What's new

Yellow | Current retires returning to work?

I am too young to retire, so these rules don't effect me.(YET) But, since the retirees retired based on a certain amount of income and benefits, I think that it is only fair that if the funds change what the retirees had been banking on, the retirees should have some type of trade off as an advantage to THEM. Such as.....letting them work wherever they want to help replace their cuts.

For the retirees to return to their old position at their former employer would cause too much chaos, so that doesn't seem like a viable option, but at least lift the RE-employment rules as a trade-off. Seems fair enough to me.
 
Northern Flash said:
I am too young to retire, so these rules don't effect me.(YET) But, since the retirees retired based on a certain amount of income and benefits, I think that it is only fair that if the funds change what the retirees had been banking on, the retirees should have some type of trade off as an advantage to THEM. Such as.....letting them work wherever they want to help replace their cuts.

For the retirees to return to their old position at their former employer would cause too much chaos, so that doesn't seem like a viable option, but at least lift the RE-employment rules as a trade-off. Seems fair enough to me.
Click to expand...
You got my vote!
 
Northern Flash said:
I am too young to retire, so these rules don't effect me.(YET) But, since the retirees retired based on a certain amount of income and benefits, I think that it is only fair that if the funds change what the retirees had been banking on, the retirees should have some type of trade off as an advantage to THEM. Such as.....letting them work wherever they want to help replace their cuts.

For the retirees to return to their old position at their former employer would cause too much chaos, so that doesn't seem like a viable option, but at least lift the RE-employment rules as a trade-off. Seems fair enough to me.
Click to expand...

What chaos. You let them bump in and no chaos. You must be afraid of who will come back.
 
rgdg5 said:
What chaos. You let them bump in and no chaos. You must be afraid of who will come back.
Click to expand...

The chaos of making exceptions to the rules based on who it is. Why have rules, period????? Isn't it "Seniority"???? Would a guy who resigned for another reason, then tried to come back- be allowed to Bump In????? No. The Fund going broke was no secret; anyone thinking of retiring knew to check out the scenarios thoroughly. They didn't; they resigned. Rules.......

(And I'm not even there, and I knew it)......
 
I can't see any court allowing people that have resigned from a company to be allowed to return with seniority because a pension fund reduced their benefits. They might consider changing reemployment rules though.
 
Northern Flash said:
One thing that I will never understand is why can't a retiree make income off their own business after they retire. (self employed) Since they qualified for their retirement, why can't they do what they want once they qualify for their pension and retire? What business is it of the pension fund, once you are qualified? I think that you should be able to do whatever you want, AFTER you retire because you paid your dues to qualify.
Click to expand...

The reason is nobody has got a class action lawsuit on them to stop it. They are just like the company in that respect. People have sued and won for other reasons and beat these crooked liars. These idiots have no right to tell you anything about what you can or can't do after you retire. They are tasked with managing a fund, that's all. Did I mention they are thieves and despicable liars?
 
COLKID said:
The reason is nobody has got a class action lawsuit on them to stop it. They are just like the company in that respect. People have sued and won for other reasons and beat these crooked liars. These idiots have no right to tell you anything about what you can or can't do after you retire. They are tasked with managing a fund, that's all. Did I mention they are thieves and despicable liars?
Click to expand...
And of course you can provide us links to back up all of your charges, or is it just another anger inspired negative post on the YRC forum.
 
Now you know I was going to have to try out your website and see if this was true and this is some of the " lawsuits " I found using your link ,

Central States Mortgage Co Review uncovers red flags: Central States had loan flaws, shaky documents | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com This is a lawsuit against the Central States Mortgage Co and allot more like that . I looked at three pages of " lawsuits" from your link and none had anything to do with Central states PENSION fund only the word " central " or " state " . There maybe be more but after three pages I gave up .



COLKID said:
Teamsters group files lawsuit to challenge pension rule | Legal > Trial & Procedure from AllBusiness.com Type in Central states lawsuits cases and a whole page will be there to select from. The first one is the one I put a link to. Hows that for a happy, positive ,inspired YRC forum post. Party on Garth!
Click to expand...
 
