ABF | Hope for our pensions!

[nounionfool]

"Obvious attempt to ridicule"???... Seriously?..... If I was going to "ridicule" it would have been a lot sharper and pointed than my comment....... Your post was conflicting with itself..... You stated that you believe in only "strict reading and application" of the Constitution.... then made this statement to the poster, " Your interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, your interpretation...." and then acknowledged that you, and everyone else, has an "Interpretation" .. I asked with "all due respect", how "strict reading and application could be possible if everyone, including you, made their own interpretations....If you think that is "ridicule" you have some pretty thin skin..... What's with all the "sensitivity" lately anyway???

Ok...So your "point" was that most people try "forcing" others to accept their interpretation as the only "truth".... Why is it so common that posters that disagree with anothers point, always have to make the Claim that they're "forcing" their views..or, in your case, interpretations, on someone else???.... I read what the Poster wrote and in no way was he "forcing" his view on you....He expressed his opinion.....
I haven't read that many of your posts to really know if you try and refrain from "forcing" your "interpretation".....but you did just "wave off" his view of the 1st and 2nd amendments as totally invalid.....which would seem to indicate to me that you were NOT "forced" to somehow accept his view and opinion as truth....and that you felt that your interpretation, whatever that is, as you didn't elaborate) was more valid than his.....

No.....

A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious....

Who said otherwise??? Yes the Court makes the final determination if a law was broken and what that punishment should be etc...In your analogy of the Robbery, there would no doubt, be video evidence and there would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" .....Maybe you need a new analogy........

You apparently think they do.... your statement: "So you see, its the court's job to uphold the Laws of the Land by the interpretations that were held for the 200 plus years thus far" The Constitution has not just recently been differently interpreted...it has changed as the years passed...and so have the situations that arisen in the intervening years and up to our day.. Yes the Courts of today..even the Supreme Court make determinations of how to apply the Constitution, as best they can, to apply to the situations of today that could not have ever been predicted or even imagined by the authors of the Constitution.... The authors of the Constitution didn't think women should have the right to vote...... If you could only apply "strict" word for word reading of the constitution without being able to "interpret" the intent and the spirit of which it was written to reflect changing conditions...then we would not have an Air-force today... ..

So in answer to your question...Not only is it their "Right"....it is their "Responsibility" to interpret it and apply it, as best they can, to reflect todays changed world....

Where and how, can you so wrongly accuse me of "Opposing what the Constitution truly" says....by anything in my post to you???
The "armed robber" was a figment of your imagination for "illustrative purposes only" and I certainly didn't make any "Interpretation" of the Constitution in my comments.... and then you say I "ridiculed" you???...



Just like you "interpreted" my comments as me "ridiculing you"...... that was not my intent nor "real meaning"....but you choose to 'interpret" it that way....

I only responded to your comments that you wrote....I did not "interpret" them to mean anything other than what you wrote....I expressed my views and Opinions of your comments..... and I hope that I demonstrated the "courtesy" you requested, and are entitled to, by answering your questions...

All is Forgiven...... I said you brought out some great points because I was being honest....just because you think I ridiculed you doesn't take away from your other points I agreed with.... If you wish to harbor hurt feelings and try and "hurt my feelings" by your above comment.....That is your prerogative.........................

If you took my comments as "Ridicule".... I apologize....That wasn't my intent....nor was any comment in this post meant to "ridicule"....Just my opinions and responses to your post......

Enjoy your Evening....

All is forgiven...about what? Just what is it about trollls and accusations of hurt feelings anyway? Only those with low self esteem who strive for that sense of accomplishment boast aboat having the ability to hurt someones feelings. Let me be clear on this since you have a hard time accepting, not understanding true interpretations. I have to actually care about someone before they can hurt my feelings and as of this moment that is not the case so you can save that course of action for your next debate. I believe you put way to much faith in your abilities.Next, you are the one that "interpreted" my comment was stating that you were "ridiculing me". What I said was, "it wan an attempt to ridicule the point that I was trying to get across" with the emphasis being on "attempt" and "point". And another question, why are you so concerned about me wanting to hurt your feelings now? You dont have to keep fretting over that because I am not one that has to go out and hurt feelings in order to feel like I accomplished something.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets proceed shall we? Why wont you accept the fact what the courts have ruled as the true interpretations for 200 years? Why cant you accept the fact that the courts today should continue to enforce the strict reading and application of the Constitution the way it has been interpreted for the first 200 years? As for you stating that " my interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, my interpretIation". Im sorry to inform you that you are dead wrong on that account, that was the courts interpretations for the first 200 years anyway, I like most just happen to agree with them. Tell me, are you one of those who think the Constitution is outdated? The way you rambled on about changing the Constitution so that it would apply to the situations of today made me think that you do. Do you know why the first Ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Do you actually know how many rights we have lost in the last twenty years alone? Why are you so insistent that our God given inalienable rights are now open to interpretation? Or are you now going to argue that the authors of the Constitution couldnt have predicted or even imagined that we wouldnt still have the need to have our rights protected today? Sounds silly, doesnt it? But then again, so do you when you ramble on about my statement about the the strict reading and application of the Constitution. Do you realize, or even care that our children today are being taught that the government gives us our rights? Why do you suppose that is? Well lets see, logic tells us that if the goverment gives you your rights then they can also take them away.

