Surrending CS Pension?

[ok2bclever]

tie, have you noticed you are posting as unregistered?

Need instructions on how to login in perhaps?

I am running out of ways to talk simpler.

It is a fact that UPS and the other companies underfund the pensions.

Have the Teamsters allowed this through inadequately negotiated contribution amounts?

Yep.

That becomes the real crux of why companies going out of business are causing us a problem.

If the corporations had been contributing a sufficient amount to sustain the benefit levels agreed to then any employee that worked long enough with a company to qualify for retirement would have been paid for.

You and others continue to sell the smoke and mirrors claim that it's caused by employees from out of business companies, but anyone who takes the time to realize an employee that worked long enough to retire should already have had enough company contributions to pay for himself IF the company had been contributing an adequate amount.

So, the problem obviously was/is that companies DON"T contribute enough to support the benefits they promise EXCEPT on a continuing rob Peter to pay Paul with current workers contribution levels pea in a nutshell game.

Real plain and simple.

The amount companies contribute is not enough to pay for the benefits promised.

Not even with stock market investment supplementing the contributions.

We workers were not aware of this all these decades as we stupidly trusted UPS and the Teamsters to do the math for us.

Anyone believe UPS was not aware of the math to the last penny?

I have to believe the Teamsters in charge of this stuff have to understand it well enough also.

I expect you are going to say you still don't understand, but I think most should get what I am saying.

 

[old levi's]

Posted by susiedriver

I prefer to get my exercise hiking, biking or swimming. To exercise my mind I read, and try to read articles written by people smarter than me.

Are there any people smarter than you?

 

[my2cents]

OK2BC,

Do you know what percentage of Central States retirees are drawing off the Fund and previously worked for an employer that is now bankrupt? In the New England Fund, the figure is 70%. I have posted this link before and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Central States has a similar demographic profile: http://nettipf.com/pdf_files/JC10delegatesAug2005.pdf . This presentation by the Fund itself, is probably the best explanation one will receive in regards to this issue.

 

[susiedriver]

Are there any people smarter than you?

I'm flattered that your first post was a jab at me. Thanks for the contribution.

 

[wkmac]

I highly doubt OK2 will use the "ignore" on Tie. Why? Because as much as OK2 may disagree with Tie, he ain't gonna run and hide!

Tie and OK2BC have been going at each other on just about every issue for so long I think both of them feed on it and do so for sport. Ignore would never happen between these 2 because IMO it's a love/hate relationship or so it does appear to me! It's like watching championship wrestling or something and does provide some fun entertainment from time to time.

As for the ignore function, don't and won't use it. I have no problem just using my own personal ignore function if I see the need by not reading or responding to areas I believe are worth ignoring. Otherwise, unless Cheryl pulls the plug based on whatever format she decides to use then I say let it flow and go for it. Every damn one of us are just self serving blowhards anyway. Damn, just admit it and go on! Not a thing we say here will change a thing out there so what's the big deal!

I will also say this and this is IMO that tie and ok2bc on this subject of pensions is likely a true picture of the greater dilema at UPS. Neither trusts the other and neither is willing to move from their position so in the end what we have is likely what we have and it will either succeed or fail as it is. In other words, start planning for alternatives and have them in place and if you don't need them, you and whoever can blow it on the beaches of the South Pacific or in Vegas or something like that. Or you could do as I hope to do and leave it to a foundation that myself and others are working on starting that would provide locally a nice place of advancing musical arts for children at very low costs for the year including scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids. Hint, Hint!

OK2BC,
It appears to me you find the term OKie that tie uses as being offensive or insulting. Don't! Roll with! I know what he likely means by it but I happen to see it as a pretty good handle myself. There's an old saying down south (could be elsewhere too) that I like and it goes like this:

"I care not what you call me but just don't call me late for supper!"

Tony Brown of Tony Brown's Journal on PBS who I happen to admire once said if you walk down the street and someone yells out an offensive name from behind, do you turn around? You only turn around if you've allowed yourself to be conditioned to believe the offense used really does apply to you! I always appreciated the wisdom in that advice and one of the reasons I came to highly respect Mr. Brown.

I'd like to call you OKie as a term of endearment if you'd allow it. Might catch on the other way and lose it's offense. Something to think about!

