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
Right on bro. They don't need no dam relief. What is wrong with them people in Fort Smith. They are in business for your comfort and convenience. They are making enough money so concessions are not warranted. Send it in bro. I see a new Escalade truck 2013 as a reward for your loyalty. The company has a moral obligation to provide this perk for helping them out in 2010 when they were losing 10's of millions.

remember
:grouphug:
solidarity!!!


Joe...just sit down and be quiet...we are hashing out your financial future.
 
Spoken like a true company man. No we will not take a lower benefit package in our pension pay outs. That is a no brainier. We may talk about ABF guaranteeing our pension as a single company but a reduction in our retirement pay out is not even going to be on the table. You are funny(SO as not to make you feel as though I am attacking you).
You talk of slaughtering fellow Teamsters as though they are worthless. I am glad that our fellow Teamsters had the chance to read your post. Now they can see that people do exist that think like you.
We will hammer out a fair and just contract and it won't include HAIRCUTS FOR OURSELVES! YOUR TEAMSTER BROTHER ALWAYS!

It is interesting you separate yourself as "ABF Teamsters" from the other Teamsters. Why should your pension be guaranteed while the other pensions are not?

"Slaughtering fellow Teamsters as though they are worthless." Have you been spending your retirement taking creative writting classes?

The slaughter comes when the pension fails. You know the numbers on the PBGC website Muler.

Thank you for creating this thread. Also, thank you for creating the poll. What do you think of the current poll results?
 
I don't complain about the orphans.

LOL...you do nothing but complain about the orphans...and look...it's obvious to others too...so don't try denying that fact now:

I tend to think your way on this issue nothumbleenough. Seems like most of these guys are worried more about orphans than their own families economic future.

Docker, why do you draw a distinction between ABF Teamsters and other unaffilliated Teamsters?

To what particular instance are you referring about?
 
I don't complain about the orphans. I complain about the calculation that says it is not enough that you are essentially the only company paying union scale in wages and benefits. But then goes further to say, you have to increase your pension contributions at a rate of 8% every single year. Have my wages increased anywhere near that rate? Absolutely positively not even close.

Docker, why do you draw a distinction between ABF Teamsters and other unaffilliated Teamsters?

It is interesting you separate yourself as "ABF Teamsters" from the other Teamsters. Why should your pension be guaranteed while the other pensions are not?

"Slaughtering fellow Teamsters as though they are worthless." Have you been spending your retirement taking creative writting classes?

The slaughter comes when the pension fails. You know the numbers on the PBGC website Muler.

Thank you for creating this thread. Also, thank you for creating the poll. What do you think of the current poll results?

Here you go again... accusing yet another poster of separating the ABF Teamsters from other Teamsters.Like Muler stated...you are the one that talks about slaughtering fellow Teamsters as though they are worthless.Let's keep the facts straight...shall we?

I see that you now are getting desperate by trying to ridicule a statement made by Muler...with your statement
Have you been spending your retirement taking creative writting classes?

Let's put it this way...if he did...at least it paid off...he didn't misspell the word "writing" like you did...did he? Here's a word of advice for you...if you are going to criticize someone for their grammar...at least have the good sense to make sure your spelling is correct when doing so or the joke turns out to be on you.
 
Here you go again... accusing yet another poster of separating the ABF Teamsters from other Teamsters.Like Muler stated...you are the one that talks about slaughtering fellow Teamsters as though they are worthless.Let's keep the facts straight...shall we?

I see that you now are getting desperate by trying to ridicule a statement made by Muler...with your statement

Let's put it this way...if he did...at least it paid off...he didn't misspell the word "writing" like you did...did he? Here's a word of advice for you...if you are going to criticize someone for their grammar...at least have the good sense to make sure your spelling is correct when doing so or the joke turns out to be on you.

No I wasn't being critical of his grammer. I was poking him for his overusage of drama.

Noticed you still havent commented on why you need to be separated from the Teamsters, the ABF Teamsters. Cat caught your tongue?
 
