Team Work magazine



I am hoping that someone can explain the chart on page 7 which is titled 'Example of Contribution-Based Pension Before Changes'. My main question is why they did not use 52 weeks for the years 1999,2000 and 2001 in there calculation?


That's a good question. On the face I'd think typo but then again as bad as they've managed this situation IMO it could be their math skills aren't up to snuff.

I want to address some things I found in the Teamwork magazine Summer 2003' issue. Inside it has the CS Financial Report for 2002' and some very interesting graphs IMO are present. On page 13 there is a graph showing contributions to benefits and expenses and the graph begins in 1994 to 2002'. Contributions (in millions) go from $0.7 in 94' up slightly to $1.2 in 02'. Benefits and expenses however are $1.3 in 94' upward to $2.3 in 02'. Now if you look at the graph on page 6 entitled Actives vs. Retirees it covers 1980 to 2002. In 1980 there were 400k actives to about 120k retirees. Through the years you can clearly see the scales on a collision course and that meet point was in 97'. Now there are clearly more retirees than contributors and with the baby boomer generation on us (I am apart of it) this number will continue to rise. There is more info in here than you realize but here's my point. The union has seen this storm coming for years and has done nothing. In fact, Ron Carey and the union could clearly see this situation back in 97' but instead of working to do something about it then IMO they chose the political route and promised us something they knew full good and well could not be delivered in the future. They blame Washington DC? IMO they are acting just like them. And as for blaming Washington that doesn't wash either. A study of this 2002' report will clearly show the so-called perfect storm building before GW was even thinking about entering politics.

This issue of the Summer 03' Teamwork magazine is available on the CS website if you are a regisitered member. If you are get it. I believe it's loaded with details that every local covered by CS should have stuffed in their face with the question of why and how did you let it get this way?