New England Teamsters Pension Fund: More Bad News

[tieguy]

Tie....don't be daft. Your continued response shows you do value my opinion. The proof is in the pudding.

I'm sorry little one did you offer another unvalued opinion.

 

[brownIEman]

If you have such a distrust of the Teamsters as reflected in the first half of your post. How can you be soooo sure you'll have a check deposited every month in retirement?

Our perspectives are universes apart if you truely believe UPS's first and foremost concern in 97 with that proposed pension takeover was our (UPS/Teamster hourly employees) well being.

UPS' first and foremost concern in '97 was definately not the UPS Teamster hourly employees well being. The foremost concern was financial. However, the well being of UPS/Teamster hourlies WAS a concern. UPS proposed a plan that would be less expensive in the long run for the company, and at the same time, create a stronger pension for UPS teamsters. It is the non UPS teamsters that would have gotten the shaft, since many of them worked for companies that no longer exist and are not paying into the pension. UPS did offer a chunk of cash to exit the plan, but not nearly enough to keep them close to sound after the way they had been either mis-handled or just plain underfunded, your choice.

 

[Catatonic]

... Like social security, I would not figure this thing too highly into my retirement plans. If you are not investing at least 10% of your income (pref. 15% or more) in a separate retirement account you are not taking care of yourself and your future.

Second that!!!

 

[browniehound]

I'm covered under this plan and could see this coming from 10 miles away. This is an example of why my financial plan for retirement does not include the pension fund or even social security.

Its all about me and my 401k. Take notice rookies! The teamsters will have crap for you in 2040 (although maybe the balance will have shifted by this point in which there are more contributors than takers, but I DOUBT IT!).

This is actually good news to me. I still have 25-30 years before retirement (59-64 years old) and can now plan accordingly. The pension fund is now out of my plan and should be for all of us in our 30's and early 40's.

The people this really hurts are the guys/gals in their 50's who were counting on this to retire. Is their pension check going to dissapear sometime in their 60's? That would really hurt.

Why did we vote to let the teamsters have control of the pension fund in '97? Boy was that a HUGE mistake! My guess is we were all paranoid that if UPS got its hands on the pension fund, they would screw us???

Instead, we voted ourselves out of a comfortable retirement. If UPS was allowed to control the pension fund, I'm guessing it would be 100-110% funded compared to the 48% funded it is now under the teamster multi-employer plan!

Its really too bad for us and UPS. Why are we that paranoid about UPS management to not allow them to control the pension money??? UPS contributes hundreds per week on my behalf to the pension and this money is going to a retiree who's company is now out of business and not contributing anything to the fund!

This makes me sick! I working to keep this guy fat and happy while at the same time its putting my retirement in jeopordy!

We should have voted to let UPS direct its money to UPSers! How can you disagree with this? I would love to HEAR IT!

 

[sx2700]

Have y'all heard of the Redneck Retirement plan? Buy lots and lots of lottery tickets.......I would be very worried if I was expecting to retire on a union pension fund. I've heard that only 8% of the workforce belong to a union anymore. People need to wake the up and stay out of the walmarts.

 

[brownIEman]

...
Why did we vote to let the teamsters have control of the pension fund in '97? Boy was that a HUGE mistake! My guess is we were all paranoid that if UPS got its hands on the pension fund, they would screw us???

Just an added note here. As you indicated, UPS wanted to set up a seperate pension plan, funded only by UPS dollars and paying benefits to only to UPSers. They did not however ask to take control of pensions, the plan they proposed was to be overseen by a committe made up of equal parts UPS representatives and Union representatives. The Teamsters would still have had equal control to prevent UPS from screwing teamster UPSers.

However, the IBT was much better at the PR spin game in '97 and won that battle...

 

[local804]

Just an added note here. As you indicated, UPS wanted to set up a seperate pension plan, funded only by UPS dollars and paying benefits to only to UPSers. They did not however ask to take control of pensions, the plan they proposed was to be overseen by a committe made up of equal parts UPS representatives and Union representatives. The Teamsters would still have had equal control to prevent UPS from screwing teamster UPSers.

However, the IBT was much better at the PR spin game in '97 and won that battle...

And what about the pension plans that already have UPS and the UPS teamsters only that are tanking? Your answer does make alot of sense but you are not looking at the whole picture.

 

[brownIEman]

And what about the pension plans that already have UPS and the UPS teamsters only that are tanking? Your answer does make alot of sense but you are not looking at the whole picture.

Those pensions are multi-employer plans that have UPS and non-UPS companies contributing with UPS teamsters and Non-UPS Teamsters getting paid benefits. The problem comes in that many of the non-UPS companies that were paying into those plans have gone out of business and are no longer paying their share. The former employees of those companies are still drawing benefits however, so you get quickly to an underfunded status. UPS wanted to get out of the plans so UPS money would go to just UPS teamsters, as there is enough UPS money for that. This however sorta leaves the non-UPS teamsters in those plans to twist in the wind. This is what essentially has happened in the Central States fund, with UPS writing a 6 billion dollar check to put a stool under those non-UPS teamsters if I may extend my metaphor a bit. Time will tell if it is enough.

 

[tieguy]

And what about the pension plans that already have UPS and the UPS teamsters only that are tanking? Your answer does make alot of sense but you are not looking at the whole picture.

I think you have to look at the union co-adminstrators as the reason. UPS manages their pension plan very well.

 

[JonFrum]

Can anyone confirm that the Trustees just voted to eliminate the Lump Sum payment option in the near future?

Currently, a retiree can elect to have up to 10% of his total benefit paid to him upfront in a lump sum when his retirement begins. The Lump Sum amount can't exceed $50,000. Your monthly benefit checks will be reduced to offset the lump sum payment. In other words, a Lump Sum payment doesn't increase your overall benefit, and eliminating it doesn't reduce your overall benefit. It's just an optional way to receive your money. Did we just loose that option?

 

[tieguy]

And what about the pension plans that already have UPS and the UPS teamsters only that are tanking? Your answer does make alot of sense but you are not looking at the whole picture.

In the case of your plan it clearly paid more then it could afford. Yours was the first to offer 25 and out. Bad decision. Thats the reality of todays new pension laws. They will not let your plan disburse more then it can afford.

 

[Big Babooba]

In the case of your plan it clearly paid more then it could afford. Yours was the first to offer 25 and out. Bad decision. Thats the reality of todays new pension laws. They will not let your plan disburse more then it can afford.

The 25 and out pension, like the Edsel, is no more. Now you have to have 30 years of credit and be age 57 to retire.

 

[soberups]

The 25 and out pension, like the Edsel, is no more. Now you have to have 30 years of credit and be age 57 to retire.

Not if you are in the Western Conference with a PEER 80 plan....we can get out when our age plus years of service=80. For me, that means 30 years in at age 50. Our plan is fully funded and quite healthy. No way do I want UPS in control of my plan.

 

[Jones]

Not if you are in the Western Conference with a PEER 80 plan....we can get out when our age plus years of service=80. For me, that means 30 years in at age 50. Our plan is fully funded and quite healthy. No way do I want UPS in control of my plan.

We're doing pretty good at local 639 in the Atlantic Area. Early retirement at 50 as long as you're vested (10 years), still have a 25 and out at any age. Health care costs for retirees have gone up, but there's no way around that these days.

 

[govols019]

Not if you are in the Western Conference with a PEER 80 plan....we can get out when our age plus years of service=80. For me, that means 30 years in at age 50. Our plan is fully funded and quite healthy. No way do I want UPS in control of my plan.

That's awesome. Maybe I should move?