Central states-what happens when???

[Notretiredyet]

As far as I'm concerned it's simple, invest in your 401k and or your Roth options early as that is the only retirement income you control. Everything else from SS to pension can disappear or be reduced at any time in the future. You'll sleep better at nite too.

 

[Anonymous 11]

As far as I'm concerned it's simple, invest in your 401k and or your Roth options early as that is the only retirement income you control. Everything else from SS to pension can disappear or be reduced at any time in the future. You'll sleep better at nite too.

+ 1 Great advice.

 

[Fullhouse]

As written in the National Master Agreement-
"The UPS/IBT Plan will reconize full time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefit in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."

So at age 65 UPS/IBT Plan will stop fully funding your retirement and begin paying the benefits for the years earned from 2008 forward (the offset). The CS Plan will then begin paying the participant all benefits earned prior to 2008. The amount paid by both plans is supposed to equal the amount of the benefit received prior to age 65 if the participant retired after 2008 under the UPS/IBT Plan.

The language in the agreement identifies what the IBT/UPS Plan will do after normal retirement age. The action is labeled as an "offset".

With that said, I do not understand why so many people seem to think that "if" the CS Plan reduces benefits, after normal retirement age, "as permitted or required by law" that UPS will make up any reduction. The language clearly implies to me that the UPS/IBT Plan portion (offset) paid to you after "Normal Retirement Age (65) will not contain any amount more than you earned from 2008 until. "The amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset. "

In my opinion, UPS placed this language in the Agreement in hopes of being successful with their lobbing efforts within Congress.

Under the bill, passed and signed into law in December 2014, it provided the CS Plan an option to save itself. Under the new law "Multi-employee pension reform act" UPS no longer has to worry "as much" about having to pay the full pension amount of participants after they turn age 65.
With the passage of that bill, UPS will be able to relieve their selves, at least for the next 23 years, of the obligation to fully cover the retirement benefit for the remainder of the participants life and their spouse's life.

Once again UPS has out foxed the union and the Union was oblivious to the maneuver performed upon them or were they?

 

[Mugarolla]

As written in the National Master Agreement-
"The UPS/IBT Plan will reconize full time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefit in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."

So at age 65 UPS/IBT Plan will stop fully funding your retirement and begin paying the benefits for the years earned from 2008 forward (the offset). The CS Plan will then begin paying the participant all benefits earned prior to 2008. The amount paid by both plans is supposed to equal the amount of the benefit received prior to age 65 if the participant retired after 2008 under the UPS/IBT Plan.

The language in the agreement identifies what the IBT/UPS Plan will do after normal retirement age. The action is labeled as an "offset".

With that said, I do not understand why so many people seem to think that "if" the CS Plan reduces benefits, after normal retirement age, "as permitted or required by law" that UPS will make up any reduction. The language clearly implies to me that the UPS/IBT Plan portion (offset) paid to you after "Normal Retirement Age (65) will not contain any amount more than you earned from 2008 until. "The amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset. "

In my opinion, UPS placed this language in the Agreement in hopes of being successful with their lobbing efforts within Congress.

Under the bill, passed and signed into law in December 2014, it provided the CS Plan an option to save itself. Under the new law "Multi-employee pension reform act" UPS no longer has to worry "as much" about having to pay the full pension amount of participants after they turn age 65.
With the passage of that bill, UPS will be able to relieve their selves, at least for the next 23 years, of the obligation to fully cover the retirement benefit for the remainder of the participants life and their spouse's life.

Once again UPS has out foxed the union and the Union was oblivious to the maneuver performed upon them or were they?

You understand it incorrectly. The offset is the amount CS pays you after you turn 65. The offset is what you earned under CS before 2008.

UPS pays you your full retirement until age 65. UPS then offsets the amount you receive from CS. If that amount is reduced by law, the reduction shall not be included in the offset.

I gave this example before. You started in 1988. Worked 20 years under CS and then 10 years under UPS/IBT.

Forgetting about the raise we got in 2015 and again in 2017, just to make the math easier, here's what happens.

You retire at age 57 with 30 years of service. UPS pays you your full $3000/mo until you turn 65.

UPS then offsets the amount CS pays you. In this case it is roughly $2000. Now, UPS pays you $1000/mo and CS pays you $2000/mo to keep you at your $3000/mo.

If CS cuts your pension by half, they now only pay you $1000/mo.

UPS cannot include this reduction in the offset per the contract. So now, UPS can only offset $1000/mo instead of $2000/mo.

So now you will receive $2000/mo from UPS and $1000/mo from CS to keep you at $3000/mo.

The reduction shall not be included in the offset.

But this clause needs to stay in the contract or else UPS is not liable for any reduction.

 

[Fullhouse]

Confused-
At the beginning you say the offset is from CS after the age 65, then in the next paragraph you say UPS pays the offset..
Sounds like you are saying both parties will pay offsets just at different times, is that correct?
Offset defined- noun
a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one.
That definition, in my opinion defines what UPS will pay.
I certainly hope you are correct because I would love to be able to retire in 5 years with no worries!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Confused-
At the beginning you say the offset is from CS after the age 65, then in the next paragraph you say UPS pays the offset..
Sounds like you are saying both parties will pay offsets just at different times, is that correct?
Offset defined- noun
a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one.
That definition, in my opinion defines what UPS will pay.
I certainly hope you are correct because I would love to be able to retire in 5 years with no worries!