About my analogy of the robbery, just what in the world were you thinking when you stated that here would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" because there would be video evidence? Video evidence, are you serious, just how would video evidence show the inner thoughts of a man that robbed the bank? The robber was stating how he interpreted his actions not how others did but then again, you knew that, but as usual just refused to accept it One would think that you could of come up with something better than video evidence in an attempt to make my analogy sound silly. And before you go off and say my feelings are hurt again by trying to accuse me of saying you called me silly, let me be absolutely clear this time, Im saying that you attempted to call my analagy silly, not me.

And finally, your statement "A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious". I see that you werent completely oblivious to the point that I was trying to make in my analogy. But guess what, the government starts restricting the peoples speech and gun ownership, there is also nothing to "interpret" in "Freedom of Speech" and the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" either. The "intent" to strip the people of their God given rights would be overwhelmingly obvious too. But you fail to either recognize or accept this, why?

 

[pilot87]

All is forgiven...about what? Just what is it about trollls and accusations of hurt feelings anyway?

Here's my reply for your Entire Post...: I tried to be as civil and respectful as possible...... and your respond back with this tripe of yours.....You should be seeing a psychiatrist rather than posting on here..... Seriously..

Now that we got that out of the way, lets proceed shall we?

Uhhhh.... NO.....lets NOT proceed......... You haven't proved worthy of my time....... Now go get yourself some help..... Come back when you can make a coherent point......

 

[Muler]

"Obvious attempt to ridicule"???... Seriously?..... If I was going to "ridicule" it would have been a lot sharper and pointed than my comment....... Your post was conflicting with itself..... You stated that you believe in only "strict reading and application" of the Constitution.... then made this statement to the poster, " Your interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, your interpretation...." and then acknowledged that you, and everyone else, has an "Interpretation" .. I asked with "all due respect", how "strict reading and application could be possible if everyone, including you, made their own interpretations....If you think that is "ridicule" you have some pretty thin skin..... What's with all the "sensitivity" lately anyway???



Ok...So your "point" was that most people try "forcing" others to accept their interpretation as the only "truth".... Why is it so common that posters that disagree with anothers point, always have to make the Claim that they're "forcing" their views..or, in your case, interpretations, on someone else???.... I read what the Poster wrote and in no way was he "forcing" his view on you....He expressed his opinion.....
I haven't read that many of your posts to really know if you try and refrain from "forcing" your "interpretation".....but you did just "wave off" his view of the 1st and 2nd amendments as totally invalid.....which would seem to indicate to me that you were NOT "forced" to somehow accept his view and opinion as truth....and that you felt that your interpretation, whatever that is, as you didn't elaborate) was more valid than his.....



No.....



A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious....



Who said otherwise??? Yes the Court makes the final determination if a law was broken and what that punishment should be etc...In your analogy of the Robbery, there would no doubt, be video evidence and there would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" .....Maybe you need a new analogy........



You apparently think they do.... your statement: "So you see, its the court's job to uphold the Laws of the Land by the interpretations that were held for the 200 plus years thus far" The Constitution has not just recently been differently interpreted...it has changed as the years passed...and so have the situations that arisen in the intervening years and up to our day.. Yes the Courts of today..even the Supreme Court make determinations of how to apply the Constitution, as best they can, to apply to the situations of today that could not have ever been predicted or even imagined by the authors of the Constitution.... The authors of the Constitution didn't think women should have the right to vote...... If you could only apply "strict" word for word reading of the constitution without being able to "interpret" the intent and the spirit of which it was written to reflect changing conditions...then we would not have an Air-force today... ..

