What's new

ABF | Will Congress Pass A Bill To Allow Pension Cuts?

Walleye said:
Don't forget junior lobbied FOR the pension cuts,......
Click to expand...

Your are correct Sir... Hoffa, The Pension Funds, and the company all are for the law change!!! If the law is changed I know of people that will be looking for new jobs, The biggest reason they are holding on is for the pension... The only thing left to give away will be the Health and Welfare benefits. Everything else has been given away already, without even a fight!!!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE YES VOTERS THAT GAVE AWAY EVERYTHING OUT OF FEAR, JUST TO HAVE A PAYCHECK!!!
 
Papa, I understand your position quite well and I'm with ya on most of it. But are you saying even if the current pay-out is not sustainable and will definitely sink the fund to do nothing and let it happen? Believe me I am 100% for the pension and do not like the idea of anyone's pension being cut. But if it's necessary to share the pain with all that will be benefiting from the fund to right the ship so that it will be there for all of us then I am a realist and can accept this reality for the benefit of all. I do not on the other hand want to keep putting my share into the pension, blindly hoping, if it cant be made solvent and be there when I'm ready to retire. Do you?
 
If ERISA stands for anything, it stands for the proposition that accrued benefits cannot be reduced. The law provides that future benefits can be pared or frozen, but not benefits that have already been earned and vested. The “anti-cutback rule” is perhaps the most fundamental of ERISA's participant protections. Moreover, in the event an employer terminates the plan, those benefits (up to a given amount) are insured by the PBGC.

What is missing from the NCCMP proposal is an explicit recognition of the considerations that argue against cutting benefits for retirees or near-retirees. Historically, there is a broad consensus that any plan modification that leads to benefit reductions should protect (hold harmless) retirees and near-retirees (e.g., those within 10 years of retirement age). For good reason: those in and near retirement are either already relying on that income, which is usually modest in amount, or have already made plans in reliance on that income. In the case of retirees, they do not have any meaningful opportunity to return to the workforce or somehow generate new sources of income; in the case of near-retirees, they are deemed too close to retirement to be able to effectuate any significant change in career or retirement plans. It is widely viewed as simply unfair to change the rules of the game people have relied upon throughout their working careers.
Click to expand...

https://tdu.org/sites/default/files/2AARPStatementOnMulti-EmployerPensionFunds.pdf

Promises were made and wage increases were contributed into the funds by the members. Now the NCCMP, with Hoffa's blessing, wants to change federal law and let fund trustees arbitrarily decide who's pensions can be cut. This is not sharing the pain.

Cutting retiree's pensions should be a last resort not the first choice of action taken by the trustee's. Congress should not change ERISA.
 
Southern Man said:
Papa, I understand your position quite well and I'm with ya on most of it. But are you saying even if the current pay-out is not sustainable and will definitely sink the fund to do nothing and let it happen? Believe me I am 100% for the pension and do not like the idea of anyone's pension being cut. But if it's necessary to share the pain with all that will be benefiting from the fund to right the ship so that it will be there for all of us then I am a realist and can accept this reality for the benefit of all. I do not on the other hand want to keep putting my share into the pension, blindly hoping, if it cant be made solvent and be there when I'm ready to retire. Do you?
Click to expand...

The magic words in this post are "when I'm ready to retire". You still have the opportunity to continue working or seek employment elsewhere. Those that been retired for years no longer are able to do that. They contributed year after year with the promise of a set amount monthly if they chose to retire. The younger guys want the old-farts to retire and now they want to penalize them for doing so. If the union and the companies are united in this, and abolish the agreement they made at the time anyone retired, then those that took an early retirement should be allowed to return to the jobs they left with full seniority restored. Those that have reached their normal retirement age should not be affected. IMO I think that's fair.
 
There were no magic words in there jellybean. I'll mark you down for keeping yours at 100% and cut mine oh say 50% so you won't be affected one bit.
 