But I'll respect your decline just the same OK....2BC!

 

[sawman]

Apwa

Here is one for all you APWA bashers!

(1) The APWA is now a full flegged, federally recognized UNION!
(2) A feeder driver that I work with had an interesting talk with two frieght guys the other day. They were bashing him for wanting to cut loose from the multi-pension fund of CS.
His answer to them, I think hit the nail on the head. He told them that the CS ship was going down fast, and that UPS has the money to keep there employees pensions afloat, but they were not going to continue to keep all the others afloat. Now, do I go down with the rest of you, or do I cut you loose because you are already gone, and save myself.

 

[my2cents]

Once again, what would the withdrawal liability be for UPS? No doubt this is a multi-billion dollar figure, although who knows the exact amount. It wouldn't surprise me if the company itself didn't know, although they probably have a ballpark estimate. From a shareholder standpoint, the unknown withdrawal liability factor is definitely a negative. The status of the pensions is a standard question during the quarterly conference calls.

 

[tieguy]

tie, have you noticed you are posting as unregistered?
Need instructions on how to login in perhaps?

And here again another attempt on your part to provoke me rather than simply focusing on the discussion at hand

I am running out of ways to talk simpler.

Another attempt to provoke.

It is a fact that UPS and the other companies underfund the pensions.
Have the Teamsters allowed this through inadequately negotiated contribution amounts?

how do you figure? The teamsters negotiate how much the company pays into the pension. I would think the teamsters do much more than simply allow underfunding. If your theory is correct then you would have no reason to support a UPS only pension since the company would continue underfunding a pension. Your theory is only correct in that the company is currently underfunding the CS pension because the drain from that bucket is greater than what is going in. That is not UPS fault by any means. That is the people who set that pension plan up and administer it. I wonder who that is?

If the corporations had been contributing a sufficient amount to sustain the benefit levels agreed to then any employee that worked long enough with a company to qualify for retirement would have been paid for.
You and others continue to sell the smoke and mirrors claim that it's caused by employees from out of business companies, but anyone who takes the time to realize an employee that worked long enough to retire should already have had enough company contributions to pay for himself IF the company had been contributing an adequate amount.

I apologize I was not able to better explain my position. I have said the retirees draining this fund were a part of the problem. I also have said this plan was set up poorly and has been poorly managed throughout the years. My point has not been to necessarily cast blame but to say that one of the fixes has to be a process of holding those who manage this fund accountable for results. Seems fair to me. Underfunding by UPS is definitely not the issue.

So, the problem obviously was/is that companies DON"T contribute enough to support the benefits they promise EXCEPT on a continuing rob Peter to pay Paul with current workers contribution levels pea in a nutshell game.Real plain and simple.

I believe the pension administrators promise the amount? The said the distribution amount?only in the sense that there are not enough companies currently paying into the fund. We are down to 5 now for CS one of them UPS. How many were there 25 years ago paying into CS. So you actually seem to make the point that there are not enough companies paying in. UPS has paid what it is required to pay contractually.

above you state the companies going out of business did not affect this situation. If those retirees recieve reduced benifits as a result then you have no pension crisis. Clearly that did not happen. More was paid out then what they had earned resulting in the present mess. Your analogy is that since the fund was mismanaged in the past UPS should pay more to cover the difference. UPS has met thier obligations and should not be required to pay more. If they are going to get saddled with more than CS should be required to fix the drain on the fund first. Otherwise UPS would just be throwing good money after bad.

We workers were not aware of this all these decades as we stupidly trusted UPS and the Teamsters to do the math for us.
Anyone believe UPS was not aware of the math to the last penny?

UPS doing the math? The teamsters administer the plan. UPS paid what they were required to pay. The teamsters administration is where you should look. You have not made your case for blaming UPS and you clearly have not made a case for doing nothing more than acknowledging the teamsters participated in this mess. The teamsters screwed this up and until you and your fellow members can learn to hold them accountable and get it fixed UPS should not be required to dump anymore money into that leaking bucket. I'm sorry I can't believe you are a steward and that you claim you have kept up on the pension issue. I really think you need to spend more time learning this issue so you can channel your energy in the right direction and get this thing fixed.

