Through No Fault Of Their Own!

If I might ask a question ....... what do you consider the role of government in America?

The federal government made laws to limit and curtail where CSPF could invest it's money during the Jimmy Hoffa presidency. Those laws caused a cascading detrimental effect to CSPF financial returns. What should have been done, if anything, to rectify the damage?

The federal government was rewarded by limiting money to individuals and organizations the government didn't approve of (Feds got what they wanted). Why should we be punished for governmental interference? Again, what is the role of government in American?

If I might ask a question ....... what do you consider the role of government in America?

The federal government made laws to limit and curtail where CSPF could invest it's money during the Jimmy Hoffa presidency. Those laws caused a cascading detrimental effect to CSPF financial returns. What should have been done, if anything, to rectify the damage?

The federal government was rewarded by limiting money to individuals and organizations the government didn't approve of (Feds got what they wanted). Why should we be punished for governmental interference? Again, what is the role of government in American?
The role of the government is not to bail your asses out. Since the CSPF is going to get tens of millions or billions, of free tax payer money, what happens when that money is gone, as it will be? Another butt load of tax payer money will be transferred and when that money is gone, another loan, to make sure that CSPF teamsters have government pension protection to the grave. Tell me I'm wrong.
The only alternative is to close CSPF and pay off the current retirees and the ones still in the pipeline. Let these companies change to a 401-k. Let the teamsters put some money in the pot.
 
Screw it. let's settle this once and for all. Those retirees, in the PBGC, stay there and die off under whatever distribution rates they are under. The CSPF and others, that are in critical status, close the fund and distribute the money, and have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves. The union companies will switch to 401-k's or whatever but no more FED money.
The taxpayers will come out way ahead.
 
Screw it. let's settle this once and for all. Those retirees, in the PBGC, stay there and die off under whatever distribution rates they are under. The CSPF and others, that are in critical status, close the fund and distribute the money, and have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves. The union companies will switch to 401-k's or whatever but no more FED money.
The taxpayers will come out way ahead.
You know what, I would have been happy with almost any scenario where I get to recoup some of my money (if I was in a fund with an insolvency date) rather than to be made to keep paying into a fund that I would never collect from....I have put myself in their shoes......at least you aren't like one particular retiree who thinks he should just keep collecting and to hell with guys still contributing....if what you are suggesting was offered I would be on board with that...
 
Yup and how did the government handle it? By making a deal that wasn't helpful and that is my point that you didn't answer...you said they made a deal to stay out of prison. How was that acceptable that the government made a deal? The government is complicit by not doing more and tying the unions hands...
In Western Pa., then multiplier went steadily up from $35 per year of service to $100 and then to $3500 a month for 30 years at any age and $2000 a month for 25 years at any age. That money was always there but had been misappropriated by fund trustees and managers. ERISA protected and still protects members from theft and reckless investing. The bottom line here is that it was a total lack of organizing by the unions and refusal by members to adjust to deregulation. To this day, members refuse to acknowledge the need to adjust work rules and costly benefits to remain viable and competitive.
 
In Western Pa., then multiplier went steadily up from $35 per year of service to $100 and then to $3500 a month for 30 years at any age and $2000 a month for 25 years at any age. That money was always there but had been misappropriated by fund trustees and managers. ERISA protected and still protects members from theft and reckless investing. The bottom line here is that it was a total lack of organizing by the unions and refusal by members to adjust to deregulation. To this day, members refuse to acknowledge the need to adjust work rules and costly benefits to remain viable and competitive.
You were an official if the union in western pa when this changed.... What did you do about it? from what I see you went to Yellow to make sure you got yours....
 
You were an official if the union in western pa when this changed.... What did you do about it? from what I see you went to Yellow to make sure you got yours....
Indeed, I went to Yellow to get 5 years and take my 30 and out benefit. No apologies for that. I also shop at stores with the best prices regardless of their employment policies. I own two cars built in the USA but with the KIA nameplate because GM says their union built cars are substandard. Read the warranties.
As I pointed out and you ignored, when the consent decree was in place and a federal judge appointed as oversight, the corruption ended. Benefits for members grew exponentially.
To protect pensions, money from health and welfare needed to to be diverted to pension funds. The rank and file was not then and is not willing now to pay small co-pays and deductibles now to secure their future. This short sighted view of reality has contributed to the demise of Teamster funds.
Organizing of freight is impossible because the union has nothing to offer. Your "free" healthcare means nothing when your employer is in a death spiral. Especially when the non union job pays more than the union job.
Deregulation ended government subsidies of trucking and air travel. American capitalism and competition did what it always does. It created a better product and better service at a lower cost to the consumer. Like any other industry, if a company cannot compete in the free market, they cease to exist. 600+ union carriers failed. All because they could not or would not react and adjust to the demands of their customers.
The consumer expects and demands better, cheaper and faster. That's why Smith-Corona no longer makes typewriters.
Amazing that you and others are quick to point out what you believe to be my faults but never address the substance of my posts.
 
