I'm trying to understand what you wrote, is because you have to have 30 years and and any age
or 25 years of service and age 55
I have 25 years at age 44. I have to work 26 years to get my 25 year vesting.
I was hoping to retire as soon as possible, so I can start the career I have put on hold for various reasons.
My hope was that the 2013 contract would allow me to go ahead and retire. I know that was a big gamble but if not that, I could go ahead and sign up for my retirement and defer payment until I could start drawing an amount that was not penalized.
The ability to collect on the retirement and work for someone other than UPS was a big selling point for me. But Wow! What good does it do to be able to take a retirement and have the ability to work for anyone else if we will be too old and broken down to work when we get to start collecting from UPS.
As it was explained to me the age to avoid penalty would be age 55. Then they changed it to 57. Now, we get nothing until age 57 and only 40% of the original amount.
And because I worked 19 years part time. The only way I can get the maximum amount is to work until I am 70! That was explained to me at the meeting we had before the pension was changed out of Central States.
I am frustrated because every time I get news about my pension it pushes my retirement date further off.
I want more flexibility, not less. I would retire today if they offered me as little as $1500/month. That would allow me the ability to take an entry level job in my career field and still be able to pay my bills.
It is true the teamsters don't give a crap about my career or how flexible my life and schedule is, but it is important to me and it is what guides my votes.
I have paperwork that says part time pensioners can get a pension after 20 years at any age. I am not sure if that has been changed or not but if they can get it anyone should be able to retire then.
25 years is 25 years no matter how old you are! Anything else is age discrimination and should be considered so by law. I don't know why it isn't.
An acceptable compromise for me would be:
Instead of diminishing the amount we get,
let us choose between limiting the amount we receive at a certain age and limiting the number of years we draw at an earlier age.
Example:
I retire at age 65 to get 100% payment. They base that on the probability that I will live to age 80. (In my family the probability is more like 90.)
So, if they plan on paying 15-25 years at 100% then let me take 100% for 15-25 years no matter how old I am. If I could get 25 years at 100% I am gone. That and the money I can make at another job would get me to the age of social security and with the money in my IRA I'll be fine. Not only that but it would
greatly improve my life.
But my Teamsters brothers and sisters are so scared that their "do-nothing-in-retirement" lifestyle will be in jeopardy, that they would not vote to allow people like me the flexibility to get on with the life they want.
Sorry, it sounds like I am ranting and I guess I am. But as far as my life goes I am already on PLAN C. I am currently off on my 3rd workers comp injury and my body won't take much more of the abuse. I am tired and I want to go home, with my retirement free of age related penalties!
With each news I receive about the pension, it is looking more and more like I am the donkey, the pension is the carrot, the union is the stick, and the company is the guy riding the donkey and holding the stick that keeps the carrot dangling just out of reach. (That would make a great political cartoon for those of you who can draw. Make sure to label it properly.)
The problem now is that the payout has been whittled down to the extent that when I finally do get the carrot, it will scarcely be more that a nub and a few leaves.
Then again maybe the Mayans will be correct and I won't have to worry about it after next year anyway.
