Yellow | Should there be a 30 and out?

[wishy-washy]

Good point there Big R

They way I look at it is this, let the older guys work and pay into the pension fund so I can take it out and enjoy myself

 

[Stan Smith]

Okay...Lets get the 80 lb gorilla in the room out in the open...
In the 7 years with Yellow and before that CF (14 plus years) and over 27 years driving,...I notice, That if a change or some new rule etc.comes down the pike..If its good for the Senior people...then its stated its for the "Brotherhood"...but, if it isn't for the benefit of the Senior men...but, good for the Junior Men...then its every man for himself!!!

Each generation of Teamsters used to...or should make improvements for not only themselves but the Union members to come. The Newer generations!! I'm So tired of hearing Older drivers saying this or that about the newer generation!

Somewhere in the last 10 to 15 years most (NO Not All!!) Senior men forgot that principle.
And they have tried to amass everything around themselves and hoard it!

The generations before that kept to the principle...For that and many other accomplishments they are and still deserve the title of The Greatest Generation!!! I know this will not please many of you. But lets call it as it really is. And quit trying to sprinkle stare dust up everyones rears!

You know it well....

Seniority OVER Solidarity!

 

[TheBigR]

Nobody had to push me out the door. I left with a ton of time owed me and took it all in cash. But, that was my choice, not yours. I feel for the guy not getting work while senior men grab o t. It's not morally right, but those are the rules. Want to change them, go to your union meeting with all the effected and bring it up. But don't be surprised if the senior guys show up to hammer you down. Seniority is one of the last things we have in this union. If you want to eliminate it, good luck, you will be older and more senior some day, time waits for no one.

 

[kenmax00]

Enough Is Enough With They Have To Stay !

no one hopes to have medical problems /young grand children/on an on ,every, over 70 driver i have spoken too has a selfish reason to hang on. i even had one lie about his age to justify hanging on till 70,seniority list already shows him 70 says he needs 2 more ,that makes him 72, another driver wants to get to 6 million miles (60 yrs) just to set a record, give me a break, these guys have exhausted there seniority. i for one have a life period. if you did not plan ahead an lived for today, shame on you. some drivers will all ways have an excuse to hang on (NO LIFE) bottom line there needs to come a time when the senior driver remembers what it was like an considers his BROTHER, we are not talking about junior guys with 4 or 5 yrs , some are getting screwed with 20. its time to move on

 

[mstrdinan]

worry more about the people junior to you
they have less SENIORITY than you...
all we have left is SENIORITY...
RESPECT IT

 

[larry retired]

Imagine being stopped on an expressway (in a straight truck) and being rammed from behind (at 60+mph) by a Lincoln town car. Been out 20 of the last 33 months. Had shoulder surgery, reutrned for 13 months and the back went out again. Waiting now for approval for back surgery. Ouch!! Hoping to finish 5 more years for my 25 with age to get full pension. Disability pension plus SSDI, will not cut the mustard.

Animo, I know where you are coming from. When I was one year shy of having the age and years to qualify, I had to go in for a procedure called ablation. It has to do with the heart. The surgeon told me after the procedure that I would need a pacemaker. He said I would never be able to lift more than 25 pounds after that. I laid in that hospital bed all night wondering what the hell I was going to do. The next day, I had my cardiologist insert the pacer. I told him what the other doctor had told me. He told me that the other surgeon was excellent at his specialty, but was very conservative in his diagnosis. He told me that I would be just fine. That was an enormous relief after laying awake all the night before. I hope everything works out for you.

As far as the topic here goes, I think this is the most contentious subject that gets discussed on this forum. This subject comes up time and time again. And I urge all of you to keep at it, because it is your right and seems to help a lot of you release your frustrations. But the truth is, it is what it is, and it ain't gonna' change. One person here said one thing that made me laugh. He said some people think the company can't survive without them. We all know people like this. That was very funny.

 

[Animo916]

Okay...Lets get the 80 lb gorilla in the room out in the open...
In the 7 years with Yellow and before that CF (14 plus years) and over 27 years driving,...I notice, That if a change or some new rule etc.comes down the pike..If its good for the Senior people...then its stated its for the "Brotherhood"...but, if it isn't for the benefit of the Senior men...but, good for the Junior Men...then its every man for himself!!!