I have to believe the Teamsters in charge of this stuff have to understand it well enough also.

My point again. The quote above is weak. You are real reluctant to lay blame at the teamsters doorstep. Until you do and hold them accountable you will not get your pension fixed. You really discredit your argument when you keep dodging or mush mouthing the teamsters involvement in this mess. The teamsters negotiate how much pension money they want, the collect and they invest it and they administer it. At least give them more credit than simply suggesting they were far from blameless or whatever vague reference you previously used. UPS has to make sure they pay the correct amount when the teamsters request it each month. Thats it. they did their part.

 

[tieguy]

I will also say this and this is IMO that tie and ok2bc on this subject of pensions is likely a true picture of the greater dilema at UPS. Neither trusts the other and neither is willing to move from their position so in the end what we have is likely what we have and it will either succeed or fail as it is.

Wk labeling this discussion one of trust discredits the conversation. These pensions are in serious trouble. An accounting of responsibility needs to take place. Trust has nothing to do with the discussion. Its clear Ok has not done his homework which is inexecusable for him being a steward. In either case I'm done with him.

 

[Unregistered]

"Are there any people smarter than you?"

LOL. Not in her eyes. Carefull she will put you on ignore.

 

[over9five]

"what would the withdrawal liability be for UPS?"

Short term thinking would say the liability is too big. But how about the long term? If we're planning well into the future, it may well be worthwhile.

 

[tieguy]

I think it would be worth it to withdraw from certain funds. We are basically just pouring money down a bottomless drain with those funds.

I dont know if we can elect to buy our withdrawl from certain funds or if we would have to buy them all out.

 

[ok2bclever]

Hey, thanks my2cents for the link.

It pretty well sums up the problems with the fund as it stands now.

The system was set up to have existing workers (contributors) to subsidize earlier contributors with exisiting investments of the money to shore up short term shortfalls.

In other words, the contribution level was allowed to remain artificially low for the companies benefit versus the benefits promised through this pea shell game, as I call it.

The shell game works fine for both the company (in lower contribution rates) and the retirees (in stable benefit levels) unless the precentage of workers versus retirees turns unfavorable.

Such things as companies going out of business and bad stock market years accentuates and accelerates the problem this shell game was going to have with the baby boom generation hitting retirement.

But the simple truth is the contribution levels do not meet the funding requirements of the promised benefit levels.

It only works as long as the amount of workers continues to be more than retirees.

With the baby boom generation retiring and people living longer this type of shell game system is ultimately doomed regardless.

The loss of workers due to companies going out of business simply hastens the problem.

Anyone should be able to see that for a retiree to collect any money from the pension they must have worked long enough (ie: had enough company contributions) to qualify.

So the fact that their company no longer exists cannot put any pressure on the financial condition of the fund UNLESS the contribution levels are obviously insufficient.

hence, the system is flawed.

Requiring the companies to contribute enough to actually support their worker's promised benefits would be the fix, although their would have to be some sort of grace period involved in the current funding rules to allow this to correct the situation.

Mathmatically this is very simple and doable.

Realistically, getting the companies to actually give the money is far less likely.

Some of the companies may not even be able to afford it and stay viable.

UPS could of course, but able and willing are two words far, far apart and unlikely to occur.

UPS's mindset is more likely to support an even more expensive withdrawl penalty and create their own pension fund.

Longterm this would be better for young workers IF effective safeguards to prevent any management abuse of the system were able to be put in place as single employer pension systems have shown a far higher percentage of management abuse, abandonment and bankruptcy than multi-employer systems have.

Unfortunately, UPS is much more likely to work to reduce their liabilities of abandoning the current fund through lobbyist action and legistlation.

This would make it more likely that the current fund would sink and those of us with significant time in it would suffer proportionally.

I think this the likeliest scenario, but who knows, only time will tell.

In either case I'm done with him.

Ah, if only that were true, but probably just another mistruth.

I thought I'd try to be helpful and point out you have been posting under unregistered when you are clearly a registered forum user and asked if you needed help.

If I had said you were trying to be sneaky or dishonest or incompetent by posting as unregistered, mostly not identifying yourself while doing so I could see those as being provocative, but a simple question on whether you realized you were doing so and if you needed additional technical assistance with the new forum hardly seems provocative.