So in answer to your question...Not only is it their "Right"....it is their "Responsibility" to interpret it and apply it, as best they can, to reflect todays changed world....



Where and how, can you so wrongly accuse me of "Opposing what the Constitution truly" says....by anything in my post to you???
The "armed robber" was a figment of your imagination for "illustrative purposes only" and I certainly didn't make any "Interpretation" of the Constitution in my comments.... and then you say I "ridiculed" you???...



Do they now?? Do they ALWAYS uphold the law? The law is always applied evenly across the board for everyone?? ...

I agree it is what they should do....but sadly they don't always uphold the law or the Constitution.... Haven't you heard of all the "Constitution shredding" going on in D.C???? If you want to listen to all that..it's all confetti by now......
No we, you nor I, make law..nor are we charged with "upholding" the law or Constitution....but we have the right to express opinion and viewpoints regarding any law and the Constitution.....as you yourself do....and should do....



Past Practice does not always mean, or coincide with "strict adherence" to the contract......Tell me what past practice is if it's not some past interpretation of an article in the contract?......

The Contract also calls for a grievance procedure as well so that disputes can be addressed......Often times disputes arise because of either side "interpreting" an article differently and the Committee decides....sometimes by a "strict" reading...sometimes by interpreting it to suit the circumstance........if the disagreement is one of those "grey area" situations....



Just like you "interpreted" my comments as me "ridiculing you"...... that was not my intent nor "real meaning"....but you choose to 'interpret" it that way....



I only responded to your comments that you wrote....I did not "interpret" them to mean anything other than what you wrote....I expressed my views and Opinions of your comments..... and I hope that I demonstrated the "courtesy" you requested, and are entitled to, by answering your questions...



All is Forgiven...... I said you brought out some great points because I was being honest....just because you think I ridiculed you doesn't take away from your other points I agreed with.... If you wish to harbor hurt feelings and try and "hurt my feelings" by your above comment.....That is your prerogative.........................

If you took my comments as "Ridicule".... I apologize....That wasn't my intent....nor was any comment in this post meant to "ridicule"....Just my opinions and responses to your post......

Enjoy your Evening....

What if one of these masked men came into a bank would they then become robbers? I think not. As you can see it is always important how something is decided.

1-a swat team member just back from a raid.

2-A concealed weapon permitted surgeon stopping in on his lunch break to do his banking.

You see it can be in the eye of the beholder.

 

[nounionfool]

Here's my reply for your Entire Post...: I tried to be as civil and respectful as possible...... and your respond back with this tripe of yours.....You should be seeing a psychiatrist rather than posting on here..... Seriously..

Uhhhh.... NO.....lets NOT proceed......... You haven't proved worthy of my time....... Now go get yourself some help..... Come back when you can make a coherent point......

Seriously, tripe, is that the word you use when you become overwhelmed and bewildered? My psychiatrist told me that people sometimes use words like tripe when they cant come up with answers to simple questions. It looks like he was right so maybe I should keep seeing him, what do you think?

As for your statement, "You haven't proved worthy of my time", what can I say except that it sounds to me that someone seems mighty full of himself. He also told me that those of the conceited variety sometimes used expressions such as the one you just used too. It looks like he was right on both accounts, what do you think?

 

[aamandls]

No, Brother,.....The fact of the matter is that employers who use "illegal" aliens do not comply with the law, and as certain groups in Congress, and the people who finance their election campaigns have gutted funding for enforcement of that law, it can be ignored with impunity. ABF has a poster on the wall where all the legal employment information is. They "comply" with the law. They must verify that you are who you say you are, and that you have a valid SS number. Saying that the twelve million "illegal" aliens are using twelve million phony SS numbers is an urban myth. Pretty much it's the employers who invite them here, and scoff at the Federal law, so they can cut wages and increase profits at the expense of this country, are the major lawbreakers here. Even at the height of the 2008 "recession", the steady flow of undocumented, invited, workers didn't abate. Don't forget the main principle of business: When you can double the size of the Labor pool, you can cut worker's wages in half. Big Business has always imported workers just to do that, only nowadays they found a way to do it with undocumented workers,....... which is even cheaper. Those " illegals" wouldn't be here unless they were promised work here. Big Business does not fly an American flag,........ we all know that. They are more than happy that we demonize them,.....,because it deflects the blame away the true law-breakers, the scofflaws who are emploing them,.........at our expense, and for their profit.

