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
Ron Carey- Local 804 hero
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: 761883" data-attributes="member: 18044"><p><span style="color: blue">Jonesy it appears that Jon is refuting your point that management would cut retirement benifits since the law prevents this. In so doing Jon is actually supporting my point that teamsters would have been better off in a ups run plan.</span></p><p>It only appears this way to you. You are, as usual, in Troll Mode and deliberately twist everything I say. That's why I've always thought your name should be TrollGuy.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Jon this is one of the benifits of a single employer plan is it not?</span></p><p>UPS can reduce or eliminate lots of things outside the plan, and some things inside the plan, including ending the plan itself. They can also get rid of "at will" employees almost at will, (subject to a few restrictions.) They can also make it hard for participants to last until they reach the finish line. Just look at all the people and "perks" they've cut. But whatever the plan's promissed benefits at each year-end, UPS must bring the funding level up to 100% to cover the cost of those future benefits. If the market drops and the plan's assets drop 10, 20, 30, 40 percent, UPS must take money from its general fund and contribute it to the pension plan until it is back up to 100% funded.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Also if the private plan should collapse isnt the insurance on it significantly better then a multi-employer plan?</span></p><p>Single-employer plans fail about 100 times more often than multi-employer plans. That's why the Government charges them a much higher insurance premium, and mandates that they promptly correct financial shortfalls to keep the funding level at 100%.</p><p></p><p>I'm a severe critic of Government. Government mandates that single-employer funds be 100% funded, but only requires 80% funding, and often even less, for multi-employer funds. Government mandates that single-employer funds that fail will have the PBGC pay their retirees about three times what a multi-employer fund retiree would get. That's so unfair. But that's Government for ya. Multi-employer funds, as the name suggests, have many, sometimes hundreds, even thousands, of contributing employers. This is a major built-in insurance feature. A single-employer fund has just one contributing employer. If something happens to that one employer, the fund goes bankrupt. That's when the employees realize they shouldn't have put all their financial eggs in one basket. It's best to diversify. Don't have your paycheck and your retirement check dependent on the same source. Especially if you also own stock in that same company.</p><p></p><p>Seperate PBGC funds insure single- and multi-employer funds. Both insurance funds are in the red. The single-empoyer one's deficit is about 25 times worse than the multi-employer one. The PBGC itself is billions in debt as well.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">thank you for taking us down this path guys this is good discussion that should help us all.</span></p><p>We've had this "discussion" before. As penance read this current article on Ron Carey. . .</p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20101128100528/http://tdu.org/node/4176" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20101128100528/http://tdu.org/node/4176</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 761883, member: 18044"] [COLOR=blue]Jonesy it appears that Jon is refuting your point that management would cut retirement benifits since the law prevents this. In so doing Jon is actually supporting my point that teamsters would have been better off in a ups run plan.[/COLOR] It only appears this way to you. You are, as usual, in Troll Mode and deliberately twist everything I say. That's why I've always thought your name should be TrollGuy. [COLOR=#0000ff]Jon this is one of the benifits of a single employer plan is it not?[/COLOR] UPS can reduce or eliminate lots of things outside the plan, and some things inside the plan, including ending the plan itself. They can also get rid of "at will" employees almost at will, (subject to a few restrictions.) They can also make it hard for participants to last until they reach the finish line. Just look at all the people and "perks" they've cut. But whatever the plan's promissed benefits at each year-end, UPS must bring the funding level up to 100% to cover the cost of those future benefits. If the market drops and the plan's assets drop 10, 20, 30, 40 percent, UPS must take money from its general fund and contribute it to the pension plan until it is back up to 100% funded. [COLOR=#0000ff]Also if the private plan should collapse isnt the insurance on it significantly better then a multi-employer plan?[/COLOR] Single-employer plans fail about 100 times more often than multi-employer plans. That's why the Government charges them a much higher insurance premium, and mandates that they promptly correct financial shortfalls to keep the funding level at 100%. I'm a severe critic of Government. Government mandates that single-employer funds be 100% funded, but only requires 80% funding, and often even less, for multi-employer funds. Government mandates that single-employer funds that fail will have the PBGC pay their retirees about three times what a multi-employer fund retiree would get. That's so unfair. But that's Government for ya. Multi-employer funds, as the name suggests, have many, sometimes hundreds, even thousands, of contributing employers. This is a major built-in insurance feature. A single-employer fund has just one contributing employer. If something happens to that one employer, the fund goes bankrupt. That's when the employees realize they shouldn't have put all their financial eggs in one basket. It's best to diversify. Don't have your paycheck and your retirement check dependent on the same source. Especially if you also own stock in that same company. Seperate PBGC funds insure single- and multi-employer funds. Both insurance funds are in the red. The single-empoyer one's deficit is about 25 times worse than the multi-employer one. The PBGC itself is billions in debt as well. [COLOR=#0000ff]thank you for taking us down this path guys this is good discussion that should help us all.[/COLOR] We've had this "discussion" before. As penance read this current article on Ron Carey. . . [URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20101128100528/http://tdu.org/node/4176[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Ron Carey- Local 804 hero
Top