Yeah that would be interesting to bring back all those old timers and see if they can pass the D.O.T. physical, etc....! Just what we need a bunch of 65-85 year old guys on the road and dock/yard!
 
jellybean said:
The magic words in this post are "when I'm ready to retire". You still have the opportunity to continue working or seek employment elsewhere. Those that been retired for years no longer are able to do that. They contributed year after year with the promise of a set amount monthly if they chose to retire. The younger guys want the old-farts to retire and now they want to penalize them for doing so. If the union and the companies are united in this, and abolish the agreement they made at the time anyone retired, then those that took an early retirement should be allowed to return to the jobs they left with full seniority restored. Those that have reached their normal retirement age should not be affected. IMO I think that's fair.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this, if they pull the rug out from under us we should be afforded to opportunity to return to work with seniority, anything less would be unfair. BTW I consider myself a younger guy and I want the elders to work until they die so there will be more for me when I retire.
Freightmaster1 said:
Yeah that would be interesting to bring back all those old timers and see if they can pass the D.O.T. physical, etc....! Just what we need a bunch of 65-85 year old guys on the road and dock/yard!
Click to expand...
See the sentence I bolded above.
 
Southern Man said:
I agree. I just want the fund made solvent for all and be honest on what I will receive.
Click to expand...

And I agree with you on this. But please remember that the fund administrators thought they were being honest with the retirees when they told them what they would receive. ERISA protected what they were promised. If the NCCMP is successful in changing ERISA it will be opening a Pandora's box. Each individual fund's trustees will have the power to cut pension amounts based on their ability or inability to properly manage the funds.

So if some of their investments go bad they can just make up the losses by lowering the pensioner's check. The fat cats that sit on some of the pension funds will still get theirs while retirees suffer. It would be like congress cutting the social security benefits promised to retirees.
 
Crystal said:
And I agree with you on this. But please remember that the fund administrators thought they were being honest with the retirees when they told them what they would receive. ERISA protected what they were promised. If the NCCMP is successful in changing ERISA it will be opening a Pandora's box. Each individual fund's trustees will have the power to cut pension amounts based on their ability or inability to properly manage the funds.

So if some of their investments go bad they can just make up the losses by lowering the pensioner's check. The fat cats that sit on some of the pension funds will still get theirs while retirees suffer. It would be like congress cutting the social security benefits promised to retirees.
Click to expand...

Good Post... In my opinion members who have the age, and members who have contributed for 25 years and more have earned the defined amount that has been negotiated. To me this is a contract signed by the pension funds and they should be honored as a signed contract. The pension funds should be investigated and held accountable.
Retires should not be penalized for mismanagement.
Click to expand...
 No where do you see the fat cats in the IBT or the pension funds taking any cuts in their protected Pensions...
 
I knew I'd ruffle some feathers on that post, but geez man. If they're going to take away what was promised, then we should get a mulligan on this. Obviously if you're not physically able to do the job, you can't do the job. My dad, who passed last year, retired years ago with a pension of about $600 a month. Do you really think it would've been far to cut him to about $200 or less. Those that fought for what we have are seeing it disappear by corrupt management and union leadership, and todays members don't seem to want to take a stand to stop it. We walked a picket line in '94 mostly against part-timers for 24 days. Even though it's allowed now, I'm still proud of the fact that we took a stand then, and WON. Once anything is given away...you never get it back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We all know that very few retirees would be rehired even if their companies were still in business. I doubt that any proposed changes in ERISA would include language that required companies to rehire former employees.
 
I agree on both counts. I don't expect it to happen, but just hope for a better solution for those in need of what they're getting now. Just venting a little disgust over the whole situation, including this new contract. Never like to go backwards for any reason. Like I said...you never get it back.
 
I'm going out on a limb and predicting that congress won't change ERISA.......But I would like to know if the IBT or DRIVE contributed any money to the NCCMP lobbying effort?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top