Each generation of Teamsters used to...or should make improvements for not only themselves but the Union members to come. The Newer generations!! I'm So tired of hearing Older drivers saying this or that about the newer generation!

Somewhere in the last 10 to 15 years most (NO Not All!!) Senior men forgot that principle.
And they have tried to amass everything around themselves and hoard it!

The generations before that kept to the principle...For that and many other accomplishments they are and still deserve the title of The Greatest Generation!!! I know this will not please many of you. But lets call it as it really is. And quit trying to sprinkle stare dust up everyones rears!

Excellent points. What some senior men seem to forget, is it's the junior men working that will be paying their retirement checks. Screw the junior men, when people retire, no one's there to contribute. Then what do you have.

As far as someone working past retirement age, that's their personal choice. For whatever reason, they have earned the right to decide whether to keep working or packing it in. We had one guy at Preston with 40 years of service. It was only when we pointed out to him, that he was actually losing money by coming to work, did he realize it was time to stop. Another point to be taken is, if someone works past retirement age and dies while still working, if no spousal benefit is in place, his pension monies stay in the funds.

 

[2631]

Animo916- I have to disagree with you on 2 of your points. But first let me make it clear that I am a junior man with just 3 & 1/2years on the list.

Excellent points. What some senior men seem to forget, is it's the junior men working that will be paying their retirement checks. Screw the junior men, when people retire, no one's there to contribute. Then what do you have.

IMO, contrary to what UPS & ABF would like us to believe, the Teamster's MEPFs are not some type of "pyramid schemes" Pension contributions for junior men are not paying for anyones retirement checks but their own. And with this new contract we are all paying down the company's unfunded liability.

if someone works past retirement age and dies while still working, if no spousal benefit is in place, his pension monies stay in the funds.

In Local 560 if someone dies without the spousal benefit in place their estate is guaranteed the full rate for 5 years.

 

[Animo916]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animo916- I have to disagree with you on 2 of your points. But first let me make it clear that I am a junior man with just 3 & 1/2years on the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animo916
Excellent points. What some senior men seem to forget, is it's the junior men working that will be paying their retirement checks. Screw the junior men, when people retire, no one's there to contribute. Then what do you have.

IMO, contrary to what UPS & ABF would like us to believe, the Teamster's MEPFs are not some type of "pyramid schemes" Pension contributions for junior men are not paying for anyones retirement checks but their own. And with this new contract we are all paying down the company's unfunded liability.

Who said it was a pyramid scheme? Think what you want, but after 20 years in the business, I can tell you that my contributions, your contributions and everyone elses contributions are all paying the checks that current retirees are collecting, and building the funds, whenever possible. All the time you work, and the contributions put in, on your behalf, only determine the amount of pension benefits you will receive when it's your turn to collect.
As far as paying down any fund liability, that was negotiated in the contract. That is what was determined by the surveys, by those Teamsters that returned them. This is being handled by the increased contributions from the company. Granted, the funds are supposed to have enough to cover all anticipated payouts, but if the company ceased operations, the pension funds would dry up very quickly. That is why we need to keep the company profitable, so new men can be hired to keep the funds growing for the future.



Originally Posted by Animo916
if someone works past retirement age and dies while still working, if no spousal benefit is in place, his pension monies stay in the funds.

In Local 560 if someone dies without the spousal benefit in place their estate is guaranteed the full rate for 5 years.

Every local is different. Just because 560 does it, doesn't mean they all do it. I was just making a general remark. There will always be exceptions to the rule. And again, if there is no estate to leave it to, it stays in the fund.

 

[Triplex]

<snip>
And again, if there is no estate to leave it to, it stays in the fund.

Whenever someone dies there is always an &quot;estate&quot;. It is the net worth of that deceased person. Quoting Wikipedia, &quot;In the context of probate, the estate of a deceased person consists of all the property, whether real or personal, owned by the person at the time of death.&quot;

 

[Loon]

I have great respect for those above me on the list. They paved the way, at great expense to their financial security, for me to have what I have today. Strikes, loss of pay, bad working conditions, bad equipment (no AC- no PS), ciggy loads, non-palletized freight (yes, folks, years ago not many pallets were used in shipping, it was all floor loads). They stuck to their guns for good contracts and the long term security that came with them, no matter what Union carrier they ended up at if that carrier closed.

