What's new

Yellow | Why not put something into the Pension?

F

Fthemwithasmile

TB Lurker
Credits
0
I have not seen anyone question the IBT's decision to allow YRC to not contribute one red cent to our Pensions, with the vote pending of course. Anyone know why they couldn't at least put $1.00 and take more wages to get to the number of concession dollars they need. Here in the west we need the service credit to get vested or to make our PEER number to retire. I do know different trusts have different rules but I can't figure this one out. Anybody know why they went this route?
 
Fthemwithasmile said:
I have not seen anyone question the IBT's decision to allow YRC to not contribute one red cent to our Pensions, with the vote pending of course. Anyone know why they couldn't at least put $1.00 and take more wages to get to the number of concession dollars they need. Here in the west we need the service credit to get vested or to make our PEER number to retire. I do know different trusts have different rules but I can't figure this one out. Anybody know why they went this route?
Click to expand...

The Unions financial wizard took one look at the plan and told them it wasn't enough. He said (YRC) was way too conservative on their estimates and needed to be this aggressive in order to make it through to where many analysts predict the economy will gain some ground. This plan is simply to survive. They claim there was no other alternative given the debt load and the economy.
 
Well I guess our local president shouldn't have told us less than a week before the july 14th meeting that the financial wizards looked at the yrc books and he told the union that a 14 month deferral would work as long as the banks came on board with 450 million.
Any one wanna bet the banks said go take a hike and thats why the 18 month suspension and 5% cut was the new deal?
And the ballot info says they expect equal sacrafice from the banks. give it a week after the ballot count is announced and the union will say "its a good thing we went with an 18 month suspension because now the banks refused to come on board"
 
Tell the banks, we don't have any money, we will pay you when we feel like it, what do they care Obama gave them plenty of cash.
 
Still wondering why the deal couldn't have included a 6% or 7% wage reduction and still keep something going into the pension. It would be more cost effective for the company as they would be paying less on the OT rate and only the first 2080 on the pension. This would have a much better chance of passing with somethiung like this and you wouldn't have people saying that we will never see a pension contribution again. It would also help protect the trusts that are in trouble with something going in. This makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top