What's new

Yellow | Will we know January 19?

I remember very clearly in 2003 when CSP had meetings with all members the guy at are meeting said “ the Teamsters have been experiencing declining enrollment since 1986 when 3 workers were paying in for 1 retiree, at this time there are 3 retirees for every worker”
but if you remember just prior to that the payouts were increased because of “OVER FUNDING” Now I am not a mathematical engineer, but why would you increase payments if you were taking in less? There is an answer to this and why it happened ( I know the reason) hopefully some one will chime in and back up my question?
It is strange how we forget important details.
 
dokman said:
I remember very clearly in 2003 when CSP had meetings with all members the guy at are meeting said “ the Teamsters have been experiencing declining enrollment since 1986 when 3 workers were paying in for 1 retiree, at this time there are 3 retirees for every worker”
but if you remember just prior to that the payouts were increased because of “OVER FUNDING” Now I am not a mathematical engineer, but why would you increase payments if you were taking in less? There is an answer to this and why it happened ( I know the reason) hopefully some one will chime in and back up my question?
It is strange how we forget important details.
Click to expand...
An easy way also to show an example is Google the union carriers that went out of business from 1982-2003... A bunch.
 
dokman said:
I remember very clearly in 2003 when CSP had meetings with all members the guy at are meeting said “ the Teamsters have been experiencing declining enrollment since 1986 when 3 workers were paying in for 1 retiree, at this time there are 3 retirees for every worker”
but if you remember just prior to that the payouts were increased because of “OVER FUNDING” Now I am not a mathematical engineer, but why would you increase payments if you were taking in less? There is an answer to this and why it happened ( I know the reason) hopefully some one will chime in and back up my question?
It is strange how we forget important details.
Click to expand...
The IRS disallowed over funding about that time. They were greedy, saw no one paying taxes on it, and demanded their share of the pie. Ordered overfunded pensions to either lower the employer funding of the plan, or increase payouts. That's when CSPF started 25 and out at any age, and 30 and out at any age. I know guys that took $3,000 @ month at age 48. Thats unsustainable.
 
dokman said:
I remember very clearly in 2003 when CSP had meetings with all members the guy at are meeting said “ the Teamsters have been experiencing declining enrollment since 1986 when 3 workers were paying in for 1 retiree, at this time there are 3 retirees for every worker”
but if you remember just prior to that the payouts were increased because of “OVER FUNDING” Now I am not a mathematical engineer, but why would you increase payments if you were taking in less? There is an answer to this and why it happened ( I know the reason) hopefully some one will chime in and back up my question?
It is strange how we forget important details.
Click to expand...
They increased payments ,so not to give it back to the employers ,A fully funded fund has to either dole out the benefits to membership or back to employers,Thats the law and it sucks!!
 
seabreeze said:
Good idea El, can we go by seniority?
Just deposit mine in the Cayman Account, I think you have all the info.
Click to expand...
If you've been retired on a Teamster pension for as long as I think you have, you most likely know that your pension check is being funded by your fellow Teamsters who are working now but most likely to never see a pension check if they are more than 10 years from retirement.

Enjoy
 
wtfteamster said:
If you've been retired on a Teamster pension for as long as I think you have, you most likely know that your pension check is being funded by your fellow Teamsters who are working now but most likely to never see a pension check if they are more than 10 years from retirement.

Enjoy
Click to expand...
No argument here, plus PIE paid in on me 35yrs , actually 33yrs, we didn't go union till 57.
Just curious, AmI being faulted for drawing this check?
 
seabreeze said:
No argument here, plus PIE paid in on me 35yrs , actually 33yrs, we didn't go union till 57.
Just curious, AmI being faulted for drawing this check?
Click to expand...
Not in my book, my friend. The prospects for current Teamsters, are bleak. But that is in no way a responsibility of those who are currently receiving pensions. To quote a wise "Vulcan" "Live long and prosper"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top