No I wasn't being critical of his grammer. I was poking him for his overusage of drama.

Noticed you still havent commented on why you need to be separated from the Teamsters, the ABF Teamsters. Cat caught your tongue?


I think that you better go ahead and try re-reading my posts again...it's only one post above the one you just quoted me on...I think that even you can find it but just in case you can't...here it is:


LOL...you do nothing but complain about the orphans...and look...it's obvious to others too...so don't try denying that fact now:




Docker, why do you draw a distinction between ABF Teamsters and other unaffilliated Teamsters?

To what particular instance are you referring about?


Now...try answering my question...will you!
 
If you want ABF to be like YRC, then why don't you go back to a YRC company. What you are asking for is to destroy everybody's pension, If we accept concessions on this next contract everybody will suffer, and it could most likely be a government payout and CSPF will be clear to do whatever they want. Everybody involved should be held accountable. I AGREE WITH MULER 100%, and if I have anything to do with it anything less will be a no vote from me.

QUOTE=nothumbleenough;1087116]Muler, thanks for the dialogue.

My suggestion is a fairly simple one. Get ABF and YRC paying the same amount into the pension. Do not allow one to have a competitive advantage against the other. If the workers want a concession, allow them to vote on a wage or health and welfare reduction.

Everyone takes a haircut on their pension. Not as hard or dramatic as a pension failure whereby a retired teamster gets roughly .28cents on the dollar.

It will take an actuary firm quite a while to break down the numbers but something could be put together based on contributing years and when the contributions took place. We the Teamsters can help determine certain priorities in their funding decisions. For instance, whose pensions get cut the least like for the widows of deceased Teamsters. Teamsters of the companies that have continued to fulfill their pension obligations get the next level of funding. Those companies long since out of business get the next level. And those that pay only partial contributions get the next higher level. Lastly, those Teamsters that have at least 10 years before they retire, get the hardest hit.

I have put on paper my thoughts. There are other questions I undoubtedly am not covering, but believe the basic formula would work.
 
If you want ABF to be like YRC, then why don't you go back to a YRC company. What you are asking for is to destroy everybody's pension, If we accept concessions on this next contract everybody will suffer, and it could most likely be a government payout and CSPF will be clear to do whatever they want. Everybody involved should be held accountable. I AGREE WITH MULER 100%, and if I have anything to do with it anything less will be a no vote from me.

QUOTE=nothumbleenough;1087116]

I believe the last red zone mailing indicated the CSPF was funded at 37%. The plan has gone from 91,000 workers contributing (2007) to less than 63,000 today.You're an adult, use your own reasoning skills in determining if that is a good or bad. ERISA still has a couple of tools in its tool box like a plan partition, managed mass withdrawl, or an alternative contribution arrangement.

I would encourage those interested in their future pension amounts to do a little research on the options above. A common thread will tie all these "tools in the ERISA tool box" together, and that is less benefit paid, less benefit received.

And I am still waiting to hear why a CERTAIN TEAMSTER BROTHER WHO ENDS ALL HIS POSTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND HIS LAP DOG SEPARATE THEMSELVES AS ABF TEAMSTERS.
 
I believe the last red zone mailing indicated the CSPF was funded at 37%. The plan has gone from 91,000 workers contributing (2007) to less than 63,000 today.You're an adult, use your own reasoning skills in determining if that is a good or bad. ERISA still has a couple of tools in its tool box like a plan partition, managed mass withdrawl, or an alternative contribution arrangement.

I would encourage those interested in their future pension amounts to do a little research on the options above. A common thread will tie all these "tools in the ERISA tool box" together, and that is less benefit paid, less benefit received.

And I am still waiting to hear why a CERTAIN TEAMSTER BROTHER WHO ENDS ALL HIS POSTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND HIS LAP DOG SEPARATE THEMSELVES AS ABF TEAMSTERS.


