Pension Protection Act

Discussion in 'UPS Retirement Topics' started by my2cents, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. my2cents

    my2cents Guest

    Yesterday's markup hearing continues today. One noteworthy item from the Committee press release:

    "Lastly, weve included much-needed reforms to multiemployer plans to ensure these plans have the tools they need to appropriately fund their benefit promises. Im pleased the broad coalition of employer and labor groups working on this issue has come to a finalized agreement, and its reflected in our substitute".
  2. sawman

    sawman Guest

    If you want to call a article that I read it in, here say, well that's you right. I told you that I would try and hunt it up, but if that's not good enough for you, get off your butt and research it for yourself.
  3. sawman

    sawman Guest


    OK, another example of people sitting back and letting someone else do the work for them.

    I did the research on the right side of the cover page you will see the CSPIC update list, go to #12.

    Chicago Local 705 Pension Fund:

    UPS employees retiring with 30 years of service get:
    $30,000.00 dollar lump sum pay out apon retiring.
    plus $3,000.00 dollars a month.

    UPS79, would you care to apologize for your accusations?
  4. sawman

    sawman Guest

    One correction, on the nopensionfreeze cover page, on the left, click on Freeze News and then scroll down to Update #12.
  5. my2cents

    my2cents Guest

    WASHINGTON, D.C. The House Committee on Education & the Workforce on June 30, 2005 approved the Pension Protection Act (H.R. 2830), comprehensive pension reform legislation intended to protect the interests of workers, retirees, and taxpayers. All 27 Republicans on the Committee voted in support of the bill, while Committee Democrats simply voted present.
  6. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    Anytime a proposed piece of legistlation is drawn and voted upon 100 percent by party lines, regardless of whether it be endorsed by only Republicans or only Democrats we need to be forewarned, hold on to our wallets and ask what's the down side.

    This is a complicated issue and reading the "press release" aka sales pitch it sounds reasonable as most sales pitches do.

    It may even be, but as I said, when the vote is that skewed there has to be more than meets the eye.

    I read in a related article that Congressman George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the Education and the Workforce Committee, came out strongly in opposition to the bill.

    So I went to his webpage to see if he had anything on his site to explain his opposition to this bill.

    It appears he mostly wants more time to examine the ramifications of the bill and strengthen protections to workers, taxpayers and employers.

    Can't say I have a problem with any of that, but then get on with it!
  7. susiedriver

    susiedriver Guest

    Too bad he didn't take time to read the Patriot Act before he voted for that.

    I know, Off Topic.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    What you say about voting party lines may very well be true but I'd like to throw out another angle that could be the case. For example during the Clinton years there was talk about Social Security reform and even the idea of private accounts was considered. Now the specific details of their idea may be different than what has be proposed of late but the point is the republicans just sat on their hands. In other words they acted along party lines. Why? Because the potential of that idea being a overwhelming success was to great and the democrats stood the chance of getting the lions share of the credit thus furthering their position of power. Had this happened during the Clinton years and been successful the positive aspects would have filtered to Gore and it's very possible this momentum could have made the difference in the 2000' election. Ironically about the time Clinton and company was openly talking about SS reform we started having the Impeachment process building strength. We'd do well to rattle that in our noddles awhile. The ultimate goal IMO was the 2000' elections but it also serviced a more short term effect for the republicans. Had the republicans really wanted SS reform IMO they would have blackmailed Clinton so to speak, and to quote Larry the Cable guy, "Get Er' Done!"

    Now the shoe is on the other foot and the republicans are positioning to take the credit to their advantage and that's the last thing politically the democrats can let them do. It's no longer about America but about the republicans or the democrats. We just get slammed in the middle and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. Just depends on your lifestyle as to how it will impact.

