Discussion in 'Central States Pension Fund Discussion' started by Freightmaster1, Nov 24, 2019.
I can't criticize the bill because I don't know anything about it. But it already seems to me that a republican counter bill to Butch Lewis might be harder on retirees. Here is a comment taken from the link.
"Under this bill I will lose two thousand dollars a month . You are funding your bill on the backs of the retirees"
Lord, you just have to love it. It must have killed TDU to acknowledge, write, and publish an article outlining a Republican plan, which doesn't involve the Feds, me, the nons, and the making it work union pension funds, with union actives and retirees, from having to write a blank check year after year. The only two comments are it's a Republican trap vs the common worker and what's in it for me.
This proposal surfaced about 4 days ago and multiple articles have been written. Google the Grassley / Alexander proposal and you will see the other articles.
Which plan is better?
As is, this may not pass. We already know Butch Lewis won't pass. So we'll yell scream and stomp at each other for another two- three years, and everyone will lose everything.... That'll show em!!!
What I want is to eliminate re-employment rules. We know we're going to be getting paid less. Let us work unrestricted, to survive.
Agreed...As is this will not pass and the Butch Lewis plan will not definitely not pass either. But I’m a bit optimistic something may finally be passed and come together at the last minute. I know we’ve been through all this before but I believe there is a better chance that some sort of compromise will come together before the end of the year. The impetus could be the UMWA Pension which is now projected to become insolvent in 2020 due to the the bankruptcy of its largest contributor Murray Energy. Senate Majority Leader McConnell has signed on to legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin a Democrat from West Virginia which will for lack of a better word bailout the UMWA fund. I see that as the beginning of a compromise on the whole Multiemployer Pension issue. Just to address a couple of other comments here. Dracula, this does involve the Fed. Funding for the Succession Plan comes directly from the PBGC and additional funds will be injected into the PBGC to support this. Crystal, I read the same comment about the guy saying he will loose two thousand dollars a month with this plan. I don’t know where he is getting his numbers. I understand that the plan raises the PBGC premium on the pension funds themselves to $80.00 from $29.00 it levies a charge of $2.50 per month per member on unions and employers so you can expect them to complain. A charge of 10% will also be deducted from the payment to retirees in partitioned plans. My question remains, if all of Central States liabilities are transferred to the Succession Plan as is outlined in the Technical Description, will the Succession Plan be solely responsible for the full payment of “orphaned” retiree benefits? Remember, the Succession Plan is normally limited to just the PBGC guarantee but in Central States case an exception is made, it will receive all liabilities not just the guaranteed benefits. Checkout page 6 of the Technical Explanation. That single page contains a lot of information.
The 2nd part of his comment said "You are funding your bill on the backs of the retirees" It does appear to be that way to me
I remember when the MEPF premium was $12.00 and the PBGC director pleaded with congress for an increase. Congress said no because the MEPFs were in good shape and less likely to fail than the SEPFs...................Now look at us.
Just so we understand, the $80.00 premium is the amount to be paid annually by the pension itself to the PBGC for the PBGC Insurance coverage. Granted there are other costs to be shared by all “stakeholders” but an annual premium of $80.00 per year to insure a pension of up to approximately $20000.00 per year for life is not a bad deal. As I said earlier if I can get a deal that reduces my insured lifetime by pension by just 10%, I’ll take it in a heartbeat. To say a 10% reduction in benefits or to increase the funds insurance cost to $80.00 per year is funding it on the back of retirees is in my opinion bunk.
I am looking at an approximate 65% cut if and when my fund defaults next year. A cut of only 10% would almost be like my hitting the lottery. It would be too good to be true
Do you mind saying what Fund that may be?
TENJ, Teamsters Employees of North Jersey
TDU is making you aware of the bill...not endorsing it...but making ALL information available to you to review...did not see that on the IBT website. As I read it...IN MY OPINION...I see a 10% cut on your check, as well as another "possible" 6 to 10% more later. That would be 20% total in some cases...BUT...THIS IS JUST LIKE THE CONTRACT....IT IS A PROPOSAL...wait until EVERYTHING is out there...Bills can be amended before being voted on.
I’m seeing the proposal’s retiree copayment of 10% but missed reading the part about the possibility of an additional 6% to 10%. I’m interested to know where you seeing that? Your right, this is a proposal, I don’t believe it has been introduced as a formal bill but it may not have to be. Instead, some provisions could be negotiated or make for changes to the BLA or the UMWA legislation that have already been introduced. Another thing I find interesting is the specific mention of not only CSPF but of Local 707’s plan and of the UMWA plan. Local 707 is of course located in the home state of the Senate Minority Leader and the Senate Majority Leader has already endorsed another bill for the UMWA Pension. Coincidence?
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/...ion and Reform Plan Technical Explanation.pdf
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/...ion and Reform Plan Technical Explanation.pdf
Yes I’ve read that but didn’t see the additional 6 to 10 percent? Just saw the 10% retiree copay.
I see where you are going with the partisan politics and for the most part it quite obvious. But of the 209 there were 9 republicans who cosponsored HR 397 the Butch Lewis Act. Most notably to me was Peter King of 707's Long Island. On 2 different occasions at town halls I approached my representative Tom Rice R.SC and asked for his support on the BLA. He flatly said no. I asked him why such a distinguished congressman as Peter King would cross party lines in a bi-partisan way to cosponsor the bill. He said he didn't know, to ask him, and moved on to the next person.......................I did see that Susan Collins R. ME is one of the 35 who cosponsored S-2254 the BLA.
Can you provide a page number in the Technical Explanation for the possibility of an additional 6 to 10% reduction? As I’ve posted earlier, I see the retiree copay but not the additional amount that you have referenced.
I thought it said it was a variable, from 5%-10%, depending on the fund and the participant, to be determined?
Retiree co-payments as shown on page 22 of the Technical Explanation range from 3% to 10%. The 10% applies to partitioned plans. CSPF is automatically approved to be a partitioned plan per page 4 of the document. The question I have and have raised earlier is that on page 6 Central States is specifically mentioned as the only plan that can transfer all liabilities to the Successor Plan. The definition of a Successor Plan shows that it can only pay beneficiaries up to the PBGC guarantee level. So...if the Original Plan in the case of Central States has transferred all liabilities and is not therefore obligated to payout any further benefits there has to be an exception just in the case of Central States whereby the Successor Plan pays the full benefit in excess of the PBGC guarantee. I’ve written Grassley and have sent a message to the Senate Finance Committee for an explanation. I have not received a reply and will be surprised if I ever do. If I do I’ll be sure to post it.
That’s the part I’m wondering about? I’m Central States; 12 yrs an Orphaned Company (Preston), and 10 yrs a non orphaned company (Yellow). Am I going to be totally orphaned, or will it split parts? Either way, getting something guaranteed seems better than never getting anything, IMO. My main concern is- if we are to survive on reduced pay- they need to eliminate Reemployment Rules!!!