Teamsters face 31 percent pension cut

[twoweeled]

Pension plans set benefit levels according to contribution rates. If your employer has a low contribution rate, you'll get a lower benefit. If employers go out of business without paying their unfunded/withdrawal liability, all existing employers (including participating local unions) have increased liability to support the "orphans". The law has changed and now plans can cut those benefits.

They will face the same cut as is determined to any other participating employers depending on contribution rates.

1. I was unaware the laws had changed regarding orphans.

2. Union officers will face the same cuts, , , , ? Can you give me a % of what the Union Officers are facing in their pension cuts?
I'm still guessing, ZERO.

 

[watdaflock?]

Good thing Trump was elected. He will make everything better.

 

[Inthegame]

1. I was unaware the laws had changed regarding orphans.

2. Union officers will face the same cuts, , , , ? Can you give me a % of what the Union Officers are facing in their pension cuts?
I'm still guessing, ZERO.

No surprise there as you've shown through other posts you "guess" fairly often. Unfortunately you've chosen to believe the easy fiction rather than work a bit to learn the real facts.
When the CSPF presented their proposed benefit reductions, there were different proposed reductions depending on different criteria. Orphans would have received the most severe cuts, around 60%. On the other hand, employees from participating employers who are still contributing at the highest contribution rates would've faced approximately a 30% cut in their monthly pension amounts.
Local Union officers and BA's in that fund would have had their benefits reduced at the same amount as any other participating employer making the same contributions.
Being that the plan was rejected, it didn't happen, yet.

 

[twoweeled]

No surprise there as you've shown through other posts you "guess" fairly often. Unfortunately you've chosen to believe the easy fiction rather than work a bit to learn the real facts.
When the CSPF presented their proposed benefit reductions, there were different proposed reductions depending on different criteria. Orphans would have received the most severe cuts, around 60%. On the other hand, employees from participating employers who are still contributing at the highest contribution rates would've faced approximately a 30% cut in their monthly pension amounts.
Local Union officers and BA's in that fund would have had their benefits reduced at the same amount as any other participating employer making the same contributions.
Being that the plan was rejected, it didn't happen, yet.

Maybe I do guess fairly often, as you state. It also appears, I guess correctly? After all the woulda coulda shoulda. it still sounds like the pension cuts our officers will face, remains ZERO!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Just came back from our union meeting. Turns out our pension fund has withdrawn our application due to minor technical issues (mortality and investment performance) and will resubmit once these changes have been made. This will push back the projected date for the cuts one month. The projected percentages (20% and 31%) will remain the same.

 

[Future]

Just came back from our union meeting. Turns out our pension fund has withdrawn our application due to minor technical issues (mortality and investment performance) and will resubmit once these changes have been made. This will push back the projected date for the cuts one month. The projected percentages (20% and 31%) will remain the same.

Joyous!

 

[Future]

Just came back from our union meeting. Turns out our pension fund has withdrawn our application due to minor technical issues (mortality and investment performance) and will resubmit once these changes have been made. This will push back the projected date for the cuts one month. The projected percentages (20% and 31%) will remain the same.

What do you think we will be looking at per month?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

What do you think we will be looking at per month?

$4,500.

 

[cosmo1]

$4,500.

With insurance?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

With insurance?

Nope. I believe health insurance starts at $250/month for single and doubles for married retirees.

Mine will be slightly lower as my ex will get her cut.

 

[cosmo1]

Nope. I believe health insurance starts at $250/month for single and doubles for married retirees.

Mine will be slightly lower as my ex will get her cut.

Still cheap.

Don't complain about it.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Still cheap.

Don't complain about it.

I'm not complaining---I was updating those members who are in the same pension fund.

This is the letter:

https://www.nystpensionfund.org/media/1149/20170407pension-fund-withdrawal-and-refile-notice.pdf

 

[cosmo1]

I'm not complaining---I was updating those members who are in the same pension fund.

I wasn't implying you were complaining. Some locals, (mine) don't offer a discounted retiree insurance package.

 

[Jones]

I wasn't implying you were complaining. Some locals, (mine) don't offer a discounted retiree insurance package.

Premiums for retirees here just increased almost 300%, from $150/mo to $440/mo.

 

[By The Book]

Premiums for retirees here just increased almost 300%, from $150/mo to $440/mo.

Is that for member and spouse or per each?

 

[By The Book]

I'm not complaining---I was updating those members who are in the same pension fund.

This is the letter:

https://www.nystpensionfund.org/media/1149/20170407pension-fund-withdrawal-and-refile-notice.pdf

These cuts are to both past and current members?,and are there different percentages of cuts?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

These cuts are to both past and current members?,and are there different percentages of cuts?

Yes and yes.

20% for actives, 31% for retirees.

 

[Jones]

Is that for member and spouse or per each?

Per each.

 

[By The Book]

Per each.

Ouch! For now I feel fortunate. However, if there are no changes in coverage between current and retiree that may not be so bad.

 

[twoweeled]

Still cheap.

Don't complain about it.

1. That depends on "who you choose" to compare with.
2. Comparing ourselves to people who get less, doesn't make me feel one bit better.
3. When you're losing benefits, you're going backward regardless of who you want to compare yourself too.

It's in part because some of us rationalize the demise of benefits we had in the past, that we continue to lose more! Death by 1000 cuts. But it's okay, because someone else had 2000 cuts!
We cut our own throats.