R-14Driver said:
Now you know I was going to have to try out your website and see if this was true and this is some of the " lawsuits " I found using your link ,

Central States Mortgage Co Review uncovers red flags: Central States had loan flaws, shaky documents | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com This is a lawsuit against the Central States Mortgage Co and allot more like that . I looked at three pages of " lawsuits" from your link and none had anything to do with Central states PENSION fund only the word " central " or " state " . There maybe be more but after three pages I gave up .
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say the link I provided is not a lawsuit against CS.? I clearly said the first one I came to was the one I put a link to right?
 
COLKID said:
Are you trying to say the link I provided is not a lawsuit against CS.? I clearly said the first one I came to was the one I put a link to right?
Click to expand...

OK I get it now your " first " post said and I quote " Type in Central states lawsuits cases " so I did that ! Yes on the main page there is a lawsuit against Central States from 2003 not a new lawsuit . That's where I was confused I thought you said there was a " new " lawsuit . And that lawsuit is the one from TDU from 2003 and if my memory serves me correct TDU lost that case .
 
R-14Driver said:
OK I get it now your " first " post said and I quote " Type in Central states lawsuits cases " so I did that ! Yes on the main page there is a lawsuit against Central States from 2003 not a new lawsuit . That's where I was confused I thought you said there was a " new " lawsuit . And that lawsuit is the one from TDU from 2003 and if my memory serves me correct TDU lost that case .
Click to expand...

Ok good. Sometimes it is easy to get misunderstood. My opinion about CS. was challenged by the other poster and I was just defending that with proof these idiots have been sued before and have forced changes in their polices. I stand by my belief that their only duty is to manage the money they have been entrusted with. Not dictate what a person can or can not do after retiring. Not sure where I stand on the thread topic about the retirees.
 
deadbeat said:
I can't see any court allowing people that have resigned from a company to be allowed to return with seniority because a pension fund reduced their benefits. They might consider changing reemployment rules though.
Click to expand...
Your statement is correct. We retire from a company, not from a pension fund. When you retire, you are done with the company. Whatever the pension does with your benefits has nothing to do with the company. Therefore, even if you don't like what the pension fund is doing to you......you are still finished with the company. So there will be no returning to the company, just because the pension fund boned you.
 
Northern Flash said:
I am too young to retire, so these rules don't effect me.(YET) But, since the retirees retired based on a certain amount of income and benefits, I think that it is only fair that if the funds change what the retirees had been banking on, the retirees should have some type of trade off as an advantage to THEM. Such as.....letting them work wherever they want to help replace their cuts.

For the retirees to return to their old position at their former employer would cause too much chaos, so that doesn't seem like a viable option, but at least lift the RE-employment rules as a trade-off. Seems fair enough to me.
Click to expand...

You should worry about your own future reduced payout. The retirees haven't taken a cut thus far.. The worst case scenario for those who have 25-30 in at an age under 62 is that they will have to work to age 62 to get it or later. Those that retired after Sept 24, 2010 are allowed stop checks and work..not at YRC but somewhere. Where they work is nobody's business in that they are now not retired anymore. Please try not to fall apart and go in a meltdown and respond with an insult if at all possible
smile_13_text.gif
 
Jay C said:
You should worry about your own future reduced payout. The retirees haven't taken a cut thus far.. The worst case scenario for those who have 25-30 in at an age under 62 is that they will have to work to age 62 to get it or later. Those that retired after Sept 24, 2010 are allowed stop checks and work..not at YRC but somewhere. Where they work is nobody's business in that they are now not retired anymore.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue is that some of us had a well laid out plan for an early retirement. Now they have scrapped our plan. So trust me, I am worried about my future payout, but I'm also making adjustments so that they STILL won't control my future. Got to adjust on the fly.

Please try not to fall apart and go in a meltdown and respond with an insult if at all possible
Click to expand...
I won't comment on this part. Other than....:GrowUp:
 
Northern Flash said:
The biggest issue is that some of us had a well laid out plan for an early retirement. Now they have scrapped our plan. So trust me, I am worried about my future payout, but I'm also making adjustments so that they STILL won't control my future. Got to adjust on the fly.

I won't comment on this part. Other than....:GrowUp:
Click to expand...

Your comment about making adjustments is absolutely right! That is what we all should do for the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top