With the new contract passed by overwhelming majority, it's hard to look them square in the eye and tell them to retire.
Most certainly, with their time in, they voted no on this contract. They have nothing to lose if their company goes under.... They could just retire. They voted no for everyone under them .... for the sake of Teamsters as a whole. The new contract passing certainly shows where loyalties are at.
Now we are debating how long we think they should stay working?

 

[stldude44]

Loon,
Sadly a few here want to force the high seniority guys out of the way so they can work more. This thread was misleading in it's title. It should have been &quot;Should there be a forced 30 and out&quot;....I'm sure that's what was meant here. It must be that the ME generation is in full swing in our Union. They seem to respect nothing that isn't suited just for them. Seniority will prevail....always has and always will.

 

[Animo916]

Whenever someone dies there is always an &quot;estate&quot;. It is the net worth of that deceased person. Quoting Wikipedia, &quot;In the context of probate, the estate of a deceased person consists of all the property, whether real or personal, owned by the person at the time of death.&quot;

Since it seems that people want to disect what i say, and point out exceptions, then answer me this. If there are no heirs to the estate, what happens then. All of the deceased's liabilities still have to be taken care of. Not saying that this is the usual situation, just claiming it's a possibility.

Regardless of the situation, that still isn't the point. The point is, should someone at or past the &quot;so called&quot; retirement age, be forced to stop working........and I still say, it is their hard earned right to decide for themselves.

 

[Vwaggs]

Since it seems that people want to disect what i say, and point out exceptions, then answer me this. If there are no heirs to the estate, what happens then. All of the deceased's liabilities still have to be taken care of. Not saying that this is the usual situation, just claiming it's a possibility.

Regardless of the situation, that still isn't the point. The point is, should someone at or past the &quot;so called&quot; retirement age, be forced to stop working........and I still say, it is their hard earned right to decide for themselves.

Court appointed Executor.

A fancy term for a lawyer thats gonna get most of whats there in legal fees.

 

[Animo916]

I'm done with legalities. I know about all the legal processes of dying. I'm just saying, not every plan will send the pension to a spouse or estate, unless specifically requested to do so, and only if it's offered by the plan.


Now if anyone wants to get back to and stick to the topic, I'll be more than happy to chew the fat.
Otherwise, I'm done with this thread.:nono:

 

[Triplex]

Since it seems that people want to disect what i say, and point out exceptions, then answer me this.

Gee, isn't give and take the whole purpose of this board? Sorry if I offended you by offering my explanation of &quot;estate&quot;.

If there are no heirs to the estate, what happens then. All of the deceased's liabilities still have to be taken care of. Not saying that this is the usual situation, just claiming it's a possibility.

Regardless of the situation, that still isn't the point. The point is, should someone at or past the &quot;so called&quot; retirement age, be forced to stop working........and I still say, it is their hard earned right to decide for themselves.

And I am in total agreement with you!!

 

[Vwaggs]

I'm done with legalities. I know about all the legal processes of dying. I'm just saying, not every plan will send the pension to a spouse or estate, unless specifically requested to do so, and only if it's offered by the plan.


Now if anyone wants to get back to and stick to the topic, I'll be more than happy to chew the fat.
Otherwise, I'm done with this thread.:nono:

Sorry Animo,
Was my intent to be neutral observer, not combatant. Just trying to help w/info. I'll leave your conversation alone and go hump a fireplug.

 

[wolf]

Sorry Animo,
Was my intent to be neutral observer, not combatant. Just trying to help w/info. I'll leave your conversation alone and go hump a fireplug.

I made the mistake in another thread asking about something I never heard of. Got way more education than I needed. So I'll probably regret this but, what is hump a fireplug?

 

[Vwaggs]

Fire hydrant you &quot;plug&quot; hoses into them. Think Whipped Dog.

 

[Triplex]

Fire hydrant you &quot;plug&quot; hoses into them. Think Whipped Dog.

Isn't that something like cutting off the air supply to a chicken??