Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 1597247" data-attributes="member: 8481">The vote means nothing. Even if a cut is turned down by the retirees, the pension trustees can still make the cuts.A vote is pretty much meaningless.They will cut benefits as far as they need to in order to keep the plan solvent. They may make further cuts down the road if need be. They will not let the plan go bankrupt.The first ones to be cut are &quot;orphans.&quot; Retirees drawing benefits whose employer went out of business.That is over half the retirees drawing from CS. If that does not shore it up, next will be retirees from companies like YRC. They are still in CS yet are barely even contributing to the fund right now.Next will be retirees from current companies who are contributing their fair share to the fund.Last, and if need be, will be UPS retirees. Most pension experts believe it will not come to this. Even if it does, UPS has to make up any cuts.Some say this is not fair. Well, these orphan companies did not even come close to fulfilling their pension obligation. Some only made it to 50 or 60%UPS paid 100% of theirs, so is is fair for UPS retirees to take a cut when their employer met 100% of their pension liability compared to another employer that only made 50% of theirs?This was the benefit of a multi-employer pension. If one went out of business, there were enough others paying into the fund to sustain it.This all changed with deregulation. Again, over half of the retirees drawing a pension from CS had their employer go out of business.This was the start of the downfall of the CS multi-employer pension fund.It could never be sustained with only half the employers contributing to it yet their employees still drawing from the pension fund.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 1597247, member: 8481"] The vote means nothing. Even if a cut is turned down by the retirees, the pension trustees can still make the cuts. A vote is pretty much meaningless. They will cut benefits as far as they need to in order to keep the plan solvent. They may make further cuts down the road if need be. They will not let the plan go bankrupt. The first ones to be cut are "orphans." Retirees drawing benefits whose employer went out of business. That is over half the retirees drawing from CS. If that does not shore it up, next will be retirees from companies like YRC. They are still in CS yet are barely even contributing to the fund right now. Next will be retirees from current companies who are contributing their fair share to the fund. Last, and if need be, will be UPS retirees. Most pension experts believe it will not come to this. Even if it does, UPS has to make up any cuts. Some say this is not fair. Well, these orphan companies did not even come close to fulfilling their pension obligation. Some only made it to 50 or 60% UPS paid 100% of theirs, so is is fair for UPS retirees to take a cut when their employer met 100% of their pension liability compared to another employer that only made 50% of theirs? This was the benefit of a multi-employer pension. If one went out of business, there were enough others paying into the fund to sustain it. This all changed with deregulation. Again, over half of the retirees drawing a pension from CS had their employer go out of business. This was the start of the downfall of the CS multi-employer pension fund. It could never be sustained with only half the employers contributing to it yet their employees still drawing from the pension fund. [/QUOTE]

Verification