I see that our newly founded friend must be a little irritated at us Muler...lol He now has to resort to speaking to us in the third person...but that's all well and good too...because we can still prove him wrong there also...

Just when was your last letter from the CSPF? You say that you believe that it was funded at 37%...now I want to try and back up that statement of yours! The last statement I know of is this:
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=48e99760d12100dedbfad96f7a054de2&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truckingboards.com%2Fforum%2Fyrc-freight%2F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund.html&v=1&libid=1346259274903&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3Dgo%26key%3D48e99760d12100dedbfad96f7a054de2%26loc%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.truckingboards.com%252Fforum%252Fyrc-freight%252F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund.html%26v%3D1%26libid%3D1346259274903%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdl.dropbox.com%252Fu%252F42059564%252FTruckingboards%252FYRC%252F2011%252520Annual%252520Funding%252520Notice%252520For%252520CSPF.pdf%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.truckingboards.com%252Fforum%252Fyrc-freight%252F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund-2.html%26title%3DNotice%2520of%2520Critical%2520Status%2522%2520for%2520the%2520Central%2520States%2520Pension%2520Fund%26txt%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdl.dropbox.com%252Fu%252F42059564%252FTru...For%252520CSPF.pdf%26jsonp%3Dvglnk_jsonp_13462592791633&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truckingboards.com%2Fforum%2Fyrc-freight%2F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund-2.html&title=Notice%20of%20Critical%20Status%22%20for%20the%20Central%20States%20Pension%20Fund&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F42059564%2FTru...For%2520CSPF.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13462592882115

And it shows the fund at 58.9% funded. But the point here is that since you said the word "believe"...which could mean that you left yourself a way out by not committing yourself...this way you can say I just believed wrong or you tried to intentionally deceive others about the fund being in worse shape than it actually is. So which is it?

Since you have your feathers all ruffled up about this separating ourselves as ABF Teamsters and won't answer my question as to just what particular instance you are talking about...I will have to answer to what I believe you are...OK? In case you haven't noticed what has been going on in the last couple of years and what is coming up...I guess that I will just have to enlighten you...Since the YRC Teamsters are now working under a modified NMFA and we are working under the regular NMFA...the pension contributory rate being different...the upcoming freight contract just involving the ABF Teamsters...just how in the hell would you suggest one differentiate between the two? If someone asks you...what is the Teamster wage right now...just what are you going to say...I'll tell you what you will say...are you talking about the YRC Teamster or the ABF Teamster. Unless...like you did on the fund issue...just make a statement and say I believe with any figure that pops in your head at that particular moment.
 
Just when was your last letter from the CSPF? You say that you believe that it was funded at 37%...now I want to try and back up that statement of yours! The last statement I know of is this:
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=48e99760d12100dedbfad96f7a054de2&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truckingboards.com%2Fforum%2Fyrc-freight%2F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund.html&v=1&libid=1346259274903&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3Dgo%26key%3D48e99760d12100dedbfad96f7a054de2%26loc%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.truckingboards.com%252Fforum%252Fyrc-freight%252F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund.html%26v%3D1%26libid%3D1346259274903%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdl.dropbox.com%252Fu%252F42059564%252FTruckingboards%252FYRC%252F2011%252520Annual%252520Funding%252520Notice%252520For%252520CSPF.pdf%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.truckingboards.com%252Fforum%252Fyrc-freight%252F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund-2.html%26title%3DNotice%2520of%2520Critical%2520Status%2522%2520for%2520the%2520Central%2520States%2520Pension%2520Fund%26txt%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdl.dropbox.com%252Fu%252F42059564%252FTru...For%252520CSPF.pdf%26jsonp%3Dvglnk_jsonp_13462592791633&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truckingboards.com%2Fforum%2Fyrc-freight%2F82127-notice-critical-status-central-states-pension-fund-2.html&title=Notice%20of%20Critical%20Status%22%20for%20the%20Central%20States%20Pension%20Fund&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F42059564%2FTru...For%2520CSPF.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13462592882115

And it shows the fund at 58.9% funded. But the point here is that since you said the word "believe"...which could mean that you left yourself a way out by not committing yourself...this way you can say I just believed wrong or you tried to intentionally deceive others about the fund being in worse shape than it actually is. So which is it?

