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
1997 Strike. Old heads only. On Topic.
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="Inthegame" data-source="post: 3630141" data-attributes="member: 37112"><p>Was that a dare???</p><p>You always go to the extreme with your ponzi talk, now including the criminal Madoff. SMH</p><p></p><p>...Anyway, I'll give you the Readers Digest version.</p><p></p><p>Every employer signs a participation agreement when they consent to affiliation with a multi employer pension plan. The negotiated contributions are designed to pay a sufficient amount to cover the benefit payout, however market dynamics and laws forcing trustees to improve benefits when possible without the inverse path of contracting when necessary (until MPRA 2014) have caused funding deficiencies in many plans.</p><p></p><p>In the not to distant past, if a plan was 100% funded the employers have little if any continuing obligation. The trick bag there is as a plan got closer to 100% funded the trustees must improve benefits or risk (personal, yes personal) lawsuit.</p><p></p><p>Not that your ponzi obsessed self cares but responsible plans insure their trustees against such action.</p><p></p><p>Back to the story...</p><p>Employers of course want to keep their contribution amount as low as possible so they lobbied lawmakers to allow multi employer plans to operate at less than 100% funded as plans don't need 100% of obligated assets at one time. The offset to this "float" is the continuing liability of participating employers.</p><p></p><p>Bankruptcy laws allowing pensions to be a secondary creditor haven't helped as many companies with continuing obligations have skated forcing increased liability on the remaining participating employers. (Hostess etc)</p><p></p><p>Part 2 of this miniseries is available after proper PayPal deposits are made to the BUG fund.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Inthegame, post: 3630141, member: 37112"] Was that a dare??? You always go to the extreme with your ponzi talk, now including the criminal Madoff. SMH ...Anyway, I'll give you the Readers Digest version. Every employer signs a participation agreement when they consent to affiliation with a multi employer pension plan. The negotiated contributions are designed to pay a sufficient amount to cover the benefit payout, however market dynamics and laws forcing trustees to improve benefits when possible without the inverse path of contracting when necessary (until MPRA 2014) have caused funding deficiencies in many plans. In the not to distant past, if a plan was 100% funded the employers have little if any continuing obligation. The trick bag there is as a plan got closer to 100% funded the trustees must improve benefits or risk (personal, yes personal) lawsuit. Not that your ponzi obsessed self cares but responsible plans insure their trustees against such action. Back to the story... Employers of course want to keep their contribution amount as low as possible so they lobbied lawmakers to allow multi employer plans to operate at less than 100% funded as plans don't need 100% of obligated assets at one time. The offset to this "float" is the continuing liability of participating employers. Bankruptcy laws allowing pensions to be a secondary creditor haven't helped as many companies with continuing obligations have skated forcing increased liability on the remaining participating employers. (Hostess etc) Part 2 of this miniseries is available after proper PayPal deposits are made to the BUG fund. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
1997 Strike. Old heads only. On Topic.
Top