Central states-what happens when???

[UPSmechanicinblue]

I know in the past after UPS took over the pension their was wording somewhere that UPS would make up what Central States didn't or couldn't pay as long as you worked a day into the last contract if they went insolvent. Is this still true? I can't remember where I read this. Was it in the contract at that time? I don't see it anywhere in the new contract. What guarantees they will do this in the future? Also I thought I read they do this only up to age 65? Does anyone have info on this? Thanks

 

[rod]

Death and taxes-----the ONLY two things that are "for sure".

 

[Mugarolla]

I know in the past after UPS took over the pension their was wording somewhere that UPS would make up what Central States didn't or couldn't pay as long as you worked a day into the last contract if they went insolvent. Is this still true? I can't remember where I read this. Was it in the contract at that time? I don't see it anywhere in the new contract. What guarantees they will do this in the future? Also I thought I read they do this only up to age 65? Does anyone have info on this? Thanks

UPS will pay you your full pension up until you reach normal retirement age. This is 65 right now. Once you turn 65, UPS will offset the amount that you collect from Central States.

If I retire at 30 and out. UPS will pay me $3200/mo until I turn 65. At that time, my Central States pension will be roughly $2000/mo. This is what I accrued for the 20 years that I was in that plan.

So when I turn 65, UPS will pay me $1200/mo and Central States will pay me $2000/mo. My total will still be $3200/mo, just coming from 2 different sources.

The Teamsters swear that the following article guarantees that if Central States reduces their portion, UPS has to make up the difference to maintain my $3200/mo.

And yes it is still in the current Central Region Supplement.

Article 14 Section 1

The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset.

 

[Bubblehead]

And yes it is still in the current Central Region Supplement.

Article 14 Section 1

The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset.

It is "still in the current Central Region Supplement", but will it still be there when you retire?
How long until this is negotiated out?

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

It is "still in the current Central Region Supplement", but will it still be there when you retire?
How long until this is negotiated out?

Good post. Keep them comming!

 

[Ron Carey lives on]

Don't cuss your union, take it over. Or go work at Wal-Mart

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Mugarolla]

It is "still in the current Central Region Supplement", but will it still be there when you retire?
How long until this is negotiated out?

Good question. I do not have an answer.

 

[Ron Carey lives on]

Call your congressmen and Senators now! This is really happening, you are about to lose your pension! !

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[UPSmechanicinblue]

Thanks for all the replies. I just feel some are going to be in for a real surprise especially if they have any significant amount of time in CS if things where to change after retirement. I so wished they could have increased organizing in the past to keep CS fully funded and keep UPS in. Seems now we are stuck at this job only if we want to ever retire.

 

[oldngray]

That bill seems to have a carve out for UPS retirees which pissed off Hoffa and other union leaders. If there is a carve out how long would it last before UPS'ers also got screwed? That proposed bill is targeted at multi employer pension funds and leaves single payer funds alone (for now). Very very bad precedent if it passes.

 

[ski or die]

I haven't read anything as of yet about a carve out for UPS retirees. What I have seen discusses the multi-employer pensions which still exist with some Locals within UPS. Local 710 for one. But the bill seems to be only targeting multi-employer plans in the red. One article discussed Central States which has 400,000 employees. It said this plan would be insolvent in 10 to 15 years. It said this is the example of the plans the bill is for. It said if enough of these plans that are near insolvency were to fail, the would bankrupt the PGBC because of the number of retirees involved. The PGBC would not have enough money to pay all of the retirees. The bill was not directed at funds that are in the green. That being said, the article also said it would be up to the trustees of the plan to decide if they need to reduce payments for their local to remain solvent. But, at that point, it has to voted on by the current employees and retirees. Also, it said retirees that are disabled or over 75 would not be affected. Also, I believe if you are retired under Central States, and under 65, I think the contract says UPS would make up the difference to keep you at the correct pension until you turn 65, then you would only receive what Central States pays.

 

[oldngray]

I haven't read anything as of yet about a carve out for UPS retirees. What I have seen discusses the multi-employer pensions which still exist with some Locals within UPS. Local 710 for one. But the bill seems to be only targeting multi-employer plans in the red. One article discussed Central States which has 400,000 employees. It said this plan would be insolvent in 10 to 15 years. It said this is the example of the plans the bill is for. It said if enough of these plans that are near insolvency were to fail, the would bankrupt the PGBC because of the number of retirees involved. The PGBC would not have enough money to pay all of the retirees. The bill was not directed at funds that are in the green. That being said, the article also said it would be up to the trustees of the plan to decide if they need to reduce payments for their local to remain solvent. But, at that point, it has to voted on by the current employees and retirees. Also, it said retirees that are disabled or over 75 would not be affected. Also, I believe if you are retired under Central States, and under 65, I think the contract says UPS would make up the difference to keep you at the correct pension until you turn 65, then you would only receive what Central States pays.

UPS promised to make up any shortages until you turn 65 but if this bill passes it would be a small next step to allow them to break a contractual promise if the law allowed it. After 65 you (or me at least) would be at the mercy of Central States and PBGC. The PBGC guarantee for muti-employer funds is only something like $1100-1200 per month. PBGC does pay a lot more for single payer funds (about 3 times as much but I'm not sure of the exact number) but Central States is a multi-payer plan. That is how bad it would be now before retirees get screwed even worse from that bill.