No, just lazy. I have sourced many documents when I say somthing as a fact. I didn't say that as a fact, but should have chased the document down before putting it on truckingboards. The 58.9% is effective Jan 1, 2011. If you take the assets listed at the end of 2011 on the same document, $17,649,875,398 and divide by its future liabilities of $35,662,837,013, you have a funding percentage under 50%. Don't know if that is alarming to you. But if you want to persist in this dillusion that the fund is not in a desperate state, lets change the status from red zone-critical to warm silly clowns. I hope it makes you "feel" better, but it won't change reality.
 
If you want ABF to be like YRC, then why don't you go back to a YRC company. What you are asking for is to destroy everybody's pension, If we accept concessions on this next contract everybody will suffer, and it could most likely be a government payout and CSPF will be clear to do whatever they want. Everybody involved should be held accountable. I AGREE WITH MULER 100%, and if I have anything to do with it anything less will be a no vote from me.

QUOTE=nothumbleenough;1087116]

I believe the last red zone mailing indicated the CSPF was funded at 37%. The plan has gone from 91,000 workers contributing (2007) to less than 63,000 today.You're an adult, use your own reasoning skills in determining if that is a good or bad. ERISA still has a couple of tools in its tool box like a plan partition, managed mass withdrawl, or an alternative contribution arrangement.

I would encourage those interested in their future pension amounts to do a little research on the options above. A common thread will tie all these "tools in the ERISA tool box" together, and that is less benefit paid, less benefit received.

And I am still waiting to hear why a CERTAIN TEAMSTER BROTHER WHO ENDS ALL HIS POSTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND HIS LAP DOG SEPARATE THEMSELVES AS ABF TEAMSTERS.
Just like before when you tried to start trouble and I showed you for what you were,the name calling and fishing exploration begins. Docker is a well informed ABF Teamster on the up coming contract not a lap dog. I can't believe you call a Brother a DOG!
We have shown all the Brothers that read this thread that you are not so truthful (Like your 37% statement not TRUE). One has to wonder why you said you left yrc. You now want the same wage and penalties for us here at ABF. That does not ,make sense. Why would someone give up TEN YEARS seniority to come to ABF and ask for the same wage and pension cuts?
I think even you can see how you look like company management. No the name calling won't hide the fact that you have been untruthful in some if not most of your post. And the Teamsters at ABF have seen through you and that means Docker and I have shown you for what you are all about.
We deal in facts not what if's and why not's. We look at all the information not the company executives behinds. YOUR STILL SMOKING OUT THE WEAK BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Just like before when you tried to start trouble and I showed you for what you were,the name calling and fishing exploration begins. Docker is a well informed ABF Teamster on the up coming contract not a lap dog. I can't believe you call a Brother a DOG!
We have shown all the Brothers that read this thread that you are not so truthful (Like your 37% statement not TRUE). One has to wonder why you said you left yrc. You now want the same wage and penalties for us here at ABF. That does not ,make sense. Why would someone give up TEN YEARS seniority to come to ABF and ask for the same wage and pension cuts?
I think even you can see how you look like company management. No the name calling won't hide the fact that you have been untruthful in some if not most of your post. And the Teamsters at ABF have seen through you and that means Docker and I have shown you for what you are all about.
We deal in facts not what if's and why not's. We look at all the information not the company executives behinds. YOUR STILL SMOKING OUT THE WEAK BROTHER ALWAYS!

Muler, Docker is your lapdog. It was not a compliment. The two of you have done this type of work before and many who read through truckingboards also get it. That might explain why your position on the poll is getting 30%, and the position I have been arguing for is getting 70%.

