangement then yes you would be voting to abandon Teamsters that have also unfailingly paid into the same fund that your currently in and no doubt many of your members are enjoying the fruits of retirement as they should be and are entitled to do so.....no less for those others that you'd be leaving behind....Part of being a Teamster is to recognize the value and importance of being in a Brotherhood, one that looks out for the other.....You ask should ABF be contractually liable? Yes...it is a contract.... To vote, when the time comes, to opt out just because they (ABF) feels that it is being unfairly treated with respect to YRC is not a completely valid reason to do so.....YRC was granted the concessions after it was determined beyond doubt that it's very survivability depended on relief...and it was not only the Union that suffered loss...a great many Lenders also took losses as well.....ABF was not in that kind of distress and to my knowledge is not now either... so to simply allow Employers to pay less or leave the fund entirely just because they want to would be to damage and further weaken the Multi-employer pension plans that are so effective.... The ideal solution would be to recruit more participating employers to help lift the increasingly heavy load. That is where I fault the Union leadership as I mentioned earlier.... It would behoove the member...rank and file, to urge the Union to address this to Employers and to help them see the value in getting other carriers to join the pension plan to help them spread those costs and liabilities out...to lessen the load of all...much in the same manner that Insurance works...Strength is in numbers...the greater the numbers...the greater the strength....It would be in the best interests of other Companies to join the Pension plan rather than to reject it or go alone with their own....The real and only viable solution is to gain more employers to a participating role rather than abandon the fund and all those that have paid in through their working lives... it is to late for them to just start over again....Is it an easy solution? No...the concept is simple but the reality is not easy....that's where it takes a strong commitment from all Teamsters....from the top down to educate and "sell" the benefit of mult-employer pensions to all Companies...and I believe that not just Trucking Companies, but any Industry should be invited to participate for the benefit of everyone......Strong Pension plans can be an asset to Employers not a liability only, as they are seen currently. The answer is not to discard something that is valuable because of increasing cost issues, but to address those issues by lowering those costs and still provide strong benefits to those that actually make them their money....that would be US... The "workers"...... Answers are easy..Standing together is not as easy.......Easy is just giving up and penalize those that have worked so hard, for so long to create the Wealth of those that seek to cut us out of the picture.. There are other courses of action besides allowing Companies to take away things that we, as workers depend on....that we count on,... after a lifetime of service just because some Corporate Executives want more profit..... We should think beyond just ourselves...what is best for all of us is what is ultimately best for each of us...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top