What's new

Yellow | YRC Pension & Central States

H

Harleywideglide

TB Lurker
Credits
0
I have recently run across some information that provoked me to research YRC Teamsters pension cuts. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 according to my reading, prohibits a pension fund from retroactively cutting accrued benefits. Central States has done just that. How can this be within the guidelines and rules of federal law under ERISA? Is there some legal loophole that allows them to break the basis of ERISA? I don't know, but I'm trying to find out.


29 USC § 1053 - Minimum vesting standards

(a) Nonforfeitability requirements
(3)
(C)A right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions shall not be treated as forfeitable solely because plan amendments may be given retroactive application as provided in section 1082(d)(2) of this title.


(E)
(i)A right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions under a multiemployer plan shall not be treated as forfeitable solely because the plan provides that benefits accrued as a result of service with the participant’s employer before the employer had an obligation to contribute under the plan may not be payable if the employer ceases contributions to the multiemployer plan.

(ii)A participant’s right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions under a multiemployer plan shall not be treated as forfeitable solely because—

(I) the plan is amended to reduce benefits under section 1425 or 1441 of this title, or

(II) benefit payments under the plan may be suspended under section 1426 or 1441 of this title.



Want more info and possibly band together to see if anything can be done? Email: Use the PM system do NOT post e-mails
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Security Act of 1974. Might the two or three Pension laws since change things just a tad? Just Asking?
 
The United States Constitution is well over 200 years old, but it still applies. The thing is, like I said, I don't know. That's why we need to hire an independent attorney who is on our side; not YRC's, not the union, and not Central States. I think we need someone totally independent of all parties who can truly be objective. Maybe a class-action lawsuit would be possible to regain what Central States has decided to take.

Why should they be able to retroactively apply cuts to what has ALREADY BEEN CONTRIBUTED for us? ERISA gives that protection.


Reference this Supreme Court case that was decided in 2007 under ERISA.

OPINION OF THE COURT
CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION FUND V. HEINZ
541 U. S. ____ (2004)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 02-891


CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND, PETITIONER v. THOMAS E. HEINZ et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

[June 7, 2004]

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.

With few exceptions, the “anti-cutback” rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits any amendment of a pension plan that would reduce a participant’s “accrued benefit.” 88 Stat. 858, 29 U. S. C. §1054(g).

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz - 02-891 (2004) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Do some research; see what you can find.
 
Harleywideglide said:
The United States Constitution is well over 200 years old, but it still applies. The thing is, like I said, I don't know. That's why we need to hire an independent attorney who is on our side; not YRC's, not the union, and not Central States. I think we need someone totally independent of all parties who can truly be objective. Maybe a class-action lawsuit would be possible to regain what Central States has decided to take.

Why should they be able to retroactively apply cuts to what has ALREADY BEEN CONTRIBUTED for us? ERISA gives that protection.


Reference this Supreme Court case that was decided in 2007 under ERISA.

OPINION OF THE COURT
CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION FUND V. HEINZ
541 U. S. ____ (2004)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 02-891


CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND, PETITIONER v. THOMAS E. HEINZ et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

[June 7, 2004]

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.

With few exceptions, the “anti-cutback” rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits any amendment of a pension plan that would reduce a participant’s “accrued benefit.” 88 Stat. 858, 29 U. S. C. §1054(g).

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz - 02-891 (2004) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Do some research; see what you can find.
Click to expand...
I quick thumbed through that case you brought up, and it is in regards to Disqualifying employment not reducing benefits retroactively. At least thats how I read it. And I did hours of search on retirement laws prior to retiring and I personally have come away with an entirely different opinion on what we at Central States are seeing than you.
 
You should read the Heinz case carefully. It was about employment after retirement all right, but the Supreme Court used the provision in ERISA about not being able to retroactively cut benefits since the pension stopped payments completely. The Supreme Court ruled that this effectively cut benefits retroactively in opposition to ERISA.

I don't know if there is something else involved or not in our case, but if we lie down and play dead without someone who is not involved directly with this situation and has the education to determine the legality of what Central States has done, we are accepting whatever they tell us. I would hate to find out five or ten years from now I could have done something now and won back what they took, than just accept their word. If your trust of those whom I doubt you even know is unwaivering, then be content with what they tell you. I would rather have an impartial source verify things, and I hope many others will agree and we can hire someone to look into it. I'm not saying I have the answer, but I do see things in the law that make me ask a lot of questions.
 
Harleywideglide said:
You should read the Heinz case carefully. It was about employment after retirement all right, but the Supreme Court used the provision in ERISA about not being able to retroactively cut benefits since the pension stopped payments completely. The Supreme Court ruled that this effectively cut benefits retroactively in opposition to ERISA.