No, Brother,.....The fact of the matter is that employers who use "illegal" aliens do not comply with the law, and as certain groups in Congress, and the people who finance their election campaigns have gutted funding for enforcement of that law, it can be ignored with impunity. ABF has a poster on the wall where all the legal employment information is. They "comply" with the law. They must verify that you are who you say you are, and that you have a valid SS number. Saying that the twelve million "illegal" aliens are using twelve million phony SS numbers is an urban myth. Pretty much it's the employers who invite them here, and scoff at the Federal law, so they can cut wages and increase profits at the expense of this country, are the major lawbreakers here. Even at the height of the 2008 "recession", the steady flow of undocumented, invited, workers didn't abate. Don't forget the main principle of business: When you can double the size of the Labor pool, you can cut worker's wages in half. Big Business has always imported workers just to do that, only nowadays they found a way to do it with undocumented workers,....... which is even cheaper. Those " illegals" wouldn't be here unless they were promised work here. Big Business does not fly an American flag,........ we all know that. They are more than happy that we demonize them,.....,because it deflects the blame away the true law-breakers, the scofflaws who are emploing them,.........at our expense, and for their profit.

Well said,Brother

 

[pilot87]

Seriously, tripe, is that the word you use when you become overwhelmed and bewildered?

Tripe: "Statements or beliefs that are untrue or make no sense" .........
Seriously....Yes "Tripe" is the word I used.... "Overwhelmed and bewildered".....

....You really have no Clue about me.....lol

sounds to me that someone seems mighty full of himself........ the conceited variety

Describes you perfectly......

 

[nounionfool]

Tripe: "Statements or beliefs that are untrue or make no sense" .........
Seriously....Yes "Tripe" is the word I used.... "Overwhelmed and bewildered".....

....You really have no Clue about me.....lol

Describes you perfectly......

Just remember that those of the conceited variety make a habit of using sentences such as this

Uhhhh.... NO.....lets NOT proceed......... You haven't proved worthy of my time.......

These words are a classic example of what a person full of himself would say. Sorry, your words, not mine.


Evidently you thought I was worth your valuable time earlier in this thread because you are the one that replied to me first when you butted in with that wisecrack comment of yours. Then several posts later you either couldnt or wouldnt answer my questions so now Im not worth your time, go figure. It didnt go over as well as you planned, did it? By the way, what happened to those long posts? Is it me or did something or someone knock the wind right out of your sails? Is that all you have left, wisecracking one liners?

And I do feel your pain because it is very disappointing when someone turns out not being what you expected. But in my case it was just opposite, the person ended up not being able to live up to my expectations, not even close. I must say that you were great coming out of the gate though.

Im no psychic but I would bet that you arent laughing either. So tell me, do I have a clue yet?

 

[pilot87]

Evidently you thought I was worth your valuable time earlier in this thread because you are the one that replied to me first when you butted in with that wisecrack comment of yours.

I only pointed out your conflicting statements....and as I said....I did it with "all due respect" ....It was not "butting in"...this is a public forum and all posts and comments can be replied to..........I guess it goes back to your post about "interpretations".... you "interpreted" my post as a "wisecrack"...with even knowing my "inner most thoughts".....

later you either couldnt or wouldnt answer my questions

I wouldn't.......because of the attitude you took..... If your're actually interested in a real discussion I'd be happy to....but I don't think you are... In my first reply, I gave you the courtesy you asked for and made it a point to answer each of the questions you asked.... Your response didn't even address those answers.......That showed me your not interested in a "conversation".....

By the way, what happened to those long posts?

First, I get excoriated by some for making long posts.....then I get slammed for not making long posts....... can't please em all.......

Is it me or did something or someone knock the wind right out of your sails?

I was merely trying to refrain from long posts as a consideration to others..... I see you made another "interpretation" .....without knowing my "innermost thoughts".....

it is very disappointing when someone turns out not being what you expected.

Yes....I was disappointed...I had hoped you'd be more able to engage at a more intellectual level...... If you're interested in actual dialog that's one thing....... If you think your're up to the task..... I'll generously give you another chance...one that I think not many would .....

 

[nounionfool]

I only pointed out your conflicting statements....and as I said....I did it with "all due respect" ....It was not "butting in"...this is a public forum and all posts and comments can be replied to..........I guess it goes back to your post about "interpretations".... you "interpreted" my post as a "wisecrack"...with even knowing my "inner most thoughts".....

