Yellow | House Passes Bipartisan Bill To Avert National Retirement Crisis
- Thread starter Freightmaster1
- Start date
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 605
Butch Lewis Act passes House, reintroduced in Senate
http://pensionrights.org/blog/butch-lewis-act-passes-house-reintroduced-senate
http://pensionrights.org/blog/butch-lewis-act-passes-house-reintroduced-senate
silent trucker
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 415
At least be honest here, it's a Teamsters retirement crisis, and while the Teamsters are a national organization, it has very little to do with the majority of us taxpayer's being asked to write a blank check.
Is there any truth to the rumors that the details of this bill would destroy YRC because of the payback details? I don't know any of the details but I have heard (probably on the internet) that there are provisions built in that all of the dollars a company is in arears on pension payment have to be paid back and there are interest payments and such that YRC would have a very hard time paying these amounts and keeping the doors open, anybody know anything about this? Thanks
The answer is somewhere in the 54 pages of the bill.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr397
From the Bill
C)
as a condition of the loan, the plan sponsor stipulates that—
(i)
except as provided in clause (ii), the plan will not increase benefits, allow any employer participating in the plan to reduce its contributions, or accept any collective bargaining agreement which provides for reduced contribution rates, during the 30-year period described in subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(Added info)
(ii)as of such date of enactment, are in critical status (within the meaning of section 432(b)(2) of such Code and section 305(b)(2) of such Act), have a modified funded percentage of less than 40 percent, and have a ratio of active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
(iii) are insolvent for purposes of section 418E of such Code as of such date of enactment, if they became insolvent after December 16, 2014, and have not been terminated; and
(B)
subject to subsection (b), to establish appropriate terms for such loans.
C)
as a condition of the loan, the plan sponsor stipulates that—
(i)
except as provided in clause (ii), the plan will not increase benefits, allow any employer participating in the plan to reduce its contributions, or accept any collective bargaining agreement which provides for reduced contribution rates, during the 30-year period described in subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(Added info)
(ii)as of such date of enactment, are in critical status (within the meaning of section 432(b)(2) of such Code and section 305(b)(2) of such Act), have a modified funded percentage of less than 40 percent, and have a ratio of active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
(iii) are insolvent for purposes of section 418E of such Code as of such date of enactment, if they became insolvent after December 16, 2014, and have not been terminated; and
(B)
subject to subsection (b), to establish appropriate terms for such loans.
Last edited:
There is language in contract that is tied to this legislation.
You don’t think YRC has inside info or help on this from someone in Washington.
Remember what is (best) for the people is usually best for the ones writing the legislation.
There is a ton of pork in the bill.
(ii)as of such date of enactment, are in critical status (within the meaning of section 432(b)(2) of such Code and section 305(b)(2) of such Act), have a modified funded percentage of less than 40 percent, and have a ratio of active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
YRCW is in Critical status, and does have a modified percentage deal with CSPF of under 40% .(25%) I don't know active to inactive?
While I somewhat agree with you, it’s more than just a Teamsters retirement crisis, this goes through and you will see states like NJ, NY and California using it to save their funds that are in trouble as well. teachers, DPW workers, etc. all in major trouble.
It’s a shame that taxpayers are being asked to write a check but not as shameful as the checks we wrote for the banks, checks we write to take care of other countries and checks we write for illegals. There is truth to the fact that if it’s not fixed it will affect the economy there’s just to many people who believed these funds were going to be there and are unprepared to live when they can no longer work.
One way or another we the tax payers are paying.
The understanding I got from my BA was that YRC would be required to continue to pay into the funds but they wouldn’t be on the hook for the loans the pension plans would, Which nobody is to concerned about because they don’t have to start making payments until year 29 of the loan.
But they do need to show a plan that shows the 29 years puts them in a position to make the payments.
29 Years,They have no clue about keeping two viable money making companies[Holland,New Penn] profitable from day one upon purchase.These clowns couldn't run a one man taxi company.
I know the republicans are an issue with getting this passed but they are right in asking for protections to be written into it to ensure this fund doesn’t get abused.
The Bill itself and the author of it expects those loans will never be repaid, and eventually have to be forgiven. That makes the whole thing a bailout, and not a loan. That may be my biggest hangups. People hide behind the Loan Label, as if they are OWED, /Entitled. Just admit, humbly, that we need bailed out, do it, and move on...
That paragraph is interesting. Would that mean a company like YRC who is already at a reduced rate has to go back to the full rate or will the Teamsters allow the reduced rate to become the NEW full rate just to qualify for the loan ?
They tried to tie higher interest to it and got shot down. Interest is the only repayment the government will ever receive. Myself, I want all reemployment rules eliminated, since Pensions get bailed out
.
I believe the reduced rate gets extended or no loan.
This is where Jaloc normally claims that YRC employees will have to pay the fund to qualify for the 100% rule. I can't imagine the new YRCW contract has language allowing a company to withhold payments to a pension from an employee. I'd have to see the language proving it....
The reason it's a bailout: the House claims it needs at least $100 billion to make it work. At least $48 billion original layout, plus $3 billion per year to the PGBC, PLUS unnamed amounts "As Needed". Many of the plans would just be shoved onto the PGBC.
That "as needed" part should terrify everyone, since the government borrows that money from China, or just prints it from vapor...
That "as needed" part should terrify everyone, since the government borrows that money from China, or just prints it from vapor...
Songremainsthesame
TB Legend
- Credits
- 345
I guess my question on the whole thing is whether this is a permanent fix to the CSPF fiasco or just a bandaid and as time goes by it will be underfunded again and in need of another bail out.