What's new

Yellow | YRCW FOR SALE.......?HOW IS YOUR GERMAN?....CAN YOU SAY NEW OWNERS....DHL??????

Crystal said:
I'm not trying to confuse the issue anymore than it already is but......... Say a pension is cut 30% by a fund administrator so the retiree gets 70% of his original pension amount. Under the Kline-Miller plan, cuts would be restricted to 110 percent of benefits that the PBGC would otherwise pay. Since the PBGC benefits will only pay 35% then the amount of the cuts should be restricted to 110% of that 35%. So by your math the maximum percentage that could be cut by fund administrators under the proposed Kline Miller plan would be 38.5%. So we could end up with only 61.5% of our original pension. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Click to expand...

Here's another article which explains the situation.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-worker-pensions-20141205-column.html

The way I understand it, PBGC guarantees a certain level of payments to retirees based on a number of factors - retiree age, service time, etc. This level can be quite a bit lower than what a retiree was already receiving. This proposal allows trustees to theoretically cut pension payments down to a level equal to 110% of the level PBGC would provide. In other words, the trustees could cut your pension to a level a little above what you would get from the PBGC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what it's saying.

To add to what you are saying, if the PBGC will only guarantee you 35% of what you originally got, this plan will set a lower limit of 38.5% of what you originally got. That would be the lowest level you could get cut down to by the trustees. 38.5% wouldn't be the maximum amount of the cut, but rather the lowest percentage of pension you could get. The trustees could cut your pension by a maximum of 61.5% under the proposed plan.
 
Last edited:
I ran down the Big Road today and saw two worn out YRC trucks with rusted out wagons.
Had the Big Radio on and not a peep from them.
Funny thing I tell them I drove that truck when it was new ...........
 
Triplex said:
Here's another article which explains the situation.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-worker-pensions-20141205-column.html

The way I understand it, PBGC guarantees a certain level of payments to retirees based on a number of factors - retiree age, service time, etc. This level can be quite a bit lower than what a retiree was already receiving. This proposal allows trustees to theoretically cut pension payments down to a level equal to 110% of the level PBGC would provide. In other words, the trustees could cut your pension to a level a little above what you would get from the PBGC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what it's saying.

To add to what you are saying, if the PBGC will only guarantee you 35% of what you originally got, this plan will set a lower limit of 38.5% of what you originally got. That would be the lowest level you could get cut down to by the trustees. 38.5% wouldn't be the maximum amount of the cut, but rather the lowest percentage of pension you could get. The trustees could cut your pension by a maximum of 61.5% under the proposed plan.
Click to expand...

Thanks Triplex, the article you linked explains it better and if it's numbers are correct then you are right that the PBGC rate would be 38.5% instead of the 35% it now pays. I was going by the wording of the first article which said Under the Kline-Miller plan, cuts would be restricted to 110 percent of benefits that the PBGC would otherwise pay. I misinterpreted it to mean they could only cut us 110% of the 35% amount PBGC now pays.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-worker-pensions-20141205-column.html IMO the author of this article explains the current situation in more detail. And the feeling I get from it is that the Kline-Miller plan isn't going to happen this year. And by it's growing oppositions it may not happen at all. Reading this article it appears that there isn't an urgent need to rush through legislation in 3 days in an attempt to correct a potential problem that may occur 10 to 20 years down the road. If it happen at all.
 
Triplex said:
Here's another article which explains the situation.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-worker-pensions-20141205-column.html

The way I understand it, PBGC guarantees a certain level of payments to retirees based on a number of factors - retiree age, service time, etc. This level can be quite a bit lower than what a retiree was already receiving. This proposal allows trustees to theoretically cut pension payments down to a level equal to 110% of the level PBGC would provide. In other words, the trustees could cut your pension to a level a little above what you would get from the PBGC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what it's saying.