I wouldn't.......because of the attitude you took..... If your're actually interested in a real discussion I'd be happy to....but I don't think you are... In my first reply, I gave you the courtesy you asked for and made it a point to answer each of the questions you asked.... Your response didn't even address those answers.......That showed me your not interested in a "conversation".....

First, I get excoriated by some for making long posts.....then I get slammed for not making long posts....... can't please em all.......

I was merely trying to refrain from long posts as a consideration to others..... I see you made another "interpretation" .....without knowing my "innermost thoughts".....

Yes....I was disappointed...I had hoped you'd be more able to engage at a more intellectual level...... If you're interested in actual dialog that's one thing....... If you think your're up to the task..... I'll generously give you another chance...one that I think not many would .....

First off, lets get one thing straight, by you saying that you only pointed out my conflicting statements like it was a proven fact. No, you interpreted them as conflicting statements. Thats where your conceitedness and arrogance take over by claiming that your interpretation is the correct one and everything else is just "tripe".

Let me also point out about your whining that this is a public forum and all posts and comments can be replied to. Once again, your conceitedness and arrogance take over by interpreting my comment of "butting in" as a complaint of you joining in the discussion. That wasnt the fact at all, that comment was made after your comment of "You're clearly not worth my time" and I simply pointed out that I was worth your time because you were the one that initiated the correspondence, not me. But no, your over inflated ego wouldnt let you accept the idea of you making a conflicting statement so you decided to interpret "butting in" as a complaint of joining in on a discussion on a public forum which you and I both know everyone has that right. Just how sad is that? I welcome all replies to my comments, all I ask is dont start crying when it doesnt turn out the way you would of wished for, especially if you initiated it.

And third, your comment about how I "interpreted" your post as a "wisecrack" without even knowing your "inner most thoughts". Do you even realize just how ridiculous you sound? Tell me, what are my "inner most thoughts"? Then again, with that over inflated ego, you may actually think you know everyones inner most thoughts.

Fourth, listen to yourself here when you said "because of the attitude I took". Whos in charge of handing out attitudes, you? Again, conceitedness and arrogance rears its ugly head. You say that in your first reply that you gave me courtesy and made it a point to answer each of my questions and my response didn't even address those answers. First, there was "false courtesy" when you tried forcing me to accept your interpretation and views. And I did address those answers but yet again, your conceitedness and arrogance blinded you from seeing them.

And finally, this whole statement of yours

Yes....I was disappointed...I had hoped you'd be more able to engage at a more intellectual level...... If you're interested in actual dialog that's one thing....... If you think your're up to the task..... I'll generously give you another chance...one that I think not many would .....

You have really outdone yourself here because thats the epitome of conceitedness and arrogance. Thats so kind of you to generously give me another chance, hold on for a moment while I thank my lucky star. By all means, if you wish to continue, lets do so because Im definitely up to the task, are you? But remember, although that superiority complex that you have going on there might make you think that you can dictate the rules and specifics of the debate, lets not fool yourself, theres two of us participating here and its not your usual self and ego either. Lets also just try and keep the crying and whining to a minimum if you get overwhelmed and bewildered again, Ok?

 

[canaryinthemine]

Well said,Brother

Thank you, Sir.

 

[sabresfan]

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION
PROVIDING LIMITED PROTECTION AGAINST PENSION FUND FAILURE

For years, union organizers have been promising workers that by joining a union, they were guaranteed a secure pension, that their pension plans were financially sound and healthy and in the highly unlikely event that a new member’s pension plan was to fail, they were insured by the federal government.

In 1974, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act created the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), a federal insurance corporation that is funded by insurance premiums of member plans, investment income and recoveries from failed plan sponsors. Many multiemployer plans are insured by the PBGC which, in turn, will provide some protection to their participants if the plan fails. However, this does not guarantee that a retiree will receive their promised pension.

The PBGC’s current maximum guarantee is 100% of the first $11 of the plan’s monthly benefit rate plus 75% of the next $33 of the plans monthly benefit rate (combined potential maximum of $35.75) multiplied by the participant’s years of service (which also may be subject to a maximum limit). Further, a retiree’s plan does not have to fail to incur these limitations. If a plan does not have enough assets to pay the plan benefits, it is allowed to suspend payment of that portion of the payment that exceeds the PBGC guarantee level. For the typical worker, this could mean a loss of up to 20% of their monthly pension benefit.

