More gloom and doom..CS is tanking

[Catatonic]

I would like to have the money the union will spend for postage over the next year sending out gloom and doom letters.

A very comfortable retirement for you and me would result.

 

[ZQXC]

A very comfortable retirement for you and me would result.

Thought you already had a comfortable retirement?

 

[Catatonic]

Thought you already had a comfortable retirement?

I'm uncomfortable at times.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I also am frustrated at the amount of money our local and the IBT wastes on mailings.

 

[Mugarolla]

That carve out is so misquoted and misunderstood. UPS already paid Central States 6.1 billion.

Exactly.

UPS already paid their full pension liability.

The $2B people keep talking about is the amount UPS would have to pay their retirees, and only their retirees, if CS cut UPS retirees by 60%

Everybody wants UPS to bail out CS. They all want only UPS retirees to receive a cut, since UPS has to make up any cuts. The pension would remain solvent and no other retires would have to take a cut, or a small cut.

The experts have calculated this amount to be around $2B. So people want UPS to have to pay an additional $2B, even though they have fulfilled their full pension liability.

This is not what the law says. The law says that the first retirees to receive cuts are those from orphan companies, those companies that never fully paid for their retirees pensions and are now bankrupt.

While it sounds great to have UPS bail out CS, the fact is that a Hostess retiree, a Preston retiree, an ANR retiree, a YRC retiree etc, are receiving full pensions that their company never paid for.

So yes, they should see the biggest cuts.

 

[rod]

Exactly.

UPS already paid their full pension liability.

The $2B people keep talking about is the amount UPS would have to pay their retirees, and only their retirees, if CS cut UPS retirees by 60%

Everybody wants UPS to bail out CS. They all want only UPS retirees to receive a cut, since UPS has to make up any cuts. The pension would remain solvent and no other retires would have to take a cut, or a small cut.

The experts have calculated this amount to be around $2B. So people want UPS to have to pay an additional $2B, even though they have fulfilled their full pension liability.

This is not what the law says. The law says that the first retirees to receive cuts are those from orphan companies, those companies that never fully paid for their retirees pensions and are now bankrupt.

While it sounds great to have UPS bail out CS, the fact is that a Hostess retiree, a Preston retiree, an ANR retiree, a YRC retiree etc, are receiving full pensions that their company never paid for.

So yes, they should see the biggest cuts.

friend you very much

 

[Catatonic]

friend you very much

I think that was what he was telling you and @The Milkman .

 

[Mugarolla]

I think that was what he was telling you and @The Milkman .

He should be telling Congress.

I didn't make the law, they did.

 

[Catatonic]

He should be telling Congress.

I didn't make the law, they did.

Screw that ... shoot the messenger!

 

[Mugarolla]

Screw that ... shoot the messenger!

I always have my 2 friends with me though....Smith & Wesson.

 

[ZQXC]

I'm uncomfortable at times.

Try more fiber.

 

[retiredTxfeeder]

I got the gloom and doom letter a few weeks ago, then earlier this week I got a second letter, this one said The fund I'm in was funded 103.4%. I'm confused, but, since I'm old, I generally stay that way anyway.

 

[upschuck]

I got the gloom and doom letter a few weeks ago, then earlier this week I got a second letter, this one said The fund I'm in was funded 103.4%. I'm confused, but, since I'm old, I generally stay that way anyway.

The 103% is the UPS/IBT pension that will currently make up any deficiency that the CS pension can't pay.

 

[hellfire]

The 103% is the UPS/IBT pension that will currently make up any deficiency that the CS pension can't pay.

Got the same, also got the CS is funded in 40%

 

[upschuck]

Got the same, also got the CS is funded in 40%

Mine said 48.4%

 

[slackadjuster]

Yes. It was put in the 2008 contract and stayed in the 2013 contract.

But it can be negotiated out during any future contracts. Let's hope not.

My opinion only ... Anything can be negotiated and/or changed. Pensions are generally drafted and meant for lifetimes. The offset language should be considered a condition taken on permanently by UPS for allowance & withdrawing from the CS multi employer plan.

UPS/IBT single employer plan is funded and has no need to negatively impact current or future retirees; I would imagine even if they make up the CS offset at members 65th birthday. If the offset language was in the UPS/IBT pension plan one retired under, why should it be negotiable for this person in the future? Does one get any increased benefits negotiated in the future? Nope! Not withstanding the contract, my take is one is covered by the pension plan in effect when one retired.

 

[oldngray]

My opinion only ... Anything can be negotiated and/or changed. Pensions are generally drafted and meant for lifetimes. The offset language should be considered a condition taken on permanently by UPS for allowance & withdrawing from the CS multi employer plan.

UPS/IBT single employer plan is funded and has no need to negatively impact current or future retirees; I would imagine even if they make up the CS offset at members 65th birthday. If the offset language was in the UPS/IBT pension plan one retired under, why should it be negotiable for this person in the future? Does one get any increased benefits negotiated in the future? Nope! Not withstanding the contract, my take is one is covered by the pension plan in effect when one retired.

Nope, the details when you retire can and have changed retroactively for retirees. It is a defined pension plan so you will never get more than promised when you retire (no cost of living or later increases) but your benefits can be reduced. Already retirees got hit with healthcare increases above what was promised when they retired.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Nope, the details when you retire can and have changed retroactively for retirees. It is a defined pension plan so you will never get more than promised when you retire (no cost of living or later increases) but your benefits can be reduced. Already retirees got hit with healthcare increases above what was promised when they retired.

You can thank the people who Didn't Vote,for that.

 

[Mugarolla]

My opinion only ... Anything can be negotiated and/or changed. Pensions are generally drafted and meant for lifetimes. The offset language should be considered a condition taken on permanently by UPS for allowance & withdrawing from the CS multi employer plan.

UPS/IBT single employer plan is funded and has no need to negatively impact current or future retirees; I would imagine even if they make up the CS offset at members 65th birthday. If the offset language was in the UPS/IBT pension plan one retired under, why should it be negotiable for this person in the future? Does one get any increased benefits negotiated in the future? Nope! Not withstanding the contract, my take is one is covered by the pension plan in effect when one retired.

I totally agree and hope that UPS also keeps their word to their retirees.

 

[oldngray]

You can thank the people who Didn't Vote,for that.

Plus the union ignoring those who did and were still voting no.