I have to agree with you----his explanation was very confusing.

 

[Mugarolla]

Confused-
At the beginning you say the offset is from CS after the age 65, then in the next paragraph you say UPS pays the offset..
Sounds like you are saying both parties will pay offsets just at different times, is that correct?
Offset defined- noun
a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one.
That definition, in my opinion defines what UPS will pay.
I certainly hope you are correct because I would love to be able to retire in 5 years with no worries!

I didn't say that UPS pays the offset. I said that UPS offsets the amount that CS pays once you turn 65.

UPS pays you your $3000/MO until you turn 65. UPS then offsets the amount that CS pays you.

In other words, UPS deducts from their check what CS pays.

If CS reduces your pension by law, this reduction shall not be included in the offset. UPS cannot offset that $1000 reduction from CS.

They are on the hook for your full $3000/mo minus what CS pays.

If CS pays $2000, UPS pays $1000

If CS only pays $1000 due to a reduction, UPS pays $2000.

If you have read all the articles bashing UPS and read their response, they are admitting that they are guaranteeing any reduction in CS pension payments.

The million dollar question that I do not have the answer for is this guarantee only for people who retire, or who have retired, since 2008?

I cannot get an answer.

And this clause needs to stay in the contract or UPS will not have to make up any reduction.

 

[Mugarolla]

I didn't say that UPS pays the offset. I said that UPS offsets the amount that CS pays once you turn 65.

UPS pays you your $3000/MO until you turn 65. UPS then offsets the amount that CS pays you.

In other words, UPS deducts from their check what CS pays.

If CS reduces your pension by law, this reduction shall not be included in the offset. UPS cannot offset that $1000 reduction from CS.

They are on the hook for your full $3000/mo minus what CS pays.

If CS pays $2000, UPS pays $1000

If CS only pays $1000 due to a reduction, UPS pays $2000.

If you have read all the articles bashing UPS and read their response, they are admitting that they are guaranteeing any reduction in CS pension payments.

The million dollar question that I do not have the answer for is this guarantee only for people who retire, or who have retired, since 2008?

I cannot get an answer.

And this clause needs to stay in the contract or UPS will not have to make up any reduction.

The only thing that I left out was that you will not collect a dime from CS until normal retirement age, 65.

UPS pays your full pension until the CS portion kicks in at age 65.

 

[Spicybrother]

If Centrals States reduces your pension by law, that amount is not going to be paid, included in the offset paid by UPS. UPS is not going to pay. If they were going to pay regardless of whether Central States made any reductions,there would be no point in such language. The language is clearly there as a loop hole. It's glaring. It sticks out from the contract in my eyes. I noticed in 2008.

 

[WhatsUP]

Where did you get your information?

 

[Mugarolla]

If Centrals States reduces your pension by law, that amount is not going to be paid, included in the offset paid by UPS. UPS is not going to pay. If they were going to pay regardless of whether Central States made any reductions,there would be no point in such language. The language is clearly there as a loop hole. It's glaring. It sticks out from the contract in my eyes. I noticed in 2008.

UPS does not pay an offset. UPS offsets what CS pays. Two different things.

The reason this language was put in the contract was to protect UPS retirees from any reduction in the CS pension.

The contract never would have passed without it back in 2008. It was part of the deal to allow UPS to withdraw from CS.

As the retirees collecting a CS portion of their pension declines and the majority of UPS workers are solely in the UPS/IBT plan, this language could very well be voted out.

UPS offsets what CS pays at normal retirement age, 65. Any reduction shall not be included in this offset. UPS is liable for your full pension minus what CS pays at age 65.

If CS only paid you $1/mo at age 65, UPS would pay you $2999/mo so that you still receive your full pension.

This legal mumbo jumbo about offsets seems to be confusing a lot of people.

UPS admitted that they are liable for any reduction.

Hoffa sent a letter to Congress saying the same thing.

UPS went to Congress to get their exemption because they know they are on the hook for any reductions.

Hoffa estimated that if UPS did not get this Congressional exemption, that they would have to pay an estimated $2B to retirees to cover the reduced pension.

UPS got this exemption so that their retirees will receive little, if any cuts at all to save the $2B.

Don't take my word for it, do some research before you go spouting untrue facts. It is all out there. Hoffa's letter, UPS' Congressional exemption, UPS statements.

Easy to find.

 

[Mugarolla]

If Centrals States reduces your pension by law, that amount is not going to be paid, included in the offset paid by UPS. UPS is not going to pay. If they were going to pay regardless of whether Central States made any reductions,there would be no point in such language. The language is clearly there as a loop hole. It's glaring. It sticks out from the contract in my eyes. I noticed in 2008.

Here's an easy one for you.

Why do you think UPS went to Congress to get their exemption?

Do you think it was because UPS actually cares whether or not CS reduces your pension?