Since most union pension plan benefit rates are fixed rates, unaffected by annual or semi-annual pay increases, and since most plans do not have a cost of living or inflation adjustment for retirees, any additional reduction in benefits could have drastic effects on fixed-income retirees, who having worked their entire lives, are no longer in a position to effectively make up the difference by returning to the workforce.

The fact that the PBGC itself exists does not guarantee any specific level of benefit. From 1980 to 2002, the PBGC has operated with a net positive balance. However, since 2003 the PBGC has reported a negative balance of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In 2007, the difference between its assets and its liabilities was almost a billion dollars. The PBGC has been underfunded each year since 2000 and 2006 it only had 2/3rds of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. In the last three years, the number of multiemployer plans requiring financial assistance from the PBGC increased by 45%. The total amount of financial assistance given during each of the last three years was between 6-18 times over the levels experienced during the preceding five years.

Also alarming is that the percentage of active participants in PBGC-insured multiemployer plans has dropped from 75.9% in 1980 to 45.3% in 2006, while the percentage of retired participants has almost doubled. Where there used to be more than four active workers for each retiree, today that ratio has dropped to less than 1½. This means that the burden for covering benefits for retirees has changed drastically. In prior years, only 20% of the contribution for each individual worker would go to covering benefits for active retirees. The balance could be used for investments and covering administrative expenses. Today, that figure has jumped to 75%, which, after expenses, leaves less than 1/4th of contributions for active workers to invest for their ultimate retirement.

This is some info I found for some friends. Just sharing it here.

 

[Muler]

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION
PROVIDING LIMITED PROTECTION AGAINST PENSION FUND FAILURE

For years, union organizers have been promising workers that by joining a union, they were guaranteed a secure pension, that their pension plans were financially sound and healthy and in the highly unlikely event that a new member’s pension plan was to fail, they were insured by the federal government.

In 1974, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act created the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), a federal insurance corporation that is funded by insurance premiums of member plans, investment income and recoveries from failed plan sponsors. Many multiemployer plans are insured by the PBGC which, in turn, will provide some protection to their participants if the plan fails. However, this does not guarantee that a retiree will receive their promised pension.

The PBGC’s current maximum guarantee is 100% of the first $11 of the plan’s monthly benefit rate plus 75% of the next $33 of the plans monthly benefit rate (combined potential maximum of $35.75) multiplied by the participant’s years of service (which also may be subject to a maximum limit). Further, a retiree’s plan does not have to fail to incur these limitations. If a plan does not have enough assets to pay the plan benefits, it is allowed to suspend payment of that portion of the payment that exceeds the PBGC guarantee level. For the typical worker, this could mean a loss of up to 20% of their monthly pension benefit.

Since most union pension plan benefit rates are fixed rates, unaffected by annual or semi-annual pay increases, and since most plans do not have a cost of living or inflation adjustment for retirees, any additional reduction in benefits could have drastic effects on fixed-income retirees, who having worked their entire lives, are no longer in a position to effectively make up the difference by returning to the workforce.

The fact that the PBGC itself exists does not guarantee any specific level of benefit. From 1980 to 2002, the PBGC has operated with a net positive balance. However, since 2003 the PBGC has reported a negative balance of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In 2007, the difference between its assets and its liabilities was almost a billion dollars. The PBGC has been underfunded each year since 2000 and 2006 it only had 2/3rds of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. In the last three years, the number of multiemployer plans requiring financial assistance from the PBGC increased by 45%. The total amount of financial assistance given during each of the last three years was between 6-18 times over the levels experienced during the preceding five years.

Also alarming is that the percentage of active participants in PBGC-insured multiemployer plans has dropped from 75.9% in 1980 to 45.3% in 2006, while the percentage of retired participants has almost doubled. Where there used to be more than four active workers for each retiree, today that ratio has dropped to less than 1½. This means that the burden for covering benefits for retirees has changed drastically. In prior years, only 20% of the contribution for each individual worker would go to covering benefits for active retirees. The balance could be used for investments and covering administrative expenses. Today, that figure has jumped to 75%, which, after expenses, leaves less than 1/4th of contributions for active workers to invest for their ultimate retirement.

This is some info I found for some friends. Just sharing it here.

