Is it true New England is raising the retiree age to 60?

[Bubblehead]

That’s exactly what happened. He sent a woman to report back to him. No bullhorn. No one man protest. Nothing!

I'm guessing he can't swim?

 

[over9five]

I'm guessing he can't swim?

Probably a wise move then.

 

[Yolo]

Raise it to 80

 

[wide load]

I'm guessing he can't swim?

Lol. In his defense, it’s tough to tread water in cement shoes?

 

[finaddict]

TJC 83. If you were hired after 1/1/1990, there is no early retirement. 62 years old is the requirement for pension eligibility

TJC 83 along with others, screwed their membership over. This was set up late 80's with a 25 and out at $2500 or 30 and out $3500. At the time those retirements equaled from 80% to 100% of what top wage at the time paid. So, we had guys retiring at 50, give or take, and pulling that pension for as long or longer than was paid into it. Basically making what they did working. Yeah, that's looking out for future members. Ponzi scheme if ever there was one.

 

[LarryBird]

This is a tough issue, because it's a slippery slope.

On one hand, there's the thought that an extra couple years isn't that big of a deal, especially when it's still only 60 years old to collect. But then what happens the next time? 65? Then 67? Then before you know it, we're 70 years old, before our pension kicks in.

The health of the funds is obviously of the utmost importance, and they can't go on with people collecting for so much longer than the years they actually paid in for, but there's a happy medium that can be reached that doesn't screw the membership and ensures that the fund is there for those of us who will collect decades into the future.

 

[DELACROIX]

The ultimate goal for both the Teamsters and UPS is to force people to retire close to 65 or over when we would be eligible for medicare, reducing the Health and Welfare costs associated with our retirees.

In the Central currently once you reach age 65 the CSPF has to offset your early retirement package reducing the burden on the IBT/UPS plan (a non-contributary plan). That is why those UPS members in the Central States will NEVER be able to collect the monetary benefits for the same amount of years that the Western Conference (a monetary contributory plan) enjoys. Another catch 22 with the Central is that Article 34 (Master) language relating to the creation of the IBT/UPS plan back in 2007 is in the Master and Central, so even if the Central manages to vote down their supplement over their pension differences the rest of the country can still pass it with the Master.

 

[PT Car Washer]

This is a tough issue, because it's a slippery slope.

On one hand, there's the thought that an extra couple years isn't that big of a deal, especially when it's still only 60 years old to collect. But then what happens the next time? 65? Then 67? Then before you know it, we're 70 years old, before our pension kicks in.

The health of the funds is obviously of the utmost importance, and they can't go on with people collecting for so much longer than the years they actually paid in for, but there's a happy medium that can be reached that doesn't screw the membership and ensures that the fund is there for those of us who will collect decades into the future.

Or the Fund can drastically reduce the monthly pay out. Which would you prefer?

 

[LarryBird]

Or the Fund can drastically reduce the monthly pay out. Which would you prefer?

You read my post, so based on that, which do you think I prefer?

The information you need to make the correct choice is all there, if your reading comprehension is up to snuff, that is.