    Is there bad legislation? Absolutely. Are our politicians to quick sometimes to jump? Again absolutely. Could Congressman Miller be taking the correct approach in wanting to study the issues further? Sure could. However, could it as well be an excuse to cover the underlaying truth that one party doesn't want the other party to get credit for something that is a major problem issue and in light of the fact a very important election is coming up next year with the off year Congressional elections. I hate to be a cynic and almost conspiratorial theorist but the simple historical fact is I have good grounds to be that way.

    Just thought I'd throw out another potential angle.
  9. sawman

    sawman Guest

    Have you checked out that web site yet?
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    If you'll look at ups79's profile you may notice he is from Illinois. I'm guessing he may be very familar with the specifics of the fund you speak of and thus one reason he so opposes going to a one fund for all idea. If this is true and I in his shoes I'd do the same thing.

    On the otherhand, your link although interesting and yes I'm familar with this group as well and now I remember that is where I saw the specifics listed about that fund, is not directly connected to the fund itself and as I remember, I could be wrong, it doesn't seem to quote or link to an offical source to verify these facts as correct and true. Again, I could be all wrong on this.

    I personally believe that years ago the Teamster leadership created all these multiple funds with vague information available in order to make it easier to dip and slip monies out for items not so much on the up and up. Had there been 1 large single fund for all Teamsters which in some respects would seem to make sense it would have been harder to dip and slip. I know the apologists out there will argue for example the different areas of the country came into coverage at different times therefore the need to establish different funds as the coverage of young funds would be different from say an older fund but you could still have different levels of coverage as we now do in CS for example.

    I know you mean well and like you I'm very frustrated with the pension problems. We all are and I'll bet even UPS79 is too. The pension has become a political ticking bomb not only nationally but even within our own union and is being exploited for political gain by all sides. It's even hard if not impossible to know who to even trust these days.

    If you're gonna post something as fact just make damn sure it's hard fact and you can document it when it comes to this issue of the pension. A fact from the actual source is best and I know sometimes with these various pensions that is hard to do and therefore the reason I'm even more suspect of them all. A good honest system would be up front and very transparent because a good honest system would be proud of what they are and have achieved. I just don't get that with the union and to be quite honest neither do I get that with the company. Don't know about you guys but IMO this UPS today ain't the same UPS we all started with years ago and it ain't the UPS Jim Casey built IMO. I'd consider trusting Casey and the company leadership of years ago even though they were a hard bunch but this group now? OH HELL NO!

    When it comes to my future life after UPS I really don't trust either of them and thus the reason I'm for the idea of personal direct accounts.
  11. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    The problem I have with personal direct accounts is they are worthless for those of us who have already put in the time.

    Perhaps for the younglings (no guarantees even then) it would work out better in the long run, certainly as it stands now the current formula won't amount to much for them as they won't be able to work for UPS until the required age 62 to get full benefits, but for those of us on the downside of the career it's just another way a company/union can screw us out of what they had promised us we had already earned legally.

    I would agree about Casey and company.

    Hard asses, but ethical.

    Many today are still hard asses. . .
  12. 8up

    8up Guest

    wkmac, if you need assistance with that over 70 at Ft. Knox, please call me......

    if folks haven't been putting away that overtime money they keep forcing on us, shame on them. i put the pension right behind social security, (which does not make me feel secure). with the 401(k) plans available, employee discount stock purchase, real estate and an occasional odd job here and there, it'S up to ourselves to be able to plan ahead for our financial futures when we are no longer pounding the pavement to bring in a paycheck. no one should expect any pension plan to take care of all of their needs in the later years. it's a shame and perhaps a sham that some of those plans have failed, and knowing that you need to be thrifty with your earnings, especially the ones you have control over.

    save for that rainy day, there is a storm coming & you don't want the bank statement to read "NSF"
  13. ups79

    ups79 Guest

    wkmac:sometimes it is best to play dumb and see how accurate people(sawman) can express what they think the truth to be.
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    "The problem I have with personal direct accounts is they are worthless for those of us who have already put in the time."