You had already admitted that I had helped you with an earlier technical issue regarding enhanced MEI use and you have proven you used my advice with painting your responses in a sea of red since led me to believe you might be open to further help, guess not.

My apologees for your misinterpretation of my attempt to help.

I think wkmac is correct about the lack of trust and unfortunately I agree with him that it isn't likely to change as I believe action speaks not only louder than words, but also truer.

"My point is not necessarily to cast blame".

Yes it is, over and over you blame the Teamsters exclusively denying any culpability by UPS even though they are fifty percent of the negotiatiing process and part of the management of the pension.

The Teamsters do not negotiate the contracts alone.

The Teamsters and UPS negotiate the contract.

The Teamsters Do Not administer the pension.

A panel of equal amounts of appointed teamster representatives and appointed company representatives administer the pension.

This is fact, you keep mistating that it is only Teamsters.

I will have to assume you are purposefully lying about this, rather than accidently just being wrong from here on any and every time you continue to lie about this fact.

 

[traveler]

The system was set up to have existing workers (contributors) to subsidize earlier contributors with exisiting investments of the money to shore up short term shortfalls.

Therein lies the one part of the problem. Much like Social Security this follows the definition of a "Ponzi Scheme" and as such, neither can work in the long run.

Now on to a thought that has been running through my head as this debate progressed:

After negotiations the teamsters make a recommendation on whether or not to vote for the contract offered. Am I wrong or were not all the contracts approved by the teamsters for a yes vote. As such, the teamsters did you all quite a disservice! Yes, yes, I know you may say the company is equally at fault but would they know the particulars of the state of the fund's finances? As to the one UPS management person on the board, there is no way he could out-vote the five teamsters and management of defunct companies. Also, if the teamsters knew that the fund had a problem (and I do hope they did) why did they wait until it was so far underfunded that it was on the edge of bankrupcy to change the rules?

 

[susiedriver]

From my understanding, it is not the trustees who actually do the investing.
Perhaps this article can offer some insight:
http://www.cepr.net/err/nytimesarticles/teamsters_11_22.htm

 

[dannyboy]

OK

you might have a point that the companies under fund the pension. But if the teamsters know it is under funded, then why do they raise the benefits without covering the costs.

Kinda like many americans, go out and spend to where the payments are 90 grand a year and the total income is 50.

So who is to blame. You say the company. They pay what the teamsters won in the contract. I say the trustees who gambled with your money and lost, and now have no way to pay the pensions. Now how can that be the fault of UPS?

Ah susie my dear, what question would you like answered?, and if I feel like it I will. But if i choose to ignore your rants and ravings because I dont find them intellegent or interesting, I guess that is not my problem but yours. Actually, the description of Ties post is dead on the way I am about your posts.

d

 

[susiedriver]

Danny,

Have you read the NYTimes article I linked to below? What are you thoughts on that?

You see, the trustees don't really determine how the money is invested, so your statement

I say the trustees who gambled with your money and lost, and now have no way to pay the pensions.

seems to be ill informed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ok2bclever]

After negotiations the teamsters make a recommendation on whether or not to vote for the contract offered. Am I wrong or were not all the contracts approved by the teamsters for a yes vote.

traveler, well, actually it isn't automatic, but yes is the normal recommendation or they would strike like in 97'.

As far as the disservice statement that would be a matter of opinion.

I would give that a yes and no.

I am far from enamored over the end results of many contractual issues over the course of my employment, but it does come down to two, rather than one, whether those of you on management's side want to admit it or not. "I know you may say the company is equally at fault".

Or are you supporting the them against us evil empire thing that tie and tie alone is always quoting?

Let's take management at their word that they are reasonable, that they care about and respect their employees and believe they deserve to have the best wage and benefit package in the industry, etc.

If that is so, then it isn't so much of the Teamsters wrestling every drop they get out of UPS, but rather UPS moderating exuberant demands to stay within viable business parameters.

If this is the case, then any results of negotiations involved two parties, not one.

So two parties should get credit where credit is due.

And the reverse.

You infer that UPS stands alone as a company representative with four out of business company representatives and that UPS has voted against most of these decisions, but has been outvoted.