And did you research what a driver will get if his employer does not have a plan for his retirement? We will receive a pension one way or another. Others will get nothing. Could you post your links.

 

[Deleted member 5115]

And did you research what a driver will get if his employer does not have a plan for his retirement? We will receive a pension one way or another. Other will get nothing.

Not only that, I do believe that we'd get less under the PBGC than with the programs that are being looked at.

 

[Muler]

Is it just me or does people that have no defined plans worry about what we will get more than we do. I swear it is so oblivious that they are jealous.
We fought for a plan and they didn't and now they want to down everything about our plan. At least we have a fighting chance they DON'T!

Snakestillthesame can't stand that he has nothing coming. NO BALLS NO GAIN! Like I said keyboard cowboy.

 

[Deleted member 5115]

Is it just me or does people that have no defined plans worry about what we will get more than we do.

No it's not just you it's a whole lot of people out there. When non-union shops we service hear how much our pensions are they really get hot under the collar. Many are brainwashed about how horrible unions are and how they harm our country and our economy. And today's youngsters don't realize how well our highly organized country ran during the 50's and 60's when it was prosperity for all in America, not just the upper echelon.

 

[Muler]

MISquoted, as is your custom. And whined and cried about my presence on the forum to boot. Just admit it, you don't want to hear anything other than what you WANT to hear and then try to shout down any opposing opinions, call people names, then get butthurt and cry.

Look who the cry baby is. I make more money than you do and I have a defined pension and you don't. Why would I be the one crying? You have nothing but a desire to have your A$$ spanked in public.

Here is how I see you from your post. A little shaking guy with no self esteem. You fought for nothing and now you will receive nothing in the form of a pension.

But you are so jealous of those of us that have earned a defined pension that you keep coming here to try and make it appear all was for not in our case. But the Brothers that know we have something coming see you for what you are. YOUR SEEING A WEAK MAN CRY BROTHER ALWAYS!

 

[nounionfool]

Is it just me or does people that have no defined plans worry about what we will get more than we do. I swear it is so oblivious that they are jealous.
We fought for a plan and they didn't and now they want to down everything about our plan. At least we have a fighting chance they DON'T!

Snakestillthesame can't stand that he has nothing coming. NO BALLS NO GAIN! Like I said keyboard cowboy.

I think Holyfield said it best, People who make the choice to study, work hard or do whatever they endeavor is to give it the max on themselves to reach to the top level. And you have the people who get envy and jealous, yet are not willing to put that work in, and they want to get the same praise.

You know what they say, Never trust anyone who wants what you've got. Friend or no, envy is an overwhelming emotion and it seems that songremainsthesame is no exception to the rule.

 

[Muler]

No it's not just you it's a whole lot of people out there. When non-union shops we service hear how much our pensions are they really get hot under the collar. Many are brainwashed about how horrible unions are and how they harm our country and our economy. And today's youngsters don't realize how well our highly organized country ran during the 50's and 60's when it was prosperity for all in America, not just the upper echelon.

You are right. at the non union companies the executives and share holders receive the money that should be going into a retirement for the workers when they can no longer do the job because of age or health. I find no joy seeing them left out in the cold like many come here hoping ill will for us.I

 

[Muler]

Not only that, I do believe that we'd get less under the PBGC than with the programs that are being looked at.

People have to read all about the plans being presented to congress. There are ways to protect pensions and people are working on them as we speak.

 

[Songremainsthesame]

Look who the cry baby is. I make more money than you do and I have a defined pension and you don't. Why would I be the one crying? You have nothing but a desire to have your A$$ spanked in public.

Here is how I see you from your post. A little shaking guy with no self esteem. You fought for nothing and now you will receive nothing in the form of a pension.

But you are so jealous of those of us that have earned a defined pension that you keep coming here to try and make it appear all was for not in our case. But the Brothers that know we have something coming see you for what you are. YOUR SEEING A WEAK MAN CRY BROTHER ALWAYS!

You are so pathetic you can't argue anything without calling names, yelling hate and vitriol and whining that outsiders are invading your precious forum. Who is the insecure little man? Why it's you! Good for you, you're getting a defined pension! What happens to it when you die? It gets reduced. What happens to my investment account? Well, it's my money and when I cash it out it's my cash. I could care less what you get. What does aggravate me is your attitude. You think you're so much better than me and I bet you go to the hall and yell and cry for your "brothers" but you don't care about anyone but yourself. You would step over a "brother" for a nickel.