Again, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss matters important to the teamster union.
 
No, just lazy. I have sourced many documents when I say somthing as a fact. I didn't say that as a fact, but should have chased the document down before putting it on truckingboards. The 58.9% is effective Jan 1, 2011. If you take the assets listed at the end of 2011 on the same document, $17,649,875,398 and divide by its future liabilities of $35,662,837,013, you have a funding percentage under 50%. Don't know if that is alarming to you. But if you want to persist in this dillusion that the fund is not in a desperate state, lets change the status from red zone-critical to warm silly clowns. I hope it makes you "feel" better, but it won't change reality.


You really are a piece of work...you know that...lol

What is so hard about you posters to just admit you are wrong? You act like it would be a mortal sin to do so...some people just never grow up and accept the fact that we are all fallible at one point or another...but not you...you have to embellish it with more numbers and dates to try and keep your deceiving game going instead of just a simple...I was wrong about the fund being funded at 37%. You really have to have pity for people like you...to have such insecurity issues to keep them from admitting to making mistakes which we all do.But you perceive that as a weakness and want no part of that instead of just being a man and owning up to that fact.

Every single one of us are aware of the fund status so you not adding anything new here...except to try and make a bad situation worse by trying to convince others that the fund is much worse off than it actually is...which is bad enough as it stands. It seems to me that you are now trying to imply that we are pretending that the fund is pretty decent shape and doesn't need fixed...so I tell you...if that is what you claim...provide proof that either Muler or myself stated that fact...If not...don't even go there!

Here's a thought for you to consider since you brought up warm silly clowns...maybe it's time for you to consider an avatar and that one would be a perfect fit for you considering what a fool you are making of yourself on here at this time...just saying.
 
Muler, Docker is your lapdog. It was not a compliment. The two of you have done this type of work before and many who read through truckingboards also get it. That might explain why your position on the poll is getting 30%, and the position I have been arguing for is getting 70%.

Again, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss matters important to the teamster union.


And just what type of work are you implying that we have done before? Speak up...don't beat around the bush...tell it like you see it!

As for your comment about the poll results...did either one of us ever complain or whine about them? Our main goal is to provide the truth and the facts to the best of our ability on the pension issue so us ABF Teamsters can be informed as best we can be when a proposal is presented to us...plus an opinion or two.And to point out how people like you who spread misinformation in order to get their point across...like you with your 37% funded rhetoric.
 
Was just wondering if any of you have seen the dvd mailed out to some road drivers and UE drivers around June of this year? It's a video of a " town hall meeting" held by Roy Slagle. In it he says that ABF will not be trying to get out of the pension like they did in 2008, said it would cost to much(over a billion dollars) to buy out of it now. He mentioned more flexibilty as the greater concern.

That is a good post. The new work rules (YRC style) may be in the cards with a few more casuals or should I say part timers? on the dock. It's the dock that's killing them. The dock has always been looked at as a costly operation. The top of the food chain is the city driver, followed by the road driver, then the dock man, then the salesman. No offense Docker but you're not held in high esteem by the boys in Fort Smith
 
That is a good post. The new work rules (YRC style) may be in the cards with a few more casuals or should I say part timers? on the dock. It's the dock that's killing them. The dock has always been looked at as a costly operation. The top of the food chain is the city driver, followed by the road driver, then the dock man, then the salesman. No offense Docker but you're not held in high esteem by the boys in Fort Smith


No offense taken Joe...we dockworkers know our place...lol
 
I dunno. As I see it the dockworker is a pretty important position. They have the ability to destroy freight or handle it claim free, load it into the right trailer or the wrong trailer, notice discrepancies in the weight, or not, get more freight into the trailer, or less. I see the role of the dockworker as the one that can make the biggest difference in the bottom line. Sure, city drivers play almost as important a role for the same reasons but for most of the problems the dock is the happening place. And if a road driver destroys freight or gets it to the wrong destination he or she will not be around for long.
 
Top