Indeed, I went to Yellow to get 5 years and take my 30 and out benefit. No apologies for that. I also shop at stores with the best prices regardless of their employment policies. I own two cars built in the USA but with the KIA nameplate because GM says their union built cars are substandard. Read the warranties.
As I pointed out and you ignored, when the consent decree was in place and a federal judge appointed as oversight, the corruption ended. Benefits for members grew exponentially.
To protect pensions, money from health and welfare needed to to be diverted to pension funds. The rank and file was not then and is not willing now to pay small co-pays and deductibles now to secure their future. This short sighted view of reality has contributed to the demise of Teamster funds.
Organizing of freight is impossible because the union has nothing to offer. Your "free" healthcare means nothing when your employer is in a death spiral. Especially when the non union job pays more than the union job.
Deregulation ended government subsidies of trucking and air travel. American capitalism and competition did what it always does. It created a better product and better service at a lower cost to the consumer. Like any other industry, if a company cannot compete in the free market, they cease to exist. 600+ union carriers failed. All because they could not or would not react and adjust to the demands of their customers.
The consumer expects and demands better, cheaper and faster. That's why Smith-Corona no longer makes typewriters.
Amazing that you and others are quick to point out what you believe to be my faults but never address the substance of my posts.
And you keep ignoring my question about what did you do about it in your role as a union official? You want to keep blaming the members and I have stated there is blame to go around but you are obviously intelligent and you did nothing to help...then you come on here and bash current members who are still contributing because they have the gall to want something for contributions they are still making...
 
And you keep ignoring my question about what did you do about it in your role as a union official? You want to keep blaming the members and I have stated there is blame to go around but you are obviously intelligent and you did nothing to help...then you come on here and bash current members who are still contributing because they have the gall to want something for contributions they are still making...
Here is what you don't get. The Teamsters Union from the IBT to the smallest local, is every bit as political as the Congress. I was never the high level officer you portray me to be. I was recording secretary, local union board member, JC 40 delegate, volunteer organizer, steward and H&W trustee. The senior officers were not about to lose those positions by doing the right long term thing for the members. They faced election every 3 years. Those senior officers were not ever going to be in a position where a challenger could say, "he took away your healthcare". Options were presented to the membership which they rejected. The union leadership could easily have negotiated higher pension contributions offset by lower H&W contributions with co-pays and deductibles. Remember, it only took a 34% vote to ratify a contract. Leadership would not do that and jeopardize their own jobs at the next election.
 
Here is what you don't get. The Teamsters Union from the IBT to the smallest local, is every bit as political as the Congress. I was never the high level officer you portray me to be. I was recording secretary, local union board member, JC 40 delegate, volunteer organizer, steward and H&W trustee. The senior officers were not about to lose those positions by doing the right long term thing for the members. They faced election every 3 years. Those senior officers were not ever going to be in a position where a challenger could say, "he took away your healthcare". Options were presented to the membership which they rejected. The union leadership could easily have negotiated higher pension contributions offset by lower H&W contributions with co-pays and deductibles. Remember, it only took a 34% vote to ratify a contract. Leadership would not do that and jeopardize their own jobs at the next election.
You are the one who portrayed yourself that way, not me...I have been waiting for this answer for awhile...you portray the members as the greedy ones, when in all actuality it was you and your cohorts wanting to hang on to power...I don't say that to be harsh to you, but to point out that everyone has blame...
 
Screw it. let's settle this once and for all. Those retirees, in the PBGC, stay there and die off under whatever distribution rates they are under. The CSPF and others, that are in critical status, close the fund and distribute the money, and have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves. The union companies will switch to 401-k's or whatever but no more FED money.
The taxpayers will come out way ahead.
Have you done math on that? According to the Wisconsin Examiner (03/23/2021), just the Central States Pension Fund currently has roughly 360,000 participants. According to my local, Roughly 75% (270,000) currently draw a pension, and the other 25% (90,000) are currently working and having contributions paid on their behalf. Just to pay the current working/contributing (90,000) members $200,000 each would cost $18 billion dollars. Then the government would have to fund the PBGC enough to continue paying the current rate the retirees (270,000) are currently at. And that is just for the 360,000 Central States participants. The Wisconsin Examiner goes on to say that there are roughly 130 plans with 1.4 million members that are projected to be insolvent within the next 20 years. My guess is that your plan would end up costing a helluva lot more than the $86 billion (or whatever it is) from the Butch Lewis Act.
 
