Yellow | The pension fund and the union are not the same

[John/nyc]

and the union cannot legally bind the pension fund.

You can vote at the union meeting to raise the pension payments to retirees but that vote does not force the trustees of the pension fund to act.

They are two separate entities whose only connection is that the union negotiates with the employer the contribution amounts to the fund. After that the fund's trustees (union and employer trustees) handle the funds and manage the plan in keeping with their fiduciary duties.

This latest proposal by YRC is, as best I can determine, is:

The plan(s) will forego scheduled payments for 2 or 3 months (I don't know exactly how long) in exchange for 2 things.

One, the company will collateralize the payments (to be made in full on a future date (I don't know when)) with property.

Two, the company will pay a monthly 10% interest payment to the plan(s) on the collaterized amount.

The problem is to figure out which entity has the power to approve the proposal. The Union or the Pension Trust?

If its the Pension trust then the union membership will have no vote. The trustees of the various funds will decide if acceptance of the proposal is prudent.

If its the Union, then the proposal might be subject to a vote of the membership. However, Union leadership decides what grievences to process (just as there are frivolous law suits so there are frivolous grievences) and also decides if the contractual payments to the pension funds have been met. It depends on whether this proposal is considered a change in contract terms.

 

[PADUCAH #1]

do me a favor john

john.

i would assume you're in 707.

if you are, keep a good eye on the situation for me please.

i contribute to 707's plan but i'm not in 707 now so i really have no say so.

it looks like you have a good handle on it.

 

[John/nyc]

john.

i would assume you're in 707.

if you are, keep a good eye on the situation for me please.

i contribute to 707's plan but i'm not in 707 now so i really have no say so.

it looks like you have a good handle on it.

Spoke with a trustee just today and the info about the terms of the proposal (as incomplete as they are) are the straight skinny.

 

[John Kelder]

John is correct in that the union and the funds are separate entities .
But when you go to the IBT website , it shows in many press releases and freight updates that contributions will continue to be made per the current NMFA.
THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED ON .
The funds or the union can not change the collective bargaining agreement . Only we can do that with a vote , just like the vote on the 10% wage reduction . As it is a change to the contract ,it must be voted on .
If they told us in a few months there would be no contributions to the funds the vote on the 10% may have had a very different result .
And don't let them use the real estate as collateral and 10 % interest as a selling point . Real estate value across the country is way down , and the funds have penalties for late payments already in place .

 

[John/nyc]

John is correct in that the union and the funds are separate entities .
But when you go to the IBT website , it shows in many press releases and freight updates that contributions will continue to be made per the current NMFA.
THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED ON .
The funds or the union can not change the collective bargaining agreement . Only we can do that with a vote , just like the vote on the 10% wage reduction . As it is a change to the contract ,it must be voted on .
.

Agreed. If this is a change in the contract, we would have to vote; but the argument could be made that it is not a change in the contract, but just a change in the payment method. Not that I am advocating for this proposal (can't say yet one way or the other) but the possible justifications for not having a vote need to be public.

The contract states the amount to be contributed, the union right to inspect payroll records to determine if the payments are being made, and the right to strike (without prior arbitration steps) if the payments are not met: and thats all.

If the Payments were made in euros instead of dollars would that be a chamge in terms of the contract? How about gem quality diamonds?

If they told us in a few months there would be no contributions to the funds the vote on the 10% may have had a very different result ..

Again, I agree.

And don't let them use the real estate as collateral and 10 % interest as a selling point . Real estate value across the country is way down , and the funds have penalties for late payments already in place .

The details are going to come out and if the various pension funds come out better for it, i will support this; if not, I won't.