What's new

Yellow | The Butch Lewis Act

Sadly at this point I wish I could demand my contributions be put into 401k .The contributions on our behalf are doing absolutely nothing for us.
Talk about pissing people off..those retired hate what I’m saying but how many are concerned about our 75% cut and 18 months with zero to keep this afloat.
It seems to me those retired ought to be taking cuts now instead of letting the pension go into total default.Im sure some are willing to cuts to protect their future but most are not willing .The lack of urgency on the part of the union to do something astounds me..Cuts should be forced to protect what is left.
Ok I’m ready for the MEASTER bull crap and we voted to take the cuts b.s.
And the full contributions in 2019 to kick the can down the road for 6 months until we bankrupt.
 
falconfan said:
Sadly at this point I wish I could demand my contributions be put into 401k .The contributions on our behalf are doing absolutely nothing for us.
Talk about pissing people off..those retired hate what I’m saying but how many are concerned about our 75% cut and 18 months with zero to keep this afloat.
It seems to me those retired ought to be taking cuts now instead of letting the pension go into total default.Im sure some are willing to cuts to protect their future but most are not willing .The lack of urgency on the part of the union to do something astounds me..Cuts should be forced to protect what is left.
Ok I’m ready for the MEASTER bull crap and we voted to take the cuts b.s.
And the full contributions in 2019 to kick the can down the road for 6 months until we bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I hope you are allowed a choice.
We in Western States no longer have one. I am fine with the situation, but there are many of my brothers and sisters who missed out on PEER programs by a few months, weeks or days. There is no good nor fair solution remaining.

Interesting though, that more recently organized industries east of the Front Range, have chosen to have their retirement contributions go to Western States.
 
I encourage everyone to watch the subcommittee hearings on multiemployer pensions you can find on YouTube. I’m hopeful they will come up with some solution. They are required to propose something by November and required to vote on it before the end of the year
 
Elwood said:
I hope you are allowed a choice.
We in Western States no longer have one. I am fine with the situation, but there are many of my brothers and sisters who missed out on PEER programs by a few months, weeks or days. There is no good nor fair solution remaining.

Interesting though, that more recently organized industries east of the Front Range, have chosen to have their retirement contributions go to Western States.
Click to expand...

Is the western conference in better shape because they didn’t have the declining membership issues or were the investments less risky?
You are right,there is no good solution.I like many others had young children and was quite content with the prospect of a pension as well as SSI.I didn’t start a 401 k until 11 years ago.Foolish,I know but,many brothers and sisters are in their 50’s and in the same boat.
 
I know this may be a stupid question.
But I know I will get an answer here.
When it comes to some of this pension stuff I admit I don't understand alot of it.
So my question is
Didn't some retirees take cuts?
I know if one person who retired with a good part of his pension and less than a year later he was kicked down to less than a grand a month. (which sucks)
Maybe someone can elaborate on this.
It happened maybe six seven years ago.
 
falconfan said:
Is the western conference in better shape because they didn’t have the declining membership issues or were the investments less risky?
Click to expand...
Fyi:
hhkvfqz.jpg
 
highheadblues said:
They are required to propose something by November and required to vote on it before the end of the year
Click to expand...


NOT EXACTLY.

This is from the Pension Rights Center, covering the committee:


The Committee, established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 which was signed into law on February 9th, 2018, consists of 16 members of Congress divided equally between the House and Senate and the majority and minority parties. The Committee is charged with developing recommendations and legislative language that will “significantly improve the solvency of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation” by November 30th, 2018. The Joint Select Committee will hold up to five hearings and meetings, at least one of which will be outside of Washington, D.C., to hear all points of view. If the Committee agrees on a solution, it will be fast-tracked through the Senate.

http://www.pensionrights.org/blog/joint-select-committee-starts-process-save-multiemployer-system

They aren't REQUIRED to agree on anything, nor to vote on anything. The only rule they have, is that if 6 out of 8 on each side (12 out of 18) agree on a proposal, that it would go to The Full Senate for an up or down vote without further amendments. (Doesn't even mention going to the House, at all! ) Personally, I expect nothing to happen at all.
 
mysticobra said:
I know this may be a stupid question.
But I know I will get an answer here.
When it comes to some of this pension stuff I admit I don't understand alot of it.
So my question is
Didn't some retirees take cuts?
I know if one person who retired with a good part of his pension and less than a year later he was kicked down to less than a grand a month. (which sucks)
Maybe someone can elaborate on this.
It happened maybe six seven years ago.
Click to expand...
I believe that was because many retired with 25 AT ANY AGE, as it used to be.

CSPF raised the age to 65 with the MOU Approval, and put in penalties for early retirement. I have several friends who had retired at 57, and then the rules changed. They took major hits for this, getting cut well after they had resigned/retired. I'm surprised no one went in and shot up the Pension Office.....
 
jimmy g said:
NOT EXACTLY.

This is from the Pension Rights Center, covering the committee:


The Committee, established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 which was signed into law on February 9th, 2018, consists of 16 members of Congress divided equally between the House and Senate and the majority and minority parties. The Committee is charged with developing recommendations and legislative language that will “significantly improve the solvency of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation” by November 30th, 2018. The Joint Select Committee will hold up to five hearings and meetings, at least one of which will be outside of Washington, D.C., to hear all points of view. If the Committee agrees on a solution, it will be fast-tracked through the Senate.

http://www.pensionrights.org/blog/joint-select-committee-starts-process-save-multiemployer-system

They aren't REQUIRED to agree on anything, nor to vote on anything. The only rule they have, is that if 6 out of 8 on each side (12 out of 18) agree on a proposal, that it would go to The Full Senate for an up or down vote without further amendments. (Doesn't even mention going to the House, at all! ) Personally, I expect nothing to happen at all.
Click to expand...
Correction: 12 out of 16, not 18.
 
mud said:
Fyi:
hhkvfqz.jpg
Click to expand...


I’m glad it’s kicking butt for everyone involved but unless those funds are contributed where the individuals can see their balance..not projections it’s a well oiled Ponzi scheme.
If it’s like ours and a major player or several small companies fail and they force the other companies to contribute more and make them less competitive it will also come to an end.
With the amount of full contributions Freight pays in, every 30 year man would be worth more than a million .If they let us invest it ourselves some would have several million . Elwood will attest to that.
Why is it the government allows investments for unions that are dependent on new investors? It’s the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme where if you or I came up with an identical plan we would be thrown in prison from the same government that deems it legal for unions.
 
jimmy g said:
I believe that was because many retired with 25 AT ANY AGE, as it used to be.

CSPF raised the age to 65 with the MOU Approval, and put in penalties for early retirement. I have several friends who had retired at 57, and then the rules changed. They took major hits for this, getting cut well after they had resigned/retired. I'm surprised no one went in and shot up the Pension Office.....
Click to expand...
OK.
Yes. He had more than 30 but was younger than 60 I'm sure.
That does explain it.
Thank you.

He was getting close to 3 grand I believe and got cut back to like 9 bills.
Shock to your financial situation to say the least. Fortunately he had another job but still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
AdBlock Detected

Ads Suck but we have a server bill to pay every month. I am no Zuckerbuerg or Musk here just a Truck Driver like you. Can you help us out here and disable your Ad Blocker? We gotta pay the bills here. I have a 100% Ad Free option for you located here cool

I've Disabled AdBlock