I don't know if there is something else involved or not in our case, but if we lie down and play dead without someone who is not involved directly with this situation and has the education to determine the legality of what Central States has done, we are accepting whatever they tell us. I would hate to find out five or ten years from now I could have done something now and won back what they took, than just accept their word. If your trust of those whom I doubt you even know is unwaivering, then be content with what they tell you. I would rather have an impartial source verify things, and I hope many others will agree and we can hire someone to look into it. I'm not saying I have the answer, but I do see things in the law that make me ask a lot of questions.
Click to expand...
I am nothing but a dumb Ol Trucker, and I trust no one. I would like to point out things as I see em. CS did not cut the benefits retroactively for anybody that had retired before Sept 2010. Those after that point lost the early out provision but if one was of full retirement age there was no cuts to their Benefit. There was a law passed just a few years back that allowed (actually forced) this if the "Fund" is in Critical Status. I'm as pissed as anybody, I don't see making some Bloodsucking Lawyer rich just for giggles a good idea. Hell if there was any possibility that this was illegal I would think Gregare could have been a hero if he had pointed it out. The Tdu, who has an agenda most likely would have jumped at any possibilities to spearhead a movement. If there was one. I really think your bucking an impossible headwind.
 
Wolf,
You make some good points and the best I think is the critical status of the fund. That may be where the snag is. That is the one thing that makes me think that's how they're getting away with it if it is legal. As far as not cutting pensions, I don't see it that way. I think they have cut accrued benefits by raising the age requirement. I was going to retire at the end of March 2011 at age 59 with 27.4 years paid in. CS told me I would get $2709 per month. One week before my last day everything changed and my pension would have been $1700 instead. I consider that a cut! I had accrued enough contributions to receive 2700, but they CUT it to 1700. I know several others who had already recently retired and they got big cuts even though they have accrued the benefits. ERISA is about not being able to cut ACCRUED BENEFITS.

I think your comment about facing a huge headwind is right-on, but I don't like the idea of taking their word for it and being content although that may be what I'll have to end up doing because too few people are willing to fight to find out if we're being taken for a ride. At least you were willing to read and comment some, most haven't done a thing. I think that's the same reason the country is in the condition it's in....most just sit back and won't even comment except to complain to friends about it. I appreciate what effort you put in to this because like I said, most do absolutely nothing.

It's past time for people to take a stand on this and many other things instead of sitting back and saying what can I do. When enough people start taking action things will change. Hopefully, something will get going on this and other important issues. We all need to be more active in things; not just jaw-jackin'.
 
harley i think that under erisa since you were not yet retired the plan could make adjustments
if you were already retired and rec'd your first check of $2700 the plan could not change that amount
the only time that could happen is when the Pension guarantee corp takes over your plan and then you will rec as little as $38.50 per credit
for all the workers not yet retired and since there are no set amounts being paid yet the number they give to those is always subject to change as the administrators see fit
because of george bush's law the fund when it is in critical status must make adjustments by law to keep the fund solvent and that is unfortunately achieved at the not yet retired's expense

by the way what ever happened to that **** load of money dumped in when UPS withdrew? thought that would buy some time
 
Harleywideglide said:
You should read the Heinz case carefully. It was about employment after retirement all right, but the Supreme Court used the provision in ERISA about not being able to retroactively cut benefits since the pension stopped payments completely. The Supreme Court ruled that this effectively cut benefits retroactively in opposition to ERISA.

I don't know if there is something else involved or not in our case, but if we lie down and play dead without someone who is not involved directly with this situation and has the education to determine the legality of what Central States has done, we are accepting whatever they tell us. I would hate to find out five or ten years from now I could have done something now and won back what they took, than just accept their word. If your trust of those whom I doubt you even know is unwaivering, then be content with what they tell you. I would rather have an impartial source verify things, and I hope many others will agree and we can hire someone to look into it. I'm not saying I have the answer, but I do see things in the law that make me ask a lot of questions.
Click to expand...
While I am not in this fund and can't really say who or what is right,I mentioned it to a friend who is a lawyer and he suggested that you contact you state bar assn. They can give you direction on how to find help and answers to your questions.
 
I guess I was more tired than I thought on my last post. What we all have to remember is that the cuts do NOT apply to all Central States Teamsters; only YRC. The cuts had to do with YRC temporarily ceasing pension contributions. Even though the fund is in the "Red Zone" that has not caused the fund to cut ABF or anyone else's pension, therefore, why do the contributions already made on YRC Teamsters behalf get cut retroactively? I don't see where it matters whether I have already retired or not. The fact is my accrued benefits have been cut. They are the ones that changed the rules in mid-stream. Ok, if that's the way it has to be because of YRC's failure to make pension contributions for the past two years, then cuts should only affect the last two years and forward; not my entire pension. That's what ERISA is supposed to be about.
 
