Pension cuts?

Discussion in 'UPS Retirement Topics' started by Hangingon, Mar 20, 2006.

  1. Hangingon

    Hangingon New Member

    Does the Bloomberg article posted on the front page mean that people that took the 25 and out, or even the 30 year retirement will have their pensions definitely cut if the provisions favored by UPS are passed in new legislation? Seems from the quote they had at the end '
    That pain would be shared even by those who retired in the last year, including Tommy Burke, who drove a UPS truck for 38 years. ``I'd have to get another job if they cut my pension like they want to,'' says Burke, 61, who lives with his 84-year-old infirm mother in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on $2,798 a month. ``This provision would really hurt a lot of working people.'' Burke is ``disappointed in UPS,'' he says. ``I gave them nearly 40 years; $2,798 a month is not too much to ask.'' ' that they are implying it will effect UPS retirees also.
    I really hope that doesn't mean I have to work until 65 to get a full pension, doubt I could do it.
    UPS and companies such as Overland Park, Kansas-based YRC Worldwide Inc., the biggest U.S. trucking company, say they are targeting early-retirement benefits -- even those already being paid out -- to ensure that people who stop working at 65 can get full benefits.
  2. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    Hanginon-Thats the way I read it. I retired last year on a 25 and out pension. I've always been pro UPS but this just pisses me off so bad. Maybe someone from mgt can tell me if they are making similar cuts to those who retire before age 65 in mgt.:mad:
  3. beentheredonethat

    beentheredonethat Well-Known Member

    Wily old Vet, we aren't making similar cuts because we don't have a 25 and out pension to be cut from. I don't know exact numbers but I find it hard to believe that UPS pays more into the fund per FT mgmt person then it does for the UPS Teamsters. It doesn't have to, since if the money is managed properly, that is plenty of money to have to pay for a pension plan. If you look at what gets paid by UPS for your pension, there is plenty of to pay the benefits you were promised. Also, that doesn't even take into account all the payments that have been made to the pension fund for part timers who don't work long enough to get vested. All that money goes to the pension fund and it doesn't have to pay for anyones pension. Why are you mad at UPS when it is the teamsters pension fund that failed to deliver on promised benefits. UPS is trying to change the law so it doesn't go bankrupt to try to pay for benefits for people who never even worked for UPS. I find it hard to believe that people keep on blaming the company when it's pretty clear it's the teamsters that have screwed them over.
  4. pkgdriver

    pkgdriver Active Member

    Well said beenthere
  5. Hangingon

    Hangingon New Member

    I thought PT'ers were under a UPS retirement plan? Furthermore, your comment about 'UPS is trying to change the law so it doesn't go bankrupt to try to pay for benefits for people who never even worked for UPS.' seems at odds with the article stating that it will be UPS ex employees that will be affected.
  6. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    beenthere-what has me hot is that they want to change the rules AFTER I retired. It is totally unfair to cut the pensions of people who have already retired. And what I was asking about mgt is are they cutting pensions of mgt people who retired before age 65?
  7. DS

    DS Fenderbender

    wily thats gotta be illegal
  8. DS

    DS Fenderbender

    a contract is a contract
  9. opie

    opie Active Member

    This only affects mult-employer pension plans. I agree somewhat with UPS, but they shouldn't cut their own employees pensions. Just the retirees that never worked for UPS. UPS may suceed in getting what they want, as the article stated: "For 15 years, United Parcel Service Inc. has spent more money on U.S. elections than any other company". They will lobby/bribe the politicians to get what they want. My pension would not be affected as it is only single employer (UPS), but I don't even have one anyway yet, since I've only been at UPS p/t for 2.5 years.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2006
  10. beatupbrown

    beatupbrown Member

    can some one post the link to this story.:confused:1 never mind I found it.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  11. retired2000

    retired2000 Active Member

    i joined the racing team today. my name on the team is big brown
    see you there
  12. ups79

    ups79 Active Member

    perhaps wily, if this passes they will be forced to offer your job back to you. I agree with you, in that you felt at the time you were financially secure enough to retire(with your investments and promised pension) so you did. i really do not think they want a 65 year old getting on and off that pkg car 180 times a day. not only would they have to hire you a 'runner', they would be buying a lot of canes and walkers.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Hey guys maybe I missed something and hope one of you will post something to clarify but I saw this as nothing more than another attempt at the partitioning idea floated by UPS a couple of years ago. The way I read the article it seemed to indicate they wanted to cut the benefits to retirees whose companies departed from existence long ago and in turn protect the pensions of existing company employees like UPSers. UPS doesn't want a 70 year old in a package car and much was made of Marty Peters but you noticed he left the package car some time ago to work at the building only.

    I admit I could have read this wrong conerning the UPS effort in Congress so if you guys know more please fill me in.

  14. Callaway

    Callaway New Member

    Let's not jump on the bloomberg wagon just yet. I'm a newbie at this whole messaging deal, but I know some folks on Capitol Hill who have been pushing the pension issue. Read
  15. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    Wkmac-I went back and reread the story and unfortunately don't think this has anything to do with partitioning. Congress has made UPS, Yellow etc responsible for bringing the funds up to the 60% level. Yellow has already told the investing community that they would be on the hook for at least $500,000,000 in CS catchup funds. I think these companies want the benefits of anyone, like me, who took the early out pensions cut. The only reason I took the 25 and out was because I had 3 back surgeries and my plan was making noises that they were looking at changing the plan as CS had done. Without notice CSers were told they no longer had the 30 and out option and must work til 62 to get full benefits. Anyone retiring before 62 would lose 5% PER YEAR off the full pension amount. If you retired at age 57 for example your benefit would be cut 25%. This job takes a terrible toll on our bodies and I wanted to get out while I still had some semblance of normality. If this cut in my pension does happen how marketable do you believe someone in their late 50's with a history of 3 back surgeries is? As I said in a earlier post, I have always been pro UPS but this would definitely take me out of that camp.
  16. ups79

    ups79 Active Member

    wily, even if your back would allow it, there are a lot of jobs your union will not you work at and still collect your pension. thats why i believe if this were to happen UPS would owe you your job back. i still believe that once you do retire early there is no way they want you back to work until you are 65, unless you take the clerk job in your center.
  17. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    UPS79-I doubt seriously that UPS would think that they owe me a job if this does happen. Plus to be honest, my feelings towards UPS would be such that they wouldn't want me back.

    Let me say this to all those who are working towards retirement. Max out you're 401k so that you are never in the position of worrying about whether your pension will be there. One thing I did the last couple of peaks was to raise my contribution by 5%. With the increased ot you won't even feel it. Be proactive, not reactive as I'm forced to be now.
  18. upsdawg

    upsdawg UPSDAWG

    Thanks for the advice regarding 401k------it makes so much sense and I think that this is the way of the future----probably next Contract--it's a way to get away from the union having control of the Pension Plans and money going to non-UPSers......makes sense to me!!
  19. chris-craft

    chris-craft New Member

    something has to be done but not a new law companies are going bankrupt and ups should not have to pay for all those other companies. any changes should not affect ups retired people or ups people that will retire. the government would have to cover bankrupt companies like single pension companies
  20. chris-craft

    chris-craft New Member

    i have one other reason ups wants pension cut. i have talked to overnite driver who has 28 years service in single pension overnite plan he would get about 3100 a month. if ups can lower pension amount overnite drivers will never want to become union. ups has a win win plan. most drivers in richmond va main hub have been with overnite along time they would have little to gain if not lose by being teamsters