Have you done math on that? According to the Wisconsin Examiner (03/23/2021), just the Central States Pension Fund currently has roughly 360,000 participants. According to my local, Roughly 75% (270,000) currently draw a pension, and the other 25% (90,000) are currently working and having contributions paid on their behalf. Just to pay the current working/contributing (90,000) members $200,000 each would cost $18 billion dollars. Then the government would have to fund the PBGC enough to continue paying the current rate the retirees (270,000) are currently at. And that is just for the 360,000 Central States participants. The Wisconsin Examiner goes on to say that there are roughly 130 plans with 1.4 million members that are projected to be insolvent within the next 20 years. My guess is that your plan would end up costing a helluva lot more than the $86 billion (or whatever it is) from the Butch Lewis Act.
Good info...I figured it was likely more, but I'm too lazy to figure it out...lmao..
 
Good info...I figured it was likely more, but I'm too lazy to figure it out...lmao..
Not to mention what that $200,000.00 per active member would do for our 2023 contract negotiations. That would free up $342.00 per week or $8.55 an hour that the employer would no longer have to contribute to the fund. $8.55 per hour could make some huge changes to our pay and benefits.
 
Not to mention what that $200,000.00 per active member would do for our 2023 contract negotiations. That would free up $342.00 per week or $8.55 an hour that the employer would no longer have to contribute to the fund. $8.55 per hour could make some huge changes to our pay and benefits.
Uh oh I hope Lincoln doesn't see this post especially since you are just giving an opinion...lmao
 
Not to mention what that $200,000.00 per active member would do for our 2023 contract negotiations. That would free up $342.00 per week or $8.55 an hour that the employer would no longer have to contribute to the fund. $8.55 per hour could make some huge changes to our pay and benefits.
Shucks, I was looking at a new boat with that $200k
 
The role of the government is not to bail your asses out. Since the CSPF is going to get tens of millions or billions, of free tax payer money, what happens when that money is gone, as it will be? Another butt load of tax payer money will be transferred and when that money is gone, another loan, to make sure that CSPF teamsters have government pension protection to the grave. Tell me I'm wrong.
The only alternative is to close CSPF and pay off the current retirees and the ones still in the pipeline. Let these companies change to a 401-k. Let the teamsters put some money in the pot.
Sorry I took a little time to reply. My bid is 625 miles per night. Anyway, I think most people would agree a role of government (one of many) is to protect its citizens. So if the Teamster upper management was stealing our retirement from CSPF, and the government knew it, and the DOJ offered a consent decree to those individuals who where stealing rather than prosecution them (lot of ifs but this is your scenario as I understand it), then the government colluded and failed to protect its citizens. If part of that consent decree included restricting the way CSPF invested its funds, then I still believe the government is liable.

Now regarding the rest of your post, how do you know the government is going to give "Another butt load of tax payer money" to CSPF in 2051? Is it possible to just end the "loan"-grant? It does have an expiration date. Would this not "pay off the current retirees and the ones still in the pipeline"? And yes I would prefer to "have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves". I enjoy managing my earnings and taking responsibility for my future.
 
The union leadership could easily have negotiated higher pension contributions offset by lower H&W contributions with co-pays and deductibles.
Got news for ya' Blade. I have been here since 1994, and we have had deductibles to our Health and Welfare this whole time. It is currently $200 individual/$400 family per year. We also currently have co-pays on major medical.
 
Sorry I took a little time to reply. My bid is 625 miles per night. Anyway, I think most people would agree a role of government (one of many) is to protect its citizens. So if the Teamster upper management was stealing our retirement from CSPF, and the government knew it, and the DOJ offered a consent decree to those individuals who where stealing rather than prosecution them (lot of ifs but this is your scenario as I understand it), then the government colluded and failed to protect its citizens. If part of that consent decree included restricting the way CSPF invested its funds, then I still believe the government is liable.

Now regarding the rest of your post, how do you know the government is going to give "Another butt load of tax payer money" to CSPF in 2051? Is it possible to just end the "loan"-grant? It does have an expiration date. Would this not "pay off the current retirees and the ones still in the pipeline"? And yes I would prefer to "have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves". I enjoy managing my earnings and taking responsibility for my future.
10 likes for that post Homesick. Well said brother!!!
 
Sorry I took a little time to reply. My bid is 625 miles per night. Anyway, I think most people would agree a role of government (one of many) is to protect its citizens. So if the Teamster upper management was stealing our retirement from CSPF, and the government knew it, and the DOJ offered a consent decree to those individuals who where stealing rather than prosecution them (lot of ifs but this is your scenario as I understand it), then the government colluded and failed to protect its citizens. If part of that consent decree included restricting the way CSPF invested its funds, then I still believe the government is liable.

Now regarding the rest of your post, how do you know the government is going to give "Another butt load of tax payer money" to CSPF in 2051? Is it possible to just end the "loan"-grant? It does have an expiration date. Would this not "pay off the current retirees and the ones still in the pipeline"? And yes I would prefer to "have the FED's add $200,000 tax free dollars per member and let the union people invest it, themselves". I enjoy managing my earnings and taking responsibility for my future.
I enjoy being responsible for my future also.
At one time I owned Lucent, Enron, and Linn Energy, if that tells you anything.
I still like to get my feet wet.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected