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
Surrending CS Pension?
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="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 72679" data-attributes="member: 1356"><p>Hey, thanks my2cents for the link.</p><p></p><p>It pretty well sums up the problems with the fund as it stands now.</p><p></p><p>The system was set up to have existing workers (contributors) to subsidize earlier contributors with exisiting investments of the money to shore up short term shortfalls.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the contribution level was allowed to remain artificially low for the companies benefit versus the benefits promised through this pea shell game, as I call it.</p><p></p><p>The shell game works fine for both the company (in lower contribution rates) and the retirees (in stable benefit levels) unless the precentage of workers versus retirees turns unfavorable.</p><p></p><p>Such things as companies going out of business and bad stock market years accentuates and accelerates the problem this shell game was going to have with the baby boom generation hitting retirement.</p><p></p><p>But the simple truth is the contribution levels do not meet the funding requirements of the promised benefit levels.</p><p></p><p>It only works as long as the amount of workers continues to be more than retirees.</p><p></p><p>With the baby boom generation retiring and people living longer this type of shell game system is ultimately doomed regardless.</p><p></p><p>The loss of workers due to companies going out of business simply hastens the problem.</p><p></p><p>Anyone should be able to see that for a retiree to collect any money from the pension they must have worked long enough (ie: had enough company contributions) to qualify.</p><p></p><p>So the fact that their company no longer exists cannot put any pressure on the financial condition of the fund <strong>UNLESS</strong> the contribution levels are obviously insufficient.</p><p></p><p>hence, the system is flawed.</p><p></p><p>Requiring the companies to contribute enough to actually support their worker's promised benefits would be the fix, although their would have to be some sort of grace period involved in the current funding rules to allow this to correct the situation.</p><p></p><p>Mathmatically this is very simple and doable.</p><p></p><p>Realistically, getting the companies to actually give the money is far less likely.</p><p></p><p>Some of the companies may not even be able to afford it and stay viable.</p><p></p><p>UPS could of course, but able and willing are two words far, far apart and unlikely to occur.</p><p></p><p>UPS's mindset is more likely to support an even more expensive withdrawl penalty and create their own pension fund.</p><p></p><p>Longterm this would be better for young workers IF effective safeguards to prevent any management abuse of the system were able to be put in place as single employer pension systems have shown a far higher percentage of management abuse, abandonment and bankruptcy than multi-employer systems have.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, UPS is much more likely to work to reduce their liabilities of abandoning the current fund through lobbyist action and legistlation.</p><p></p><p>This would make it more likely that the current fund would sink and those of us with significant time in it would suffer proportionally.</p><p></p><p>I think this the likeliest scenario, but who knows, only time will tell.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, if only that were true, but probably just another mistruth. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p>I thought I'd try to be helpful and point out you have been posting under unregistered when you are clearly a registered forum user and asked if you needed help.</p><p></p><p>If I had said you were trying to be sneaky or dishonest or incompetent by posting as unregistered, mostly not identifying yourself while doing so I could see those as being provocative, but a simple question on whether you realized you were doing so and if you needed additional technical assistance with the new forum hardly seems provocative.</p><p></p><p>You had already admitted that I had helped you with an earlier technical issue regarding enhanced MEI use and you have proven you used my advice with painting your responses in a sea of red since led me to believe you might be open to further help, guess not. </p><p></p><p>My apologees for your misinterpretation of my attempt to help.</p><p></p><p>I think wkmac is correct about the lack of trust and unfortunately I agree with him that it isn't likely to change as I believe action speaks not only louder than words, but also truer.</p><p></p><p>"My point is not necessarily to cast blame".</p><p></p><p>Yes it is, over and over you blame the Teamsters <strong>exclusively</strong> denying any culpability by UPS even though they are fifty percent of the negotiatiing process and part of the management of the pension.</p><p></p><p>The Teamsters do not negotiate the contracts alone.</p><p></p><p>The Teamsters and UPS negotiate the contract.</p><p></p><p>The Teamsters Do Not administer the pension.</p><p></p><p>A panel of <strong>equal amounts</strong> of appointed teamster representatives <strong>and</strong> appointed company representatives administer the pension.</p><p></p><p>This is fact, you keep mistating that it is only Teamsters.</p><p></p><p>I will have to assume you are purposefully lying about this, rather than accidently just being wrong from here on any and every time you continue to lie about this fact.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 72679, member: 1356"] Hey, thanks my2cents for the link. It pretty well sums up the problems with the fund as it stands now. The system was set up to have existing workers (contributors) to subsidize earlier contributors with exisiting investments of the money to shore up short term shortfalls. In other words, the contribution level was allowed to remain artificially low for the companies benefit versus the benefits promised through this pea shell game, as I call it. The shell game works fine for both the company (in lower contribution rates) and the retirees (in stable benefit levels) unless the precentage of workers versus retirees turns unfavorable. Such things as companies going out of business and bad stock market years accentuates and accelerates the problem this shell game was going to have with the baby boom generation hitting retirement. But the simple truth is the contribution levels do not meet the funding requirements of the promised benefit levels. It only works as long as the amount of workers continues to be more than retirees. With the baby boom generation retiring and people living longer this type of shell game system is ultimately doomed regardless. The loss of workers due to companies going out of business simply hastens the problem. Anyone should be able to see that for a retiree to collect any money from the pension they must have worked long enough (ie: had enough company contributions) to qualify. So the fact that their company no longer exists cannot put any pressure on the financial condition of the fund [B]UNLESS[/B] the contribution levels are obviously insufficient. hence, the system is flawed. Requiring the companies to contribute enough to actually support their worker's promised benefits would be the fix, although their would have to be some sort of grace period involved in the current funding rules to allow this to correct the situation. Mathmatically this is very simple and doable. Realistically, getting the companies to actually give the money is far less likely. Some of the companies may not even be able to afford it and stay viable. UPS could of course, but able and willing are two words far, far apart and unlikely to occur. UPS's mindset is more likely to support an even more expensive withdrawl penalty and create their own pension fund. Longterm this would be better for young workers IF effective safeguards to prevent any management abuse of the system were able to be put in place as single employer pension systems have shown a far higher percentage of management abuse, abandonment and bankruptcy than multi-employer systems have. Unfortunately, UPS is much more likely to work to reduce their liabilities of abandoning the current fund through lobbyist action and legistlation. This would make it more likely that the current fund would sink and those of us with significant time in it would suffer proportionally. I think this the likeliest scenario, but who knows, only time will tell. Ah, if only that were true, but probably just another mistruth. :p I thought I'd try to be helpful and point out you have been posting under unregistered when you are clearly a registered forum user and asked if you needed help. If I had said you were trying to be sneaky or dishonest or incompetent by posting as unregistered, mostly not identifying yourself while doing so I could see those as being provocative, but a simple question on whether you realized you were doing so and if you needed additional technical assistance with the new forum hardly seems provocative. You had already admitted that I had helped you with an earlier technical issue regarding enhanced MEI use and you have proven you used my advice with painting your responses in a sea of red since led me to believe you might be open to further help, guess not. My apologees for your misinterpretation of my attempt to help. I think wkmac is correct about the lack of trust and unfortunately I agree with him that it isn't likely to change as I believe action speaks not only louder than words, but also truer. "My point is not necessarily to cast blame". Yes it is, over and over you blame the Teamsters [B]exclusively[/B] denying any culpability by UPS even though they are fifty percent of the negotiatiing process and part of the management of the pension. The Teamsters do not negotiate the contracts alone. The Teamsters and UPS negotiate the contract. The Teamsters Do Not administer the pension. A panel of [B]equal amounts[/B] of appointed teamster representatives [B]and[/B] appointed company representatives administer the pension. This is fact, you keep mistating that it is only Teamsters. I will have to assume you are purposefully lying about this, rather than accidently just being wrong from here on any and every time you continue to lie about this fact. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top