To add to what you are saying, if the PBGC will only guarantee you 35% of what you originally got, this plan will set a lower limit of 38.5% of what you originally got. That would be the lowest level you could get cut down to by the trustees. 38.5% wouldn't be the maximum amount of the cut, but rather the lowest percentage of pension you could get. The trustees could cut your pension by a maximum of 61.5% under the proposed plan.
Click to expand...

The bill that is attached to the appropriations bill next week allows the Pension Funds UP TO 66% OF PENSION CUTS if necessary....CSPF will reduce those already retired by 30%....those OVER age 75 will not be reduced.....KK
 
Kennesaw Kid said:
The bill that is attached to the appropriations bill next week allows the Pension Funds UP TO 66% OF PENSION CUTS if necessary....CSPF will reduce those already retired by 30%....those OVER age 75 will not be reduced.....KK
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, if a retiree is under 75 and has his pension reduced does it go back up to full rate when he turns 75?
 
Triplex said:
Just out of curiosity, if a retiree is under 75 and has his pension reduced does it go back up to full rate when he turns 75?
Click to expand...

Probably not, as if a member freezes his retirement at the rate 25 years would be if he quits and waits later when he turns 65, he would get the rate that applied when he froze it.

If you reach 75 and still are drawing, I would not think you would be increased to full rate....and why would they, they want you to hurry up and die, that's why they have the age 75 provision in there....they are doubling down on the life expectancy....KK
 
Kennesaw Kid said:
The bill that is attached to the appropriations bill next week allows the Pension Funds UP TO 66% OF PENSION CUTS if necessary....CSPF will reduce those already retired by 30%....those OVER age 75 will not be reduced.....KK
Click to expand...
So far, nothing is attached, because (unless it was written last night) nothing is actually officially drafted. It comes out Monday afternoon to be voted on Wednesday. Well know then.
 
Like jimmyg said, I don't why people are putting faith into something that doesn't exist.. I know my little pension with only 15 years with the Teamsters is long gone.. I could be wrong, but with DC putting their fingers in it, it has to be fecal matter by now.. There's something there that they are trying to cover up..
 
Starkravinloon said:
Like jimmyg said, I don't why people are putting faith into something that doesn't exist.. I know my little pension with only 15 years with the Teamsters is long gone.. I could be wrong, but with DC putting their fingers in it, it has to be fecal matter by now.. There's something there that they are trying to cover up..
Click to expand...
The Fed just 'invented' a trillion bucks last week. The Emperor isn't wearing clothes....
 
Starkravinloon said:
Like jimmyg said, I don't why people are putting faith into something that doesn't exist.. I know my little pension with only 15 years with the Teamsters is long gone.. I could be wrong, but with DC putting their fingers in it, it has to be fecal matter by now.. There's something there that they are trying to cover up..
Click to expand...

I have to disagree that your 15 year pension is gone. IMO CSPF will not default. It will survive with a comprehensive rehabilitation plan. Remember UPS still has some amount of liability involve. I don't know what it is. But this was posted earlier in the week
In recent weeks, negotiations over the proposal have heated up on Capitol Hill. Still, some key elements are unresolved, including a way to satisfy objections from UPS, which withdrew from one of the most distressed plans in 2007 but would be on the hook to make up for any pension cuts affecting its retirees.
Click to expand...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-cut-benefits-for-current-retirees/ar-BBgj0f9
 
Starkravinloon said:
Like jimmyg said, I don't why people are putting faith into something that doesn't exist.. I know my little pension with only 15 years with the Teamsters is long gone.. I could be wrong, but with DC putting their fingers in it, it has to be fecal matter by now.. There's something there that they are trying to cover up..
Click to expand...
I'm drawing just under $600.00 per month from the CSPF for about six years of service, which is tied into my 28 years in the WSWT. Just think what 15 years of service would you per month, that your not drawing and leaving in the CSPF.
 
Last edited:
Just think what 15 years of service would get you per month. Not my business but just sayin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top