ABF | Reasons to dislike the new contract.
- Thread starter Muler
- Start date
- Credits
- 579
nothing added toward the pension
I’m afraid we will never see another increase. It appears they the union and the company are going to take the retirement contributions in a different direction.
- Credits
- 579
and the yes men are crawling into bed with them.
I think
I think if they felt more support from the union the yes votes would dwindle. I feel most yes voters think that it is the best the union will do for us.
Steward of the Rock
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 727
The pension contributions are like the health and welfare contributions and the hourly rate of pay. They are all part of the earnings package that we vote on. If there is not an increase to any one of these each year, we fall behind on our pay package. In past contracts, there was a $1.00 increase per hour of each contract year to be split between the pension and the health and welfare depending on which fund needed it most to maintain. That is an increase of $2080.00 per contract year to our total pay package. By not getting this increase to our pay package, it is no different than getting a pay cut. Here is an example of what I am talking about. A 30 cent per hour yearly raise would be a $624 pay increase based on 2080 hours on a calendar year. But, if your losing $2080 per calendar year on a different part of the pay package, then you have lost $1456 of your pay package per calendar year. Bottom line, unless this $1 per hour increase per calendar year is added to another part of our pay package, then we will be taking a pay cut or reduction to our pay package.
- Credits
- 579
one not all are in bad shape, ours is 87% funded. but how long will that last without an increase if needed. It would have been nice if the two could agree to hire an outside think tank type place(not the government) to try and find a way to protect the guys who have worked all these years for less so more could be put in their pension, and also a way to take care of the new people coming in.
I never said that anywhere. How did you come up with that.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
The Funds did nothing wrong. The Employees did nothing wrong. The Rules lobbied for by the companies in collusion with Wall Street investors.....engineered a crippling of many defined-benefit Funds.
What's a better answer? A defined-contribution fund? Any guarantees with that? Any idea whether Wall Street will.....ever.....allow any guarantees on those "pensions"?
Most people,....to this day,....have no idea the mechanics involved to...retire....on a defined-contribution fund....
And,...since Wall Street has unilateral control over annuity rates........(...and the fact that they LOWERED annuity rates from 5% to 3.5%...IN A BULL MARKET!......should tip off anyone that businesses will play demographics in tight Labor markets...)......does anyone believe that....defined-contribution "pensions" can be....relied on to be enough in retirement?
"Relied on"....is the critical part, in a physical labor occupation. If you get hurt...(or worn out..)......your "means" for..increasing...your defined-contribution "pension" is pretty much gone.......
Defined-benefit pensions work perfectly,...........when they are PROPERLY FUNDED!
What's a better answer? A defined-contribution fund? Any guarantees with that? Any idea whether Wall Street will.....ever.....allow any guarantees on those "pensions"?
Most people,....to this day,....have no idea the mechanics involved to...retire....on a defined-contribution fund....
And,...since Wall Street has unilateral control over annuity rates........(...and the fact that they LOWERED annuity rates from 5% to 3.5%...IN A BULL MARKET!......should tip off anyone that businesses will play demographics in tight Labor markets...)......does anyone believe that....defined-contribution "pensions" can be....relied on to be enough in retirement?
"Relied on"....is the critical part, in a physical labor occupation. If you get hurt...(or worn out..)......your "means" for..increasing...your defined-contribution "pension" is pretty much gone.......
Defined-benefit pensions work perfectly,...........when they are PROPERLY FUNDED!
Just how far back do you want to go? All yur post are very negative towards Teamster benefits. You have not made one post on bettering the work rules or benefits of Teamsters. We have worked a lifetime for what was promised and for them to say the funds are on the brink of collapse is wrong. abf has had a trustee on the fund boards forever. And many of the wrong decisions they were part of is now falling on us. No they have a big responsibility to us. You may not think so but I do and that is my opinion. You can roll over and lay down as your post suggest but I never will.
Did you read any of posts between myself and Night Owl on the SOUTHERN CONFRENCE thread? "All yur post are very negative towards Teamster benefits." According to you! Doesn't ring exactly true if you read the SOUTHERN CONFRENCE thread. And I'm still pressing the union for change on the SOUTHERN CONFRENCE SUPPLEMENT; I sent out an email earlier this morning.
No I don’t follow you on any threads I don’t post on. You are not a favorite of mine. You make every attempt to talk down to other posters and as I said you are a company leaning Teamster at best.
So that is why I don’t see you posting Teamster friendly ideas. All negative as I see.
canaryinthemine
Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
- Credits
- 0
The idea,.....and probably the greatest recruiting tool of any Union,...is the ,...probability.....of a guarantee of a steady source of income in old age.
That would also be the reasoning behind Social Security. Apparently, many people believe this is an important idea......
"Guarantees"....is not synonymous with inflexibility. Many people guarantee they will be monogamous in marriage.....
A guarantee is a...promise,....maybe a little less flexibile than a car dealer's "promise" to include floor mats in the deal......
But, a promise, nonetheless. And,...when coupled with a written contract,....most people can (usually) rely on that promise...
Do you get any,....ahh....."contract"....with a 401(k)-style pension,...other than they "promise" to take the money out of your paycheck?
The people in Congress,..and many State Legislatures,....retire on a defined-benefit pension. Vested,...for the most part,...after only one term. None of them..."retire"....solely on a defined-contribution-style "pension".
What's good for the Goose,....vs. the Gander?
SirDuckJr.
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
When the pension fails, a real contract negotiation can take place. Otherwise, just be happy ABF continues to contribute to it.
This problem (underfunded pension) has been the car accident happening at 3 miles an hour for decades and no one is willing to acknowledge how the perspective of retirement has changed from our early Teamster days.
1. Unionized LTL is the very small minority within the LTL industry.
a. Which led to underfunding as the payee pool stayed the same while at the same time the payer pool shrank consistently year after year.
b. A couple of M.E.P. (multi employer pensions) had managed to keep their heads close to even but by far the majority of funds have been short for more than a decade and the shortages have picked up steam even in a stock market boom.
2. The perspective of a retiree getting a guaranteed income is not rational. The retiree should get what the market returns and have limited say on the pool of investments they can be in. Clearly, a young investor can have a slightly risker investment strategy based on the reality of time he or she has to recover in the market. The closer one gets to retirement, the more conservative the investment strategy should be. Please review the historical average of bonds (barclays u.s. aggregate) vs stocks. (S and P)
https://www.thebalance.com/stocks-and-bonds-calendar-year-performance-1980-2013-417028
Our retirement funds (central states) have not performed far outside of this window. The problem all along was a simple addition and subtraction issue of payees vs payers. We never adjusted the mind frame of the individual investor/retiree of getting a return on the money invested in their name.
Personally, I've been paying into the pension since 2000 when I was 31 and therefore 34 years before I retire at 65. Roughly $7000 was paid into the pension that year and assumes 33 years of investment time. With a rate of return averaging 4.51%, I could have $30000 by the age of 65. If the same investment averaged 5.03%, I could get $36000. Both scenarios are well within the barclays average above. The major point is for the money to grow conservatively in the market and to provide an income for me in 33 years, not pay current retirees. Once you pay current retirees with current receivables, the bomb has started ticking.
Solutions are still out their to fix this gigantic mess. Making ABF the only person/company responsible for the shortfalls of the pension is absurd. They did not mismanage the fund rather all they did was right a check.
If the P.B.G.C. has to solve this mess, they will give you 28 cents for every dollar you thought you'd receive in retirement. Some of you might want to act preemptively on such a matter.