Pension Cuts Blocked

[oldngray]

Central States was bought out by UPS, so why would all the young employees care what happens 10-15 years from now as their pension will be more than able to pay out due to UPS and UPS alone handling it? Am I missing something here? A lot of us now are in CS/Teamster pension due to our yos , but what happens when the next generation is only in the UPS pension fund and some of us are still around? Are these younger people gonna give a crap about us retirees when they dangle a bigger carrot in front of them?

I think it only affects about 40 thousand UPS Central States retirees. That number will dwindle as the years pass. There is no excuse for UPS to not live up to their promises and pay up. I think they are more afraid of setting a precedent which could cost them more as other plans start to fail.

 

[upschuck]

I think it only affects about 40 thousand UPS Central States retirees. That number will dwindle as the years pass. There is no excuse for UPS to not live up to their promises and pay up. I think they are more afraid of setting a precedent which could cost them more as other plans start to fail.

They have kept their promise, which was to pay into the fund. The funds promise was to pay the pension.

Wonder how everyone is feeling about the 97 strike now, and if they wished UPS would have taken the pension over then, like they wanted to? Most probably wouldn't be in this boat of uncertainty, now.

 

[realbrown1]

They have kept their promise, which was to pay into the fund. The funds promise was to pay the pension.

Wonder how everyone is feeling about the 97 strike now, and if they wished UPS would have taken the pension over then, like they wanted to? Most probably wouldn't be in this boat of uncertainty, now.

I for one, am glad UPS didn't take over our pensions.

My WCT pension is in good shape, better than most.

And it pays out way more than a UPS pension will.

But, still would rather have an individual 401k plan that UPS puts 8% in for us, and matches another 8%.

401k plans don't go Belly up.

 

[Ms.PacMan]

https://www.treasury.gov/services/Responses2/Central States Notification Letter.pdf

pg.8!

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

How bad is it?

Bad

 

[Wally]

If the money is not there, what is going to happen? Something has to be cut, no?

 

[upschuck]

If the money is not there, what is going to happen? Something has to be cut, no?

Gov't pays 40-50%, on collapsed multi employer plans.

 

[oldngray]

Gov't pays 40-50%, on collapsed multi employer plans.

Probably closer to just 30%

 

[upschuck]

Probably closer to just 30%

Didn't think it was that low. Single employer is much higher.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Gov't pays 40-50%, on collapsed multi employer plans.

Probably closer to just 30%

The PBGC pays a maximum of $1,300/month.

 

[oldngray]

That is the maximum and some people could get a lot less.

 

[upschuck]

The PBGC pays a maximum of $1,300/month.

Single employer plans get a much higher percentage

 

[Insaneasylum]

Why is it always the working guy who needs to take a cut? No one ever suggests that welfare, food stamps, fuel assistance, free health care, etc., etc. take a cut. There is always money for those who have never contributed a dimes worth of work to society. The trouble with your plan is we would no longer be a free country if we went bankrupt. China, North Korea, Russia or some other skumbag country would take us over in a heartbeat because I doubt if 10% of our young population would fight back. The most they could do would be throw their smart phones at the enemy---I take that back---they would never toss their phones.

The question is why is it always the middle class and poor that have to suffer the cuts. Oh the government can bail out banks and financial institutions. But hell no will they bailout the middle and bottom. They love to scream that's how capitalism and democracy work. But they don't live by those principles.

 

[rod]

The question is why is it always the middle class and poor that have to suffer the cuts. Oh the government can bail out banks and financial institutions. But hell no will they bailout the middle and bottom. They love to scream that's how capitalism and democracy work. But they don't live by those principles.

\
they only bail out their buddies and screw the rest

 

[35years]

So the recovery plan was rejected.
If they submit a new plan the cuts will just be shifted around.

Should the current retirees receive no cuts, and let the people paying in currently receive nothing?

The government will likely not allow the plan to go under without some sort of recovery plan being implemented. If the plan that they just rejected had overly optimistic projections (7.5% return on investment per year), a more realistic plan will mean deeper cuts. I would not necessarily be celebrating the recovery plan's failure.

 

[WhatsUP]

In dividing participants' benefits in this way, the Plan interpreted the statutory category governing a suspension of benefits directly attributable to a participant's service with UPS to include only those benefits directly attributable to service with UPS that are covered by the make-whole agreement (rather than all benefits directly attributable to service with UPS). This approach can be reconciled with the special provision of Kline-Miller described above because, in accordance with the regulations, no benefits attributable to service with UPS would be reduced more than any other benefits.18 However, the different treatment of two groups of participants with benefits attributable to service with UPS- a 40% cap for participants with benefits that are covered by the UPS make-whole agreement and a less protective 50% cap for participants with benefits that are not covered by the make-whole agreement- violates the requirement that the suspension of benefits be equitably distributed.

 

[WhatsUP]

UPS employees in Tier 2 were suppose to take the same cuts as UPS employees in Tier 3

 

[35years]

UPS employees in Tier 2 were suppose to take the same cuts as UPS employees in Tier 3

Yep..
Plus they rejected the overly optimistic investment returns and overly optimistic new entrant average age estimate.

What these rejection criteria point to is that any new recovery plan has to make even more severe cuts...to be accepted. (the recovery plan has to have a reasonable chance of keeping the fund solvent).

Read more here...
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Central+States+Notification+Letter+201605060.pdf

 

[35years]

Just a slight clarification:
-Tier 3 participants (UPSers still employed after the UPS 2007 pullout) covered by the "Make whole agreement"
-Tier 2 participants (UPSers retired before 2007 and others, such as teamster local officials) Not covered by the "Make whole agreement"
-Tier 1 participants (employees of other companies whose company left the plan)

According to the rejection letter Tier 2 and tier 3 can not have their benefits slashed unequally. Tier 3 will not see the cuts because UPS will make up the difference, but the recovery plan tried to cut the tier 3 employees more than the tier 2 employees...forcing UPS to pick up more of the bill. That wont fly.

Read more here...
PIOnline : Subscription Center

 

[35years]

According to the rejection letter, any new recovery plan will have to assume less money coming in through investments, new participants and the UPS "make whole" agreement.

Win for UPS corporate, loss for retirees.

This means even more severe cuts in any new recovery plan.