I got news for you. UPS could care less that you could lose half your pension.

UPS only went to Congress and got their exemption so they don't have to pay for any reduction in your CS portion of your retirement.

They only went to Congress to save them money, not you. They don't care about you. They don't want to have to pay.

If this clause was not in the contract, UPS never would have gone to Congress to get an exemption.

 

[Spicybrother]

The offset is a payment. It's the amount that UPS pays for the years since 2008. Centrals states does not pay for those years until after age 65.

Oh, UPS is screwing us. They went to Congress to screw us. They don't care about us or their own management. I wonder how much these guys got paid, John Kline (R-Minn.) and Democrat Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) for the Kline-Miller amendment.

I'm not sure why you think UPS retires will receive little if any cuts??. The plan is only 50 percent funded and spending over 3 dollars for every dollar it takes in. Assuming you were balanced and spending 1 dollar for every dollar you took in, to restore the fund to 100% funding, you'd only have to cut benefits by 50%. They will actually have to do more than just cut benefits. They are going to have to increase the retirement age for those in the CS plan or some other measures. The "math" is overwhelming. Everyone is going to get some type of cut,even UPS retires. For UPS retirees not to get cuts, that would mean that some would have to receive greater than 50% cuts. For example you could cut a guy whose company went out of business by 70% and cut the UPS central states UPS guy by 30%. The problem is that UPS guys with large retirements likely represent a bigger percentage of the spending. So tell me how the guys with the biggest pension in the plan, don't take a cut? The guy who's company went out of business year ago, is only getting a pension a fraction of what a UPS guy is getting.

 

[Spicybrother]

Where did you get your information?

Retired UPS manager who inquired.

 

[Spicybrother]

UPS only went to Congress and got their exemption so they don't have to pay for any reduction in your CS portion of your retirement

We are in agreement. UPS is not going to "make up" any cuts in the the CS portion of the plan that they are not legally required to do.

 

[Mugarolla]

We are in agreement. UPS is not going to "make up" any cuts in the the CS portion of the plan that they are not legally required to do.

Exactly. But the contract is a legal document. Under the contract, UPS is legally bound to make up any cuts under CS reduced by law.

 

[Fullhouse]

I have read that anyone born after 1960 will fall under a new "Normal Retirement Age of 67" I'm sure this will play a role in the Eyes of CS as to when they should start paying what they are obligated to do so.

 

[Mugarolla]

The offset is a payment. It's the amount that UPS pays for the years since 2008. Centrals states does not pay for those years until after age 65.

Incorrect. As described in the National Master, the offset is the amount you accrued in pension "prior" to 2008 paid to you once you turn 65.

They went to Congress to screw us.

No. They went to Congress to avoid having to pay for any reduction in pension. Since they are liable for any reduction, they asked Congress for, and got, an exception to not reduce any UPS retirees pension. Or to be at least last in line to receive cuts.

They don't care about us or their own management.

We agree on something.

I wonder how much these guys got paid, John Kline (R-Minn.) and Democrat Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) for the Kline-Miller amendment.

Are you saying that they took a bribe? It was Congress as a whole that gave UPS their exemption, not just these 2 guys.

I'm not sure why you think UPS retires will receive little if any cuts??.

It's not my opinion. I researched it first. Do a little research. The articles from the pension experts are out there. They all say the same thing.

Due to the carve-out UPS got from Congress under the Kline-Miller Amendment, UPS retirees are last in line to receive cuts.

According to the experts, the way the bill is worded, UPS retirees will receive little, if any cuts at all.

And if they do receive a minor cut, UPS must make up the difference, per the contract.

They will actually have to do more than just cut benefits. They are going to have to increase the retirement age for those in the CS plan or some other measures.

Again, you are incorrect. The Center For Retirement Research at Boston College just published a report on a study they did on Central States Pension.

They concluded that a 30 percent cut in benefits across the board will keep Central States solvent indefinitely.

For UPS retirees not to get cuts, that would mean that some would have to receive greater than 50% cuts.

Those are the facts. Why do you think there are all these articles bashing UPS. Some retirees are going to have to take larger cuts because UPS retirees are taking little, if any.

For example you could cut a guy whose company went out of business by 70% and cut the UPS central states UPS guy by 30%.

No. More like cut the guy whose company went out of business by 60% and don't cut UPS at all.

You are forgetting that the guy your cutting 60% has been receiving a full pension from a company that never paid for it. They went out of business owing CS millions. UPS has paid their full CS liability.

Hostess went under owing CS $25M. Hostess retirees are receiving a full pension that Hostess never paid for.

The problem is that UPS guys with large retirements likely represent a bigger percentage of the spending.

They also gave more money to CS in the first place.

So tell me how the guys with the biggest pension in the plan, don't take a cut? The guy who's company went out of business year ago, is only getting a pension a fraction of what a UPS guy is getting.

My opinion does not matter. What the law says is what matters.

I am sorry if the truth hurts.

 

[Mugarolla]

Guess who's about to join UPS and be last in line for pension cuts?

Kroger.

 

[tireknocker]

I think UPS retirees before 2008 might have something to worry about, but they will be the last too see any cuts.