Don't Retire before the next contract-Pension Cuts loom

[Signhere]

My point is if you don't make the healthcare fund solvent, it will have problems like many pension plans are now having. Are you saying that all the raise monies should only go for raises ?

I agree that there is health care crisis and UPS will be paying double digit increases to provide health insurance while the employee contributions are locked in yearly caps. The employees will be getting a bargain at $200 per month in 2018. However the hospitals and doctors are losing million from failed Obama care exchange companies that folded . Those costs are passed on and around to companies who purchase large contract coverage.

 

[onehandsolo]

UPS mentioned during there last earnings conference call that they may have to take a 3.2 billion dollar charge to shore up the pension fund.

 

[Signhere]

UPS mentioned during there last earnings conference call that they may have to take a 3.2 billion dollar charge to shore up the pension fund.

Are you referring to the Central States Pension which has some active and retired UPS members ?

I believe UPS put a huge amount in the fund in 2008 and then pulled out of the fund. Unfortunately the fund pays retirement benefits to several teamsters members whom were employed by other companies that went bankrupt and the funds failed in investment strategies. This in combination with reduced contributions to the fund leaves a proposed reduction of 50% or more of those pensions to the UPS retirees. Read for specifics. The plan to make the a reduction in benefits so that the fund would not empty out in 2026 was blocked by the US Treasury on May 6, 2018.

Tier III participants are current and former employees of United Parcel Service Inc., Atlanta, which paid $6.1 billion to withdraw from the pension fund in 2007 and set up a single plan jointly trusteed with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. As part of a collective bargaining agreement at the time, UPS also agreed to a “make-whole” provision in the event that the pension fund reduced benefits in the future. An approved plan would have triggered that backstop, and cost the company between $3.2 billion and $3.8 billion in additional benefit payments, when recognized as an interim mark-to-market charges. source: PIOnline : Subscription Center

 

[onehandsolo]

Yes I am. They mentioned it during there earnings conference call.

 

[Signhere]

Someone will have to decide what charge to UPS to resolve this since they feel the pension guarantee fund will be insolvent

 

[Mugarolla]

UPS mentioned during there last earnings conference call that they may have to take a 3.2 billion dollar charge to shore up the pension fund.

They stated this based on what the Treasury department was going to do with the Central States Pension Fund.

If the Treasury approved the cuts, UPS was going to take a charge for the full projected cost to them for the life of the employees who would collect a "make up" payment from UPS.

If the cuts were approved, it was going to cost UPS roughly $3.2B-$3.8B over the next 40-50 years. This was going to be a one time charge and UPS would have the money in their fund to cover any Central States cuts for post 2008 retirees for the life of their pensions. (This also alludes to the fact that they may not be planning to weasel out of their contractual promise. They were going to take the full hit this year, and have the needed money to cover the pensions in the future.)

The Treasury denied the cuts, so there will be no charge taken by UPS, at least and until the Central States Pension Fund submits a new plan, if they do, to the Treasury Department, and they approve it.

 

[realbrown1]

I can see UPS at the next contract talks, wanting to get us out of the Union pension plans.

Billions, on top of billions to the pension funds and some of it going to non-UPS retirees.

Which company would want that?

 

[Signhere]

I can see UPS at the next contract talks, wanting to get us out of the Union pension plans.

Billions, on top of billions to the pension funds and some of it going to non-UPS retirees.

Which company would want that?

'

Even with the payouts the plans would still be insolvent because numbers unrealistic regarding almost 8% on investments and unequal distribution of pension cuts among the tiers

It appears it was rejected for two reasons:

Central States' proposed benefit suspensions “are not reasonably estimated to allow the plan to avoid insolvency,” Mr. Feinberg said, because Treasury officials considered the plan's 7.5% rate of investment return and entry age assumptions to be unreasonable. “We found there were fatal flaws in this submission,” he said on a press call.

The plan also did not distribute benefit cuts equitably, and did not provide participants with easily understood notices, according to the letter.

 

[WhatsUP]

I think UPS workers in Tier 2 were suppose to receive the same cuts as UPS workers in Tier 3. The only difference was that UPS agreed to cover the cuts to Tier3..

 

[WhatsUP]

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ral_States_Notification_Letter.pdf?1462560550

 

[WhatsUP]

In dividing participants' benefits in this way, the Plan interpreted the statutory category governing a suspension of benefits directly attributable to a participant's service with UPS to include only those benefits directly attributable to service with UPS that are covered by the make-whole agreement (rather than all benefits directly attributable to service with UPS). This approach can be reconciled with the special provision of Kline-Miller described above because, in accordance with the regulations, no benefits attributable to service with UPS would be reduced more than any other benefits.18 However, the different treatment of two groups of participants with benefits attributable to service with UPS- a 40% cap for participants with benefits that are covered by the UPS make-whole agreement and a less protective 50% cap for participants with benefits that are not covered by the make-whole agreement- violates the requirement that the suspension of benefits be equitably distributed.

 

[Signhere]

In dividing participants' benefits in this way, the Plan interpreted the statutory category governing a suspension of benefits directly attributable to a participant's service with UPS to include only those benefits directly attributable to service with UPS that are covered by the make-whole agreement (rather than all benefits directly attributable to service with UPS). This approach can be reconciled with the special provision of Kline-Miller described above because, in accordance with the regulations, no benefits attributable to service with UPS would be reduced more than any other benefits.18 However, the different treatment of two groups of participants with benefits attributable to service with UPS- a 40% cap for participants with benefits that are covered by the UPS make-whole agreement and a less protective 50% cap for participants with benefits that are not covered by the make-whole agreement- violates the requirement that the suspension of benefits be equitably distributed.

Hey I like the way you read........

 

[Boulevard859710]

Any chance of them offering a buyout to any of us?

 

[Coldworld]

Any chance of them offering a buyout to any of us?

they only buy out their own .... Pennies on the dollar...

 

[hellfire]

UPS drivers are screwed, the multi employer pension plan has ruined us, The union could give 2 chits, expect massive concessions 2018

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

UPS drivers are screwed, the multi employer pension plan has ruined us, The union could give 2 chits, expec

No schitzzz.

 

[10 point]

they only buy out their own .... Pennies on the dollar...

Finally...
A factual appraisal of their value.