What's new

Yellow | Who's in favor of a 401k?

muffin top

muffin top

TB Lurker
Credits
68
I'm just wondering who would be in favor of dumping the pension plan with a company match 401k? Seems that both are facing hard times, but I think I would rather have $250 dollars a week put into a 401k that I can control, over something that I have no control over.
 
PBS Frontline did a program on retirement and the link below has really good information and comes at it from both sides.

PBS Frontline: Retirement

I might have a different view if I wasn't in the Western Conference of Teamters Plan. I'll take this defined benefit pension over a 401K any day. For many the 401K will just not work.

Jimmy B
 
A lot of false hope in a 401k! May seem like like a lot of money in your account! Now try to figure out how long you will have to draw off of it! Lets say! 20 divided by $200,000 = $10,000 yr= $830 mo
market beat up your account! $140,000 dived by 20 = $7,000yr =$550 mo
lets say you draw 30-35 years . You do the math!
But = starvation!! You have medical issues = your toast
thats why you will now see people working well into there golden years! Beacause they have to, not because they want to!!!
 
rdans1997 said:
Seems that both are facing hard times, but I think I would rather have $250 dollars a week put into a 401k that I can control, over something that I have no control over.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think that the key is......"Money that you can control." A lot of people either don't have confidence that they know how to control the money, or just don't want the responsibility of controlling it. Therefore a pension is easier for them.
 
No way would I change. You can elect to contribute to the Teamster 401K (as I do) but to change out of my Locals plan it aint gonna happen. Those that would want to change are either Central States or Central PA.
 
my thought is one union = one pension plan!....eliminate conferences... although im sure the brass in the union would never go for it
 
teamster 401-k plan

teamster 401 is a great idea.

the company administering it sucks.

wait 'til you try to redeem your money after age 59.

i pulled out 3 years ao and bought my retirement home 3 years ago and just by dumb luck a coo let me transfer nearby this summer.

if a company like fidelity or vanguard or t rowe was administering it i'd crank it up again.
 
My Teamsters 401-K is down 50% for this year to date. But it is my fault as I am fully invested 100% in blue chip stocks. My Bank of America stock is down 75% by itself alone. It's really not a total loss unless I sell at these levels tho....
 
I'd be willing to let Teamsters keep all I have paid in for the last ten years. To secrure retirees! Then let Yellow take half the current pension contributions they pay for me be invested into a 401K plan that I pick the investments. I'd retire a millionare! Like the Dave Ramsey plan. 250.00 a month invested for a working lifetime normally would yield like 5.6 million at retirement. So half of Yellows contributions, Where I pick the investments Id retire well above $3000.00 a month.
 
armydriver said:
A lot of false hope in a 401k! May seem like like a lot of money in your account! Now try to figure out how long you will have to draw off of it! Lets say! 20 divided by $200,000 = $10,000 yr= $830 mo
market beat up your account! $140,000 dived by 20 = $7,000yr =$550 mo
lets say you draw 30-35 years . You do the math!
But = starvation!! You have medical issues = your toast
thats why you will now see people working well into there golden years! Beacause they have to, not because they want to!!!
Click to expand...

you dont see the big picture you put all your money inconservative funds before retirement that earn 5% saybonds and you may never have to touch the principal
 
I'm for it. I only have 4 yrs in this game and I really dont expect the pension to be there when (or if) I retire with 25. So give me mine now I'll invest it and take care of myself.
 
Just Say No To Replacing Pensions With 401k!

Yellow already has a 401k plan for managers. I heard one manager said his 401k account went from $150,000 to $50,000 since the stock market went into the dumpers! Couple this with the fact that they froze the managers defined benefit pension plan...he'll have to work until he dies! Let's keep the defined benefit pensions! 401k's are too risky! Remember the Bush administration wanted us to privatize our social security too! I'm glad that didn't happen! FIGHT THE POWER!:TR10driving03:
 
freightmaster1 said:
Yellow already has a 401k plan for managers. I heard one manager said his 401k account went from $150,000 to $50,000 since the stock market went into the dumpers! Couple this with the fact that they froze the managers defined benefit pension plan...he'll have to work until he dies! Let's keep the defined benefit pensions! 401k's are too risky! Remember the Bush administration wanted us to privatize our social security too! I'm glad that didn't happen! FIGHT THE POWER!:TR10driving03:
Click to expand...
Thats why every finiancial advisor tells you a 401K invested in good 10-12 track record for a long term investment has never failed to pay off. This finiancial crises is the exception, However it will bounce back. Our pension has lost 9.8 BILLION since the year began! While Zollars is trying to get the goverment to fund companies that don't exist anymore.
 
freightmaster1 said:
Yellow already has a 401k plan for managers. I heard one manager said his 401k account went from $150,000 to $50,000 since the stock market went into the dumpers! Couple this with the fact that they froze the managers defined benefit pension plan...he'll have to work until he dies! Let's keep the defined benefit pensions! 401k's are too risky! :TR10driving03:
Click to expand...


The question is about having our own 401k where we pick how we want it invested. Futhermore, the sum of money will remain yours and will be passed on in your estate if you were to die early. Leave the company and union out of the administration part and you won't have any problems.
You will still be subject to the risk of the market just like our pension plan is.
But what is lost in this argument yet is the most important point is the liability issue to the surviving companies and the withdrawl liability they are left with when the union competition goes out of business. In the early 80's almost all LTL's were union. Today, less than 25% are under NMFA which has created an unbelievable burden on those still in business. Once YRC goes, ABF will be right behind them because they will be the only significant sized fish in the pond to pay our pension. They will have to increase what they already pay due to stipulations set forth by ERISA. They will be out of business almost immediately. Don't take my word for it, check out the video on the Teamsters.org website of the meeting in Arizona last month. All the white papers would also be out of business. And then, Central States Pension will be in default and the PBGC will step in and current retirees will get roughtly 40% of what they are currently getting. Then everyone who thought the pension was a good idea because it protected them from the risk of the market will learn no one is ever totally eliminated from such a risk.
A 401k should have been implemented in the 80's when it became clear non-union companies were gaining marketshare in the LTL industry. This entire mess most likely would have been avoided and workers under NMFA would be making wages that mirror the UPS small package contract and the unionized LTL companies would be in better financial health.
 
We do have a Teamsters 401K fund here at HOLLAND that we can participate in. Of course, it is separate from our pension. And the company DOES NOT match any money. I thought that all YRC companies had that option. Guess not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top