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 Union Issues
What happened in the 2008 contract??
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 652462" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p></p><p>Seems to me that the word "insolvency" is pretty much limited to having one true meaning...and the taking of a controversial non-standard meaning assumed by an organization that itself is essentially insolvent really isn't going to change that fact. Beyond that, stating what an insolvent entity "will" do in terms of "loaning funds" - funds that it doesn't have to begin with - to another entity that has squandered more than HALF of its total assets in less than a decade - strikes me as rather impetuous.</p><p></p><p>As for your comment of...</p><p></p><p>"Remember too, that a pension funds liabilities are not all due currently. They come due slowly over future years as people retire one by one. $19.3 billion will last a while."</p><p></p><p>...well, all I can say is that, in terms of the CSPF and the way the Teamsters have constituted it, that's not particularly true. The fact is that a high percentage of the participant are NOT retiring "one by one", but virtually all in one fell swoop. A large (VERY large!) percentage of the participants are of that age and in such a situation (later in life, losing their jobs dues to the Teamsters having put their employers out of business, etc.....think of CFWY or YRCW currently) that they are seeking retirement NOW...and the money to pay them all simply isn't there. All the smoke and mirrors and creative re-translations of the word "insolvency" aren't going to change that fact; i.e. - without some form of welfare, CSPF simply isn't going to be able to meet it's obligations.</p><p></p><p>As for what I "made up", I suggest you actually *LOOK* at the law governing multi-employer pension funds, paying special attention to something enacted by Congress called the "de minimis" rule". Perhaps you might even find it referenced in the link which you, *YOURSELF* posted. [smile]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 652462, member: 16651"] Jon; Seems to me that the word "insolvency" is pretty much limited to having one true meaning...and the taking of a controversial non-standard meaning assumed by an organization that itself is essentially insolvent really isn't going to change that fact. Beyond that, stating what an insolvent entity "will" do in terms of "loaning funds" - funds that it doesn't have to begin with - to another entity that has squandered more than HALF of its total assets in less than a decade - strikes me as rather impetuous. As for your comment of... "Remember too, that a pension funds liabilities are not all due currently. They come due slowly over future years as people retire one by one. $19.3 billion will last a while." ...well, all I can say is that, in terms of the CSPF and the way the Teamsters have constituted it, that's not particularly true. The fact is that a high percentage of the participant are NOT retiring "one by one", but virtually all in one fell swoop. A large (VERY large!) percentage of the participants are of that age and in such a situation (later in life, losing their jobs dues to the Teamsters having put their employers out of business, etc.....think of CFWY or YRCW currently) that they are seeking retirement NOW...and the money to pay them all simply isn't there. All the smoke and mirrors and creative re-translations of the word "insolvency" aren't going to change that fact; i.e. - without some form of welfare, CSPF simply isn't going to be able to meet it's obligations. As for what I "made up", I suggest you actually *LOOK* at the law governing multi-employer pension funds, paying special attention to something enacted by Congress called the "de minimis" rule". Perhaps you might even find it referenced in the link which you, *YOURSELF* posted. [smile] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
What happened in the 2008 contract??
Top