 

[ski or die]

I am not in the Central States, but in a multi-employer that is currently in the green. I believe it will not affect mine at first. BUT, that does not mean they have not opened the door for UPS to attack our plan. It is only the bottom dollar, not what current employees or retirees have given for this company. Also, at the mercy of our trustees, if they decide to make a cut because of future worries about the economy. It will be interesting, because if the trustees attempt to cut pensions, the have to present it to a vote for current employees and retirees. What happens when it is voted down. Maybe some of the union officers can take a salary cut to help as well as also a cut in their pension. After all, they are asking retirees to accept a lower pension that was PROMISED FOR LIFE.

 

[oldngray]

I am not in the Central States, but in a multi-employer that is currently in the green. I believe it will not affect mine at first. BUT, that does not mean they have not opened the door for UPS to attack our plan. It is only the bottom dollar, not what current employees or retirees have given for this company. Also, at the mercy of our trustees, if they decide to make a cut because of future worries about the economy. It will be interesting, because if the trustees attempt to cut pensions, the have to present it to a vote for current employees and retirees. What happens when it is voted down. Maybe some of the union officers can take a salary cut to help as well as also a cut in their pension. After all, they are asking retirees to accept a lower pension that was PROMISED FOR LIFE.

From how I read that proposed bill if it got extended to include UPS they would only be able to decrease pensions if enough union employees voted for it. Another instance of pitting current vs.retired employees.

 

[slackadjuster]

I haven't read anything as of yet about a carve out for UPS retirees. What I have seen discusses the multi-employer pensions which still exist with some Locals within UPS. Local 710 for one. But the bill seems to be only targeting multi-employer plans in the red. One article discussed Central States which has 400,000 employees. It said this plan would be insolvent in 10 to 15 years. It said this is the example of the plans the bill is for. It said if enough of these plans that are near insolvency were to fail, the would bankrupt the PGBC because of the number of retirees involved. The PGBC would not have enough money to pay all of the retirees. The bill was not directed at funds that are in the green. That being said, the article also said it would be up to the trustees of the plan to decide if they need to reduce payments for their local to remain solvent. But, at that point, it has to voted on by the current employees and retirees. Also, it said retirees that are disabled or over 75 would not be affected. Also, I believe if you are retired under Central States, and under 65, I think the contract says UPS would make up the difference to keep you at the correct pension until you turn 65, then you would only receive what Central States pays.

Good explanation until

Also, I believe....

If one is retired solely through Central States, which is the poster child of the new law, the change in ERISA will allow the funds to reduce retirees benefits & UPS has no contractual obligation to make up the deficit.

However, if one also worked as a participant in the new Teamster-UPS Jointly Trusteed Single Employer Plan then UPS pays till 65. At age 65, Central States pays the portion you worked under that multi-employer plan and UPS pays the portion you worked under the new single employer plan. UPS is contractually obligated, for sure, under existing contract to make up any deficit due to Central States inability to pay out. The issue I'm uncertain about is the longevity of the obligation (has the length already been bargained for) or need it be bargained for every contract negotiation.

Does anyone know how long UPS is obligated to make up Central States or PGBC pension deficits if one worked under the new Teamsters-UPS single employee plan created in 2007? By the way, ten years earlier, this new plan had minimal support and we were on strike partly because of it. Of course no one thought Congress would devalue ERISA either.

 

[rod]

From how I read that proposed bill if it got extended to include UPS they would only be able to decrease pensions if enough union employees voted for it. Another instance of pitting current vs.retired employees.

So how does that work? I don't picture too many retirees voting for a reduced pension. If the money isn't there---it isn't there.

 

[Mike hunt]

 

[Mugarolla]

Good explanation until If one is retired solely through Central States, which is the poster child of the new law, the change in ERISA will allow the funds to reduce retirees benefits & UPS has no contractual obligation to make up the deficit.

However, if one also worked as a participant in the new Teamster-UPS Jointly Trusteed Single Employer Plan then UPS pays till 65. At age 65, Central States pays the portion you worked under that multi-employer plan and UPS pays the portion you worked under the new single employer plan. UPS is contractually obligated, for sure, under existing contract to make up any deficit due to Central States inability to pay out. The issue I'm uncertain about is the longevity of the obligation (has the length already been bargained for) or need it be bargained for every contract negotiation.

Does anyone know how long UPS is obligated to make up Central States or PGBC pension deficits if one worked under the new Teamsters-UPS single employee plan created in 2007? By the way, ten years earlier, this new plan had minimal support and we were on strike partly because of it. Of course no one thought Congress would devalue ERISA either.

UPS is obligated to make up the difference until and if it is removed from any future contracts.

There seems to be a clause in this bill though that will make UPS retirees reduction negligible and possibly nothing at all.

UPS lobbied for it because they are responsible for making up the difference. No other company has this clause in there contracts. ABF, YRC etc as a company will not lose any money due to the possible pension cuts. Only the retirees.

UPS could lose billions making up the cuts. Congress may have given UPS a carve out by not reducing UPSers Central States contribution. Or if it is reduced, it will be negligible. Furthur facts to follow.

 

[Brownslave688]

After all, they are asking retirees to accept a lower pension that was PROMISED FOR LIFE.

And if there's no money how do you propose they pay that?

 

[Bubblehead]

As long as Article XII sec 6 is contained in the IBT Constitution, we will be powerless to to stop any proposed pension cut from being negotiated and imposed on our behalf.

Section 6. The General Executive Board is empowered to amend, delete, or add to this Article if at any time it believes such action will be in the interests of the International Union or its subordinate bodies.

The removal of this section must be the first and foremost priority at the IBT Convention in 2016.