I don't believe either to be the case.

Do you know the companies that the other four represent?

I haven't checked into that, but I would doubt by by-rule definition they would be from currently viable companies in the fund.

As far as the union knowing the pension fund's financial state and/or trends, one would certainly hope so.

Please keep in mind despite accidental or intentional mislabeling of the pension fund as run by the union or a pension fund of the Teamsters by some here, it is not.

Many just cannot seem to get this through their heads or don't want to get it through their heads.

The pension fund is a separate entity from the Teamsters.

It is a fully separate organization ran by an independent panel made up of 50 percent union appointed individuals and 50 percent representative company individuals.

The money that UPS and other companies contribute to the fund does NOT go to the Teamsters, but rather goes to these separate pension funds and are administered by these equally appointed panels.

So when the Teamsters are negotiating a contract they ask their representatives "how much" is needed.

Whether they get that much or whether the amount the pension union reps state is enough is correct is a whole 'nuther thing.

Frankly, it seems obvious to me that when the CSPF bumped our pension fifty percent in '97 to basically match the purposed company offer this was more of a political move than an economic or mathematical decision.

While I have strong reservations about complaining about an extra 1000 bucks a month for my thirty and out that occurred back then, it now appears that may have been a major factor along with all the rest of the issues ,stock market, companies going out of business, declining working population, insufficient contribution levels, etc. in hastening the fund's financial problems.

Another point, the fund is far from bankrupt.

Reviewing several of the latest publicly accessible document from the CSPF it appears the fund is currently averaging something like a 1/2 billion dollar deficit from paying out benefits versus contributions and stock market investments.

The stock market section is significant and totally variable, but if taken as a snap shot that would mean the fund with 18 plus billion dollars would continue to be able to pay out full retirement benefits for another 36 years without any fixes.

The figures used here as mentioned are in no way guaranteed to be a long term average and even though 36 years would be enough for many of us to not be worried about a pension fund cannot run on such a plan either morally or because of government regulations that demand a more long term viability.

My only point in this is to point out "bankruptcy" is certainly an innacurate term for where we are at.

There is no denying or disputing that pension funds across the USA, not limited to just Teamster or multi-employer funds are in serious long term financial condition.

 

[ok2bclever]

danny,

It is a fact that the contribution levels are insufficient.

"if the teamsters know it is underfunded, then why do they raise the benefit without covering the costs"

I already addressed that raising the benefit level prior to reading your post, I believe it was politically motivated.

However, I wish to address the second part of your statement as you continue to support the fantasy that some here try to promote.

The pension fund is a separate entity ran by an equal amount of union reps and company reps.

IT ISN"T TEAMSTERS ALONE.

This truly seems to be hard for many to understand or at least admit.

I agree it's far easier to have one bad guy you can blame, but life is rarely that simple.

"So who is to blame. You say the company"

there you go again parrotting a misstatement attributed to me by one individual.

I have said, am saying and will continue to say the company is part of the problem, not just the Teamsters.

There is a significant difference.

Let's do a story problem example.

If you and susie and tie were carrying a heavy boxof retirement literature to a meeting that I was holding and it kept getting lower and lower as the three of you became exhausted until you were dragging it through the mud and by the time you got it to me most of the literature was ruined.

tie would say it was susie's fault (perhaps you would too ) I would say that tie was partly at fault also (never you danny, not from me ).

Would you then say the only one I was blaming was tie?

(Probably was his fault, but that is neither here nor there. )

I have not said, have never said, am not saying that UPS is soley at fault.

You have to separate tie's rhetoric that he tries to put in my mouth with what I actually say.

some here love to blame the Teamsters.

I only point out that they are not the only players in the game that are at fault.

If someone here tried to blame UPS solely for the issue I would be speaking out against that as well.

That is a fact.

 

[sawman]

With this new pension bill possible becoming law soon, it would force all companies in multi-employeer funds to up there contributions by 15%.
This would put even more small companies out of business. Who would pick up there pension tab?
So, with an increase of 15%, it just may be better for UPS to buy there way out.
One other factor that is never added to the bottom line is the number of people who die before drawing a penny after paying in for years, or the people who only live a year or two after retirement. I for one know of about five that fall into this group. Where is all that money?