UPS talks pension cuts in letter to share holders.

Discussion in 'UPS Retirement Topics' started by Bustrbyte, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    I don't own stock anymore but a friend that does said that UPS had a lot to say about pension cuts in a letter to share holders he received recently. He said they were calling the cuts illegal.
    Would someone Please try to post on this forum the part in the letter pertaining to this.
     
  2. By The Book

    By The Book Well-Known Member

    Maybe your friend could supply you this letter and you could supply us?
     
  3. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    It may take me awhile to get the letter but I will do so.
     
  4. SEC Filings indicate that the management has "extended the life expectancy rate of retired pensioners" so they can "readjust the pension data" to reflect or "justify" reduction thus causing a lowering of monthly because the dividend into the divisor reduces the resulting quotient...

    Demographic and Assumption Changes ($150 million pre-tax loss): The
    implementation of new U.S. mortality tables in 2014 resulted in an
    increased participant life expectancy assumption, which increased the
    overall projected benefit obligation for our plans.
     
  5. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    I'd be willing to bet all my UPS stock that UPS did not say, "the cuts are illegal."
     
  6. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    retired pensioners" so they can "readjust the pension data" to reflect or "justify" reduction thus causing a lowering of monthly because the dividend into the divisor reduces the resulting quotient...

    Demographic and Assumption Changes ($150 million pre-tax loss): The
    implementation of new U.S. mortality tables in 2014 resulted in an
    increased participant life expectancy assumption, which increased the
    overall projected benefit obligation for our plans.[/QUOTE]
     
  7. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    I have it in my hands now. Its in the 2015 Annual report. Its Easter no time to look at it now will post it tonight.
     
  8. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    From 2015 UPS annual report
     

    Attached Files:

    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    Can anyone convert my PDF to a text file and post it please. That way we could copy and paste it.
     
  10. silenze

    silenze Lunch is the best part of the day

    In addition to our eingoing multi-employer pension plan obligations, we may have additional exposure with respect to
    benefits eamed in the Central States Pension Fund (the ,CSPF"), frorn which UPS withdrew in 2007 in return for fully funding
    its allocable share of unfirnded vested benefits thereunder. In 2015, CSPF submitted a proposed pension suspensiou plan to the
    U.S. Departnnent of Treasury under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (*MPRA") which proposes to make
    retirement benefit reductions to CSPF participants, including to the benefits of certain UPS employee participants. Separately,
    UPS agreed to provide supplemental benefits tmder the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan to offset certain benefit
    reductions under the CSPF. We have no other multi-employer pension plans subject to zuch a funding obligation. UPS has
    reviewed the CSPF's proposed plan to evaluate the validity of the actions taken by the CSPF, the plan's compliance with the
    MPRA (and proposed regulations thereunder) and its pctential impact on UPS's funding obligations under the {.IPSIIBT Full-
    Time Employee Pension Plan. We are vigorously challenging the proposed suspension plan because it does not fully compty
    with the law and we do not believe certain actions by CSPF are valid. Accordingly, we have not assumed or recognized a
    liability for supplemental benefits within the UPSIIBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan due to the submission of CSPF's
    proposed plan to thg U.S. Department of Treasury. Further, we are not able to Estimate a range of additional obligationq if any,
    or determine whether any such amounts are material due to a number of uncertainties relating to the MPRA (and proposed
    regulations thereunder) and assumptions made by the CSPF in its proposed plan.
     
  11. silenze

    silenze Lunch is the best part of the day

    I have no idea why the text got garbled
     
  12. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special


    It looks like UPS is trying to weasel its way out of its promises. The way I see it the CS plan is legal and it did does leave UPS paying out of pocket for its retirees which displeases UPS of course.
     
  13. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    They did cough up 5 billion bucks to avoid this.
     
  14. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    Need a lawyer to interpret that.
    Don't get two because they will be different interpretations.
     
  15. Ms.PacMan

    Ms.PacMan Well-Known Member

    They think the cuts that CS imposed on current Upsers are too deep based on the language they put into that pension bill. We were supposed to be Tier 1 and CS cut my pension amount by 70% which UPS now has to make up.

    Monkey Butt - I'll take that money in a cashiers check.
     
  16. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    I retired after 2008 and my cut of my CS pension is 39.99% $1049
     
  17. Ms.PacMan

    Ms.PacMan Well-Known Member

    The cuts were not as deep for people who had more than 20 years of pension credits in CS.
     
  18. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member

    I had 32 years in CS ,5 in the new pension and retired after 2008. I think a 40% cut in the CS part is way out of line being UPS has already paid my unfounded liability to get out of CS.
     
  19. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    CS is only making those cuts to those people because they know UPS has to make up the shortage. They are using UPS as another revenue source they can tap. I can understand why UPS is :censored2: about it. It all boils down to the exact language in the agreement whether it is legal or not. As usual, the big winners will be the lawyers on both sides who will get paid to fight it out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  20. Bustrbyte

    Bustrbyte Member