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
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 123876"><p>[ Continuing . . . ]</p><p></p><p>Multi-employer funds do not allow employers to take money out of the fund. Single-employer funds allow the employer to skim money in good times and put it in the company's coffers, money that should be held by the fund for the inevitable rainy day. </p><p></p><p>Multi-employer funds pay benefits regardless of (in addition to) any retirement benefits you may be entitled to under Social Security or other plans. Single-employer funds may deduct these other amounts from your benefit check. This was a big non-starter during the 1997 attempted pension grab. But I'm not an expert, so if anyone knows different on this or any other matter, please post, preferably with proof, so we can all get to the bottom of it instead of endless opinionating. </p><p></p><p>Multi-employer funds are administered day-to-day by a (more or less) independent Fund Administrator. A single-employer fund is administered by a high-level member of management. Another non-starter in '97.</p><p></p><p>Multi-employer funds have an equal number of labor and management trustees, but the management trustees are from diverse companies. Single-employer funds have their management trustees all drawn from the upper levels of that one company. They may tend to vote in lock-step, saying "no" to most proposals to raise benefits, or improve plan features because they cost money. They may feel pressured to vote as upper management wishes because their careers depend on it. Multi-employer funds have management trustees that may have at least some independance, especially if they are the owners of their respective companies. </p><p>(In '97 I never understood how UPS was going to get the Teamsters to put forth an equal number of Teamsters officials to act as union trustees of the new plan, when the Union was adamantly opposed to the company plan, in the first place. And how could such trustees fulfill their "fiduciary duty" when they were opposed to the entire plan from the outset? It's like expecting clergymen to help judge a wet T-shirt contest.) </p><p> </p><p>A single-employer fund participant is dependant on his employer for his job, his pension, his health & welfare coverage, and, if he owns company stock, to that degree, his personal investments, as well. Not a good situation in general, particularly bad at contract renegotiation time. This single employer, on whom you are so dependent, must not falter for the 35 years or so of your working career, and the twenty years or so of your retirement. And that's just for those who were there at the start. Subsequent waves of employees wil require the boat to stay afloat even longer. You are, in effect, making a very long-term bet (gamble?) that the company you join at age 17 or 21 will still be thriving when you're in your sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and beyond. </p><p></p><p>Or you could be run over by a bus tomorrow. </p><p></p><p>P.S. The single-employer plan proposed by UPS in 1997 had additional shortcomings that were specific to that particular plan, and so are not included in this post. Phew!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 123876"] [ Continuing . . . ] Multi-employer funds do not allow employers to take money out of the fund. Single-employer funds allow the employer to skim money in good times and put it in the company's coffers, money that should be held by the fund for the inevitable rainy day. Multi-employer funds pay benefits regardless of (in addition to) any retirement benefits you may be entitled to under Social Security or other plans. Single-employer funds may deduct these other amounts from your benefit check. This was a big non-starter during the 1997 attempted pension grab. But I'm not an expert, so if anyone knows different on this or any other matter, please post, preferably with proof, so we can all get to the bottom of it instead of endless opinionating. Multi-employer funds are administered day-to-day by a (more or less) independent Fund Administrator. A single-employer fund is administered by a high-level member of management. Another non-starter in '97. Multi-employer funds have an equal number of labor and management trustees, but the management trustees are from diverse companies. Single-employer funds have their management trustees all drawn from the upper levels of that one company. They may tend to vote in lock-step, saying "no" to most proposals to raise benefits, or improve plan features because they cost money. They may feel pressured to vote as upper management wishes because their careers depend on it. Multi-employer funds have management trustees that may have at least some independance, especially if they are the owners of their respective companies. (In '97 I never understood how UPS was going to get the Teamsters to put forth an equal number of Teamsters officials to act as union trustees of the new plan, when the Union was adamantly opposed to the company plan, in the first place. And how could such trustees fulfill their "fiduciary duty" when they were opposed to the entire plan from the outset? It's like expecting clergymen to help judge a wet T-shirt contest.) A single-employer fund participant is dependant on his employer for his job, his pension, his health & welfare coverage, and, if he owns company stock, to that degree, his personal investments, as well. Not a good situation in general, particularly bad at contract renegotiation time. This single employer, on whom you are so dependent, must not falter for the 35 years or so of your working career, and the twenty years or so of your retirement. And that's just for those who were there at the start. Subsequent waves of employees wil require the boat to stay afloat even longer. You are, in effect, making a very long-term bet (gamble?) that the company you join at age 17 or 21 will still be thriving when you're in your sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and beyond. Or you could be run over by a bus tomorrow. P.S. The single-employer plan proposed by UPS in 1997 had additional shortcomings that were specific to that particular plan, and so are not included in this post. Phew! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top