Central states pensioners, please read!

[pretzel_man]

If you had said "central states" instead of "multi-employer" I would agree with you. There are several multi employer plans that I know of, and likely some that I don't, that have a much higher payout than the UPS plan.

That's fair. I should have said "their multi employer plan".

 

[JonFrum]

Jon:

From UPS' perspective, isn't the multi employer plan a defined contribution plan? What I mean is UPS is responsible to contribute to the plan, but not responsible for the benefit the employee derives?

I admit this isn't my strongest area of knowledge.

P-Man

As a practical matter, UPS' main connection to the Teamster sponsored multi-employer plans is to negotiate the level of contributions, and then make those contributions. Nevertheless, they are not DEFINED CONTRIBUTION plans.

The terms "Defined Benefit" and "Defined Contribution" are legal terms and each category has a different set of legal rules that the plans in its category must obey.

 

[satellitedriver]

Is your new pension really secured? Please read what tud is saying.

The simple answer ,to your question, is no.
(Unless, UPS is willing to cover the promises made in the past, by Central States)
Central States is in trouble and has been for quite some time.
What TDU states is common knowledge, to anyone that read the agreement.
This will be my only post in this thread, but it brings up the specter of what 97' was all about.
I was just cleaning out my files today and came across the UPS Master Contract offer that was declined in 97'.
The teamsters won that battle and lost the war, for UPSer's.
The yearly profit sharing check offered by UPS could have been a great cornerstone, to build my retirement upon.
Water under the bridge.
TDU's only complaint, that I see ,is that they are worried that UPS won't keep bailing out a failing retirement plan negotiated, by the teamsters.
As I stated, this will be my only post on this subject.
No need to pick at scabs (pun intended), of old healing wounds.