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 Retirement Topics
Pension Protection Act
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="wkmac" data-source="post: 54329"><p>sawman, </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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! </p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 54329"] sawman, 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension Protection Act
Top