Harleywideglide said:
I guess I was more tired than I thought on my last post. What we all have to remember is that the cuts do NOT apply to all Central States Teamsters; only YRC. The cuts had to do with YRC temporarily ceasing pension contributions. Even though the fund is in the "Red Zone" that has not caused the fund to cut ABF or anyone else's pension, therefore, why do the contributions already made on YRC Teamsters behalf get cut retroactively? I don't see where it matters whether I have already retired or not. The fact is my accrued benefits have been cut. They are the ones that changed the rules in mid-stream. Ok, if that's the way it has to be because of YRC's failure to make pension contributions for the past two years, then cuts should only affect the last two years and forward; not my entire pension. That's what ERISA is supposed to be about.
Click to expand...
I was'nt attacking you or your concerns, only trying to help you find the answers you are looking for. In the world of law the difference between i.e. or e.g. can change the meaning of an entire law.
 
No pilot, I didn't think you were. I was mainly commenting on the fact that most of us seem to have been directing comments as if everyone in the fund has taken cuts, especially since the fund is in the Red Zone, but that is not the case. Only YRC Teamsters have taken cuts, therefore the fund being in the Red Zone should not apply. We have to remember that only YRC Teamsters have been affected. That is why I question the legality of the cuts affecting our entire pension.

I thank you for the help and suggestion, however, I have already corresponded with a pension specialist law firm and they are willing to look into it, but it will cost money.
 
BIG STEVE said:
harley i think that under erisa since you were not yet retired the plan could make adjustments
if you were already retired and rec'd your first check of $2700 the plan could not change that amount
the only time that could happen is when the Pension guarantee corp takes over your plan and then you will rec as little as $38.50 per credit
for all the workers not yet retired and since there are no set amounts being paid yet the number they give to those is always subject to change as the administrators see fit
because of george bush's law the fund when it is in critical status must make adjustments by law to keep the fund solvent and that is unfortunately achieved at the not yet retired's expense

by the way what ever happened to that **** load of money dumped in when UPS withdrew? thought that would buy some time
Click to expand...

That's correct. The Funds are required by federal law to make changes to preserve the Fund if they are in critical status. If you received 13 checks you're safe unless of course the day comes when they don't have enough money to pay all retirees for the year then the PBGC steps in with the machete. Central States lost all that $6B in the stock market the following year after they got it from UPS
 
Its amazing how 6billion vanished.I have no facts to tell anyone different.I guess we have to take their word on it.as much as Id like to trust our union on particular items.I'm leary.
On another note.congress a few years back.decided to lower the ceiling on solvancy for our pensions.I believe it was passed in Bush's second term.
Another item to be discussed.I can't remember the name of the congressman.nor do I have the article.I read about a congressman who is trying to pass a bill.allowing a certain amount money to be given to these troubled pensions.to help bring them up and out of the critical stage.by the way its not a tax payer bailout.its money that had been paid in over the years by corporations.at least that's how I read it.plus its not affiliated with the pgc or whatever you call it.I read that this fund has at least a billion or more.its substantially more than a billion if I recall.so there is work going on behind the scenes.to help shore up these multi employer funds.
 
Yes, the funds may be required to make changes, but we're talking about YRC cuts; not everyone is getting cut---only YRC, therefore the cuts are NOT because of critical status. The cuts are because YRC stopped making contributions. I refer you back to the Heinz case. Even though it was about being reemployed after retirement, the Supreme Court ruled that under ERISA, the fund retroactively cut benefits accrued by stopping his pension checks and therefore was illegal which is what ERISA is about the way I read it.
 
Harleywideglide said:
Yes, the funds may be required to make changes, but we're talking about YRC cuts; not everyone is getting cut---only YRC, therefore the cuts are NOT because of critical status. The cuts are because YRC stopped making contributions. I refer you back to the Heinz case. Even though it was about being reemployed after retirement, the Supreme Court ruled that under ERISA, the fund retroactively cut benefits accrued by stopping his pension checks and therefore was illegal which is what ERISA is about the way I read it.
Click to expand...

The Funds haven't stopped or altered any retirees checks..at least not those retirees who have collected 13 checks. Central States is in critical status because of stock market loses exasperated by YRC not making full payments. So far only YRC teamsters are taking the pension hit but some changes like the pushing the retirement age up and the elimination of perks affect ABF also
 
Some kind of fallout we have.just analyzing the way these funds are situated.I understand the equality and fairness of the way the pension funds are setup.you have western,central states,northeast and the eastern I believe.correct me if I'm wrong about one or two funds.
I understand that it maybe a law on why there are so many different conferences holding pensions of the teamsters.in these economic times.wouldn't it be advantageous to combine one or more of these conferences pension.just for the time being.with proper permission of the legislators of these pensions and the government.a temporary fix.till we find a more stable ground financially.I'm not the most intelligent person in the world.its just an opinion.any one care to refute these examples.I do believe if we continue the way it is setup.we could lose a ton more by inaction.again.its an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top