    Very understandable and I can appreciate that point but IMO we're coming down to a basic problem of do I trust 2 parties who are willing to promise me the moon but under the right circumstances would leave me high and dry and not bat an eye? Or would I rather go forward and rely on myself and get my money away from both of them? Do I trust myself more than I can trust them?

    It is not an easy choice grant you and I'll admit having a 401k plus other investments makes it real easy for me to have the position I have. Honestly, I'm glad I can because on the one hand you have a union with a pretty bad track record when it comes to shady dealing and then you have a company who is willing to even cut it's own partners compensation (MIP recalculation) just to chase a number to make it look good for Wall Street. Lord what would they do to us?

    For me there is also another reality and I don't know your specific age but I'm betting we're not far apart. I'm 48 nearing 49 and at present if I want full benefits I'll have to work until I'm 62. At 55 I would have had my 30 years and I could have skipped out the door but that's gone. On top of that I'd like to retire from UPS but I absolutely do not want to stop working at all. I'd like to continue to take some skills I have and apply them elsewhere after I leave so in reality I've got many years to go, probably another 25 or more God willing. Of that I figure since I've got to go to 62 at UPS, another 13 plus years, I could handle the chunk I have placed now in the retirement fund and then couple that with the 20% I put into the 401k every week and come 62 when I walk away from UPS even with very conservative investing I'll look pretty good. Now you couple that with the fact you no longer have a union telling you that you can or can not work and instead of touching that money you could go work elsewhere or stay if you wish and continue adding to that pool. At 70 1/2 by law you must start drawing but by then you should be doing pretty well.

    It's just one way of looking at the whole scenario and from one point of view it's not impossible. Like anything else it's not without risk and it doesn't come without effort but at the very least you eliminate some risks from outside parties coming in late in the game and taking your hard earned efforts and slamming you and your family's plans into a 1000 shattered pieces. The sad part is there is no one solution that fits all but the even sadder part IMO is we are not allowed to have multiple solutions. For those of us willing to take on the responsibility and the risk for ourselves we are not given that option. We are dictated to as to how we must save our money for retirement. Remember, I believe that weekly contribution is as much my hard earned money as the money in my paycheck including the money that goes to federal taxes or social security.

    The really sad part in all this is our system with CS for example could have really been a top notch plan and it's still possible it could be but the demographics make that a real hard reality to achieve IMO. I hope we can but I'm just not confident of that at this time.
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    Is it playing dumb or playing like a Fox?

    Either way I'm cool with it and understand. I was wondering however if anyone would ever look at your profile and begin to wonder. LOL! It did give me a chuckle as I watched I have to admit.

    Hey, if it's true about your pension I'm tickled pink for you guys and as much as I want my own direct account it does give me hope CS can if it wants too turn our problems around. Enjoy your weekend because IMO all UPSers deserve great weekends. We sure go through hell Monday through Friday! LMAO!!!!!
  16. ups79

    ups79 Guest

    wkmac:where is "badhab"? he use to be on motley fool, yahoo, and here, but haven't heard from him lately?
  17. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    I'm 51 and now have 31 combined/reciprocal years in.

    Two years ago I would have been gone by the old plan, if the two bstrds (company and union)would have been honest and competent at that time.

    I traded registered letters with UPS and the Teamsters back and forth starting in June of 2001.

    They both dithered returning me kinda, sorta, if, but, however letters averaging a month or so in between each until it was too late.

    I received the final confirmation from both sides that I was eligible to retire with thirty years within a week of each other in January, a couple of months too late after CS notified us of the changes.

    It is my belief any switch to a personal account situation would mean a collapse of the fund that holds what I have already earned in the last 28 full-time years and perhaps a welch on the part-time pension credit as well.

    No thanks, I am not ready to let UPS and the Teamsters off the hook so quickly.

    I have been in the 401k at full contribution levels since it's inception, lobbied for it for over a decade before we had it.

