ABF | 2014...The Year of Multi Employer Pension Reform?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5115
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 5115

Guest
As we have heard throughout 2013, pension reform is being discussed in D.C. The current legislation is due to expire 12/31/14 so something new is going to have to be put into place this year. This important issue is worth watching as it is most likely going to affect all of us in a negative way.

For openers here is one article on the issue.
As Congress inches toward proposing legislation that would arguably enable the most significant changes to private pension law in decades, opposition from organized labor is slowly mounting.

In addition to the Machinists, the first union to come out strongly against the proposal, the Teamsters, Steelworkers and Boilermakers are now raising concerns. The wave of rebelling unions marks the most significant opposition that the proposal, which enjoys bipartisan support among the most influential members of the House Education and Workforce Committee, has yet to encounter.

A Fight Builds Over Multi-Employer Pensions - In These Times
 
The ideal solution, Caldwell says, would be for Congress to give federal assistance to those funds that need it most, i.e. a “bailout.” The Teamsters, like the other three unions that submitted statements in opposition to granting trustees special authority to cut benefits, have also all asked Congress to explore a number of alternatives that the AARP submitted to the subcommittee in June. It good we have the AARP on are side. :1036316054:
 
If the Government, Company's, and the Unions are all for pension reform, then I think they should have to live under the same laws and reforms we are being forced to accept... What puts them above us, where they have guaranteed pensions and health benefits for life...while we accept the new pension law's, Some future retires,and retires will lose, or see their pension benefits cut to poverty levels...

We need to speak out and be heard!!! If we say nothing, then they believe there is nothing wrong...
 
I think they should have to live under the same conditions we do on everything they pass. Health insurance, pension and drug laws would be a good start.

I am glad to read in that article that the Teamsters Union has flipped back to not having our pensions cut, but to have them rescued. There were several reports that they wanted to slash the benefits of all, including those who were already retired over the course of the last year. I find that move to be unconscionable. How do you tell a retiree, "Sorry but you're only getting half that from now on"?
 
I think they should have to live under the same conditions we do on everything they pass. Health insurance, pension and drug laws would be a good start.

I am glad to read in that article that the Teamsters Union has flipped back to not having our pensions cut, but to have them rescued. There were several reports that they wanted to slash the benefits of all, including those who were already retired over the course of the last year. I find that move to be unconscionable. How do you tell a retiree, "Sorry but you're only getting half that from now on"?

Please explain the rationale that some should feel no pain at all while others that have not retired yet take all the cuts necessary to right the ship? In other words cut mine in half so some lucky ones can enjoy the full amount of theirs. That's a pretty hard pill for me to swallow. Go ahead and tell me why I should like it. I would think the cuts would be more fair than the 50% example you gave. Maybe something like 10% for someone already retired, then gradually increase the percentage for less years paid in.
 
I am not in favor of any cuts. Several years back the pension funds were flush with cash, so flush that the laws mandated that benefits be increased. Increased multipliers, earlier early retirements. That is no fault of the funds or the workers. The government is bailing out the banks, single employer pension funds and anything else they see fit and I believe that they should be assisting us as well. Why should we suffer while they use our tax money to bail out the rest of the world? Particularly when their regulations helped put our funds in the predicament they're in.
 
I am not in favor of any cuts. Several years back the pension funds were flush with cash, so flush that the laws mandated that benefits be increased. Increased multipliers, earlier early retirements. That is no fault of the funds or the workers. The government is bailing out the banks, single employer pension funds and anything else they see fit and I believe that they should be assisting us as well. Why should we suffer while they use our tax money to bail out the rest of the world? Particularly when their regulations helped put our funds in the predicament they're in.

Well yeah, no cuts at all. That would be great. Some how I don't think our Nobel leaders will come to this conclusion. I guess we can hope.
 
I do not know what is going to happen. The point of the thread is that something is probably going to happen this year and anything anyone hears on it can be posted here. The one thing we all agree on is that something has to be done.
 
I hear the age is going up to 65. NO money till 65
That will vary from fund to fund. What Fund are you in? Not all are in the same condition. I haven't heard anything in my area yet and our changes occur at the end of the calendar year so we're good for another year unless legislation is passed. Even then our fund is not in bad shape and we might see no changes.
 
Received my new Summary of a Benefits and it shows no changes that I noticed. I see that as a good thing since nothing changes for the better anymore. Still keeping a lookout for anything from Congress.
 
Many different pension funds for congress to look at. Are they just looking at multi- employer or they looking at government, state or private funds. Are they fully funded or the funds in trouble. Going to be hard put all pension funds on the same diet.
 
I have been at ABF for 32 years...and had worked at McLean for 5 before that....37 in the pension fund should be enough to get a FULL pension...not some truncated nonsense. I will never vote for cutting the pension I worked for, and put into for decades. The government bails out big business....and funds unwanted wars...then how come they cant make sure honest working people have a pension?
 
If they are going to lower our pay , our pension , and everything else we have worked for ..............................what then is the point in working any more?
 
I have been at ABF for 32 years...and had worked at McLean for 5 before that....37 in the pension fund should be enough to get a FULL pension...not some truncated nonsense. I will never vote for cutting the pension I worked for, and put into for decades. The government bails out big business....and funds unwanted wars...then how come they cant make sure honest working people have a pension?
Next time we do vote.Beware of the old metal ballot box out of each local.When that happens you can't trust the ol' count the ballots right out of the box.We made that mistake on the second vote on the 2014 yrc mou.We didn't have the choice.I believe they call that 'forced' voting.
 
It looks like the only reform will be no reform as the House has voted to kick the can down the road and extend current regulations for one more year. It is not exactly what we were hoping for but it could have been worse.
Multiemployer pension provisions in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 set to expire Dec. 31 would gain another year in a tax extension passed by the House Wednesday.
http://www.pionline.com/article/20141204/ONLINE/141209937/house-votes-to-extend-multiemployer-pension-provisions.
 
Top