Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Not one valid reason to stay with the Teamsters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JonFrum" data-source="post: 155368"><p>Many single-employer pension plans have a Social Security Offset. That's a feature that reduces your pension benefit when Social Security starts sending you retirement checks. The reduction is the same amount as the Social Security benefit. Thus a pensioner receiving say, $3,000 per month, would have his pension check reduced by say, $1,500, or $2,000 or whatever, so that his combined benefit from both sources would total $3,000. (This should not be confused with a different plan feature in the UPS Retirement Plan that, according to Tieguy, involves Social Security, but does not involve receiving less pension benefits, just rearanging when they are received.) </p><p></p><p>Since a Social Security Offset is a likely feature of any proposed single-employer plan, the burden is on UPS to assure us that their proposed plan does not contain this unwanted feature. I heard the Teamsters tried to get UPS to renounce this feature but UPS would not. If anyone has proof to the contrary, please post it. The absence of any mention of a Social Security Offset one way or the other doesn't say much, since there was no actual plan in existance. We couldn't go look it up. UPS wanted us to end the strike, go back to work, and the entire plan provisions would then be negotiated later, with the Teamsters having no bargaining clout whatsoever. This requirement guaranteed that the proposal would go nowhere. It was also revealing that UPS's existing single-employer pension plans were not more attractive than they were, and that UPS was not proposing that we join their existing plan. Why create a new plan when you have a plan in place already? It made one suspect that the proposed plan for us was intended to be substandard. UPS should also have given a promise not to unexpectedly terminate the plan against the participant's will, like they did with the Thrift Plan. There were numerous other shortcomings in the proposed plan as outlined in the brochures we were given as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 155368"] Many single-employer pension plans have a Social Security Offset. That's a feature that reduces your pension benefit when Social Security starts sending you retirement checks. The reduction is the same amount as the Social Security benefit. Thus a pensioner receiving say, $3,000 per month, would have his pension check reduced by say, $1,500, or $2,000 or whatever, so that his combined benefit from both sources would total $3,000. (This should not be confused with a different plan feature in the UPS Retirement Plan that, according to Tieguy, involves Social Security, but does not involve receiving less pension benefits, just rearanging when they are received.) Since a Social Security Offset is a likely feature of any proposed single-employer plan, the burden is on UPS to assure us that their proposed plan does not contain this unwanted feature. I heard the Teamsters tried to get UPS to renounce this feature but UPS would not. If anyone has proof to the contrary, please post it. The absence of any mention of a Social Security Offset one way or the other doesn't say much, since there was no actual plan in existance. We couldn't go look it up. UPS wanted us to end the strike, go back to work, and the entire plan provisions would then be negotiated later, with the Teamsters having no bargaining clout whatsoever. This requirement guaranteed that the proposal would go nowhere. It was also revealing that UPS's existing single-employer pension plans were not more attractive than they were, and that UPS was not proposing that we join their existing plan. Why create a new plan when you have a plan in place already? It made one suspect that the proposed plan for us was intended to be substandard. UPS should also have given a promise not to unexpectedly terminate the plan against the participant's will, like they did with the Thrift Plan. There were numerous other shortcomings in the proposed plan as outlined in the brochures we were given as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Not one valid reason to stay with the Teamsters
Top