Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 54898"><p>wkmac,</p><p></p><p>I agree and I have said as much, although the nuances have apparently been missed over and over by at least some.</p><p></p><p>Yep, UPS contributes a ton of money to the fund (not one penny more than what they owe contractually and legally, though).</p><p></p><p>Yep, because it is a "general" fund you can make the argument that UPS is paying for other company retirees.</p><p></p><p>So are all the other particpating companies, but yep, UPS being the largest single employer in relation to these funds has the largest portion (proportional though) of the dollars.</p><p></p><p>However,it is isn't because poor innocent UPS is just a "good guy" being taken advantage of.</p><p></p><p>It's because UPS and all the rest of the companies have underfunded these plans for decades those that are left, UPS being one, now are beginning to bear the burden for the "pea under the shell game" mathmatics they consented to run the fund by.</p><p></p><p>UPS <em>and the remaining still viable</em> participating companies are having to support the additional funding of all the retirees because of this underfunding that they had full knowledge of from inception.</p><p></p><p>My point consistently from the beginning is about the "spin" that many have put on this here like poor UPS is getting shafted.</p><p></p><p><strong>NOT</strong>.</p><p></p><p>No company is more knowledgeable than UPS at business.</p><p></p><p>They knew what they and the other companies were doing all along as far as what they were contributing versus what they were promising.</p><p></p><p>And for the union haters, the union is just as responsible for allowing the situation to develop although one could argue that they are far less competent and possibly were more stupid than devious.</p><p></p><p>The national union heirarchy, stupid or devious, hmmmmm, tough call. </p><p></p><p>my2cents, I agree with your preliminary diagnose regarding red zone funds.</p><p></p><p>Such legislation I believe will facilitate companies "dumping" their responsibilties of such funds onto the government at the cost of higher premiums.</p><p></p><p>Still, higher premiums are a desireable trade off for the companies for getting to dump all their liability to us onto the government where we will take a two/thirds loss of what we had "earned".</p><p></p><p>This would be an acceptable solution for the companies, not so sure how it would be handled by the government, but sure it is just more dismal news for the individual retiree's (us) future financial situation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 54898"] wkmac, I agree and I have said as much, although the nuances have apparently been missed over and over by at least some. Yep, UPS contributes a ton of money to the fund (not one penny more than what they owe contractually and legally, though). Yep, because it is a "general" fund you can make the argument that UPS is paying for other company retirees. So are all the other particpating companies, but yep, UPS being the largest single employer in relation to these funds has the largest portion (proportional though) of the dollars. However,it is isn't because poor innocent UPS is just a "good guy" being taken advantage of. It's because UPS and all the rest of the companies have underfunded these plans for decades those that are left, UPS being one, now are beginning to bear the burden for the "pea under the shell game" mathmatics they consented to run the fund by. UPS [I]and the remaining still viable[/I] participating companies are having to support the additional funding of all the retirees because of this underfunding that they had full knowledge of from inception. My point consistently from the beginning is about the "spin" that many have put on this here like poor UPS is getting shafted. [B]NOT[/B]. No company is more knowledgeable than UPS at business. They knew what they and the other companies were doing all along as far as what they were contributing versus what they were promising. And for the union haters, the union is just as responsible for allowing the situation to develop although one could argue that they are far less competent and possibly were more stupid than devious. The national union heirarchy, stupid or devious, hmmmmm, tough call. my2cents, I agree with your preliminary diagnose regarding red zone funds. Such legislation I believe will facilitate companies "dumping" their responsibilties of such funds onto the government at the cost of higher premiums. Still, higher premiums are a desireable trade off for the companies for getting to dump all their liability to us onto the government where we will take a two/thirds loss of what we had "earned". This would be an acceptable solution for the companies, not so sure how it would be handled by the government, but sure it is just more dismal news for the individual retiree's (us) future financial situation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
Top