Guest viewing is limited
  • Truckingboards is a MEMBERS ONLY Private Forum that first got it's start in 1999, Membership is 100% Free, We have Over 40k Members and approaching 2 million posts that date back to the early 2000's.Registration is easy and fast. We specialize in LTL trucking. Get off those Facebook Groups and come to a place where your identity will be unknown unless you tell someone. Truckingboards has a mobile app you can install from your mobile browser.

    Click Here

    For instructions on how to install the mobile app.

U.S. government launches pension rescue

Roadway spy

Well-Known Member
The money does come with some conditions. Pension plans that get the assistance won’t be allowed to retroactively increase previously earned pension benefits, and they can only increase future benefits if those are funded with new contributions.

That’s sums up the last 11 Years so put a fork in old Yellow.
Made me relocate 200 trailers under a casuals checker number now off to the bar.
 
Last edited:

Homesick

BESTEST DOG EVER

:clapping:
Good article, straight forward and easily understood. The only question that jumps out at me is regarding the "orphans". Because part of what is paid in by companies paying the full contribution rate is given to pay in for companies that no longer exist, is this considered the full contribution or some additional contribution?

Sorry, I know I'm not making much sense but I can't seem to figure out how to phrase what I want to say correctly.
 
Last edited:

ABF381

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
Premium
Good article, straight forward and easily understood. The only question that jumps out at me is regarding the "orphans". Because part of what is paid in by companies paying the full contribution rate is given to pay for companies that no longer exist, is this considered the full contribution or some additional contribution?

Sorry, I know I'm not making much sense but I can't seem to figure out how to phrase what I want to say correctly.
That is a good question and I have wondered the same thing....
 

Steward of the Rock

Well-Known Member
Good article, straight forward and easily understood. The only question that jumps out at me is regarding the "orphans". Because part of what is paid in by companies paying the full contribution rate is given to pay in for companies that no longer exist, is this considered the full contribution or some additional contribution?

Sorry, I know I'm not making much sense but I can't seem to figure out how to phrase what I want to say correctly.
"One group that won’t get relief under the rules is contributing employers. When they got into trouble, many underfunded plans imposed significant surcharges on participating employers that were intended to make up for the investment losses. PBGC’s rescue plan rules say that employers can’t reduce the amount of contributions they’re currently making under their collective bargaining".

I too was wondering the same thing there Homesick. The quote above is from the article of the original post. It says "the employers can't reduce the amount of contributions they're currently making under their collective bargaining". It says nothing about future contracts negotiated as to whether or not the contributions can be reduced or not, only that it cannot be reduced what is currently agreed to by collective bargaining. So, does this mean that future contracts can be negotiated on pension contributions based on the needs at the time to maintain the current pay out rate? This is what I have been talking about. Like you stated, the pension fund is currently obligated to help pay for companies that no longer exist. When the new contract (2023) is negotiated for ABF (collective bargaining), will the employer (ABF) then only be required to pay in what is necessary to cover ABF employees only as the so-called "orphan" companies will be covered by the Pension Relief Act?
 

ABF381

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
Premium
"One group that won’t get relief under the rules is contributing employers. When they got into trouble, many underfunded plans imposed significant surcharges on participating employers that were intended to make up for the investment losses. PBGC’s rescue plan rules say that employers can’t reduce the amount of contributions they’re currently making under their collective bargaining".

I too was wondering the same thing there Homesick. The quote above is from the article of the original post. It says "the employers can't reduce the amount of contributions they're currently making under their collective bargaining". It says nothing about future contracts negotiated as to whether or not the contributions can be reduced or not, only that it cannot be reduced what is currently agreed to by collective bargaining. So, does this mean that future contracts can be negotiated on pension contributions based on the needs at the time to maintain the current pay out rate? This is what I have been talking about. Like you stated, the pension fund is currently obligated to help pay for companies that no longer exist. When the new contract (2023) is negotiated for ABF (collective bargaining), will the employer (ABF) then only be required to pay in what is necessary to cover ABF employees only as the so-called "orphan" companies will be covered by the Pension Relief Act?
I tend to agree with that assessment, at least for funds that either cut benefits (as mine did) or are going insolvent (central states). It begs the question about the many funds that are healthy though. These are questions that I'm patiently waiting for an answer to.
 
Top