What's new

Holland | The Truth About Multiemployer Pension Plans!

I hate to admit it but it looks like some of us are going to take a hit in our pensions. That is unless the next congress listens to both sides of the pension issue. If given the choice I'm sure all would rather take a 30% cut in our pension benefits than the 65% cut that would come from a PBGC takeover. But alternatives to repealing the anti cutback rule were offered by organizations like AARP. Hopefully the new republican led congress will heed both sides and work out a solution to this issue.

Gutting the anti cutback rule and giving fund administrators a free reign will IMO open the door to the eventual wholesale slaughter of the entire defined benefits pension fund system. It will be like opening the proverbial Pandora's box



“commission members discussed the clear message from Congress that no bailout would be forthcoming to protect the private multiemployer pension system overall,” DeFrehn recalled. “The only practical alternative is to reduce the liabilities of the plan. Current rules that place the entire burden for liability reduction on the active employee populations are insufficient for the most troubled plans to recover."

In other words, MEP retirees are going to have to feel the pain, too, hence the proposal to suspend benefits under certain circumstances – an always-controversial, if not explosive, idea.

“Suspending accrued benefits is a change to the social contract between the plan and participants,” the report acknowledged. "It must not be used arbitrarily, and its use must be restricted to plans that face inevitable insolvency. And only in situations where the long-term benefit to participants as a group after intervention is advantaged.”

According to the NCCMP proposal, plans that take this route would have to meet a number of criteria:

•They would be projected to become insolvent within 20 years and have a ratio of inactive to active participants that exceeds 2-1; or they would be expected to become insolvent within 15 years.


•After application of the suspension, the plan would be expected to avoid insolvency.


•Plan sponsors and trustees would have exercised due diligence to determine that suspension is necessary.
Click to expand...
 
Do you really think the Republicans are going to do this? I mean really, your kidding right?

This is what Big Business wants, and to be quite honest they buy the politicians, both parties!

So really IMHO they will make sure that the MEPF are not helped.

401K's are some what of a scam, you put in most if not all of the money in and take all of the risk, while the administrator reap the benefits. They take about two thirds of the profits you get one third, sweet deal don't you think?

See, Big Business wins again.....
 
This stuff is really depressing!......what were they thinking when they let UPS out?.....how could anyone figure that letting the richest biggest company with the brightest future out a good idea?
 
this is why a matching 401-k is better that you control and only you draw out of not 100 other guys too !!! and then plus too when you die you kids get what left in it ,not the union !!!! & yes I know your wife can draw some to ,but then when she dies the union keeps your balance left , where a 401- K you could will to you kids !!! or SKIPPY WARNER !!!!!
 
wongway said:
this is why a matching 401-k is better that you control and only you draw out of not 100 other guys too !!! and then plus too when you die you kids get what left in it ,not the union !!!! & yes I know your wife can draw some to ,but then when she dies the union keeps your balance left , where a 401- K you could will to you kids !!! or SKIPPY WARNER !!!!!
Click to expand...

The union doesn't own, have any control or keep any leftover funds. All pension funds are under federal regulation........As for your 401-K programs it appears as if the trustee of the plans are not required to comply with section 404 ERISA regulation.

Defined contribution plans — by contrast and by definition — are always "fully funded." Thus Congress saw no need to provide insurance protection for participants in defined contribution plans. The Enron scandal in 2001 demonstrated one potential problem with defined contribution plans: the company had strongly encouraged its workers to invest their 401(k) plans in their employer itself, violating primary investment guidelines about diversification. When Enron went bankrupt, many workers lost not just their jobs but also most of the value of their retirement savings. Congress inserted trust law fiduciary liability upon employers who did not prudently diversify plan assets to avoid the chance of large losses inside Section 404 of ERISA, but it is unclear whether such fiduciary liability applies to trustees of plans in which participants direct the investment of their own accounts.
Click to expand...
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Crystal said:
Hopefully the new republican led congress will heed both sides and work out a solution to this issue.
Click to expand...
Don't count on that happening, because it won't. Neither party give two ***** about our pensions, they are only worried about their own. And since the Democrats are supported by the Unions and the Republican's can't get any union support, why would the Republicans worry about the future of people who don't vote for them? Sorry, but it's not going to happen.
 
dirbydog said:
401K's are some what of a scam, you put in most if not all of the money in and take all of the risk, while the administrator reap the benefits. They take about two thirds of the profits you get one third, sweet deal don't you think?
Click to expand...
I don't know where you get your information Dirbydog, but you couldn't be more wrong. I've had a 401k for 26 years and I know that you are incorrect. Sorry,........but you are either being misled with b.s. information, or you read something wrong.
 
Crystal said:
The union doesn't own, have any control or keep any leftover funds. All pension funds are under federal regulation........As for your 401-K programs it appears as if the trustee of the plans are not required to comply with section 404 ERISA regulation.


Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
the point is that leftover funds stay in the fund & not given to your kids like you can a 401-K plan !! and at this point somebody has to come up with a plan to save the fund , whatever it maybe ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top