    Watched the last decade how the magic of compounding doesn't work very good with a capital base that can shrink even while adding contributions to it so I am less than impressed by any talk of how private accounts will save us all by you or by bush regarding SS.

    We already have private accounts, the already mentioned 401k, IRAs, etc.

    Companies will not add a private account on top of a 401k.

    They eliminate pension plans by converting to 401ks with paltry company contributions.

    That trend has been all the rage with the corporations in the last decade.

    Ask anyone who has been involved how happy they ain't about it.

    That would be the way UPS would go if allowed as well.

    Of course, if that is allowed it means they have legally been relieved of their financial obligations to the pension fund which means they legistlated their way into a United Airlines solution while staying majorly profitable.

    That's great for them, but means we lose over two/thirds of our pension earnings and are put in a government fund whose future is unsure for the paltry remaining one/third with no medical insurance.

    Your referral of having to work till 62 is a bit of a pipe dream.

    That won't be an option as things are heading.

    We are quickly going back to the "work till you die or are put down in an old folks home (and I don't mean one of those nice nursing homes as they currently are, but back to what people use to fear in the old days)

    It actually will be far worse for most now as families use to band together out of necessity to care personally for their own failing relatives, but we have gone far past the me generation and the practical considerations will lean more toward euthanasia for our own good I am sure.

    You can consider our medical essentially gone when we retire (and UPS will be working on the part where we are still employed next contract)if the medical cost trends continue.

    This year it's what, 1220 a couple per month if you were qualified for it?

    Who can afford that even on the 3000 a month former pension?

    And it is and will continue to rise at the rate medical costs are rising which is far faster than the inflation rate.

    Last I heard it was something like 17% annually.

    At that rate by the time you reach 62 you will owe the plan money over and above your pension earnings ,even that extra accrued by working forty some years to age 62.

    As far as working beyond UPS, yep, but that won't have anything to do with the current pension or a separate account as both would stop at the point you leave UPS just like your ability to contribute to the 401k will.

    The primary difference we have here is you are looking at a longer term theory and I am talking about short term reality and how it affects me.

    I want to leave UPS with what I have earned now, not "oh well, there goes what I earned in the last three decades luckily I can work here another couple of decades to earn some money."

    Perhaps UPS and the consortium can salvage all, most or a significant some of what they have promised us over the decades (I can hope).

    Or perhaps we will just get screwed and trampled under like the individual usually does when corporations and governments deal.

    You can think the money contributed to the pension "is yours", but don't expect UPS to give any significant amount of it to you if they are allowed to run away from the pension.

    So what I am really saying is I am just not ready to make it easy for them by accepting "oh well, that didn't work, lets just give up and try something else." and that is what I believe pushing separate accounts instead of the pension amounts to because we already have separate accounts (401k, etc) and UPS would use that to minimize what we would get out of the conversion.
  18. pretender

    pretender Guest


    Excellent summation of the situation we are in...

    I followed the same process, and almost the exact time frame as you, regarding the reciprocal agreement. I also got my answer in January 2002--2 months too late. I would have still gone, had UPS not decided that they had to follow the letter of the the contract, and increase the medical premiums to match cental states.

    BTW--I think I have figured out who you are. Did we work together as part timers?
  19. sawman

    sawman Guest

    I was well aware that UPS79 was from ILL., and in one of the stronger funds. We've been through that before.
    The reason I told the time to find the article that I got the info from, is that UPS79 is constantly accusing me of making these things up.
    I also understand his opposition to any changes, but his post serve no reason other than moliciuosly trying to keep others from fighting for a pension equal to his. He doesn't want the truth to be known!
  20. sawman

    sawman Guest

    I agree with you 100%, but you failed to mention one other point.

    The DOT physical rules are getting sticter and stricter and stricter, so when we get to those later years how many of us will be able to pass a DOT physical in order to keep our jobs?