Teamsters face 31 percent pension cut

[DOK]

And everybody jumps on me when I say pensions are a thing of the past...

Instead of ups's monthly contributions going into a general fund where everyone then draws from, why don't the monthly contributions going into the employees individual account?. So when you retire whatever's in your account is yours.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Instead of ups's monthly contributions going into a general fund where everyone then draws from, why don't the monthly contributions going into the employees individual account?. So when you retire whatever's in your account is yours.

Cuz that would make too much sense.

 

[Catatonic]

Here's another one. "The end result was far more union members withdrawing from the fund than paying into it."
When will people understand this means the fund was either under funded while they were working or they were over-promised on the benefit end?
This has nothing to do with fewer workers.

I'd say based on this post, you are not aware of how the pension funds got into the shape it is in.

This has everything to do with fewer Union workers.

Agree

The problem of the Multi-employer pension funds is driven primarily by the deregulation of the trucking industry.
There are more workers in the trucking industry today than there ever was ... the problem is, they are mostly non-Union and therefore, not paying into the Multi-employer pension funds.

Yes, pensions are a form of a Ponzi scheme but only to the extent that the investments of existing funds does not meet minimum goals such as what happened in the 2008-2009 recession/depression.

The 401k has been the saviour of employees that move from one company to another in deregulated industries just as the Multi-employer plan was great for Teamsters that moved from one company to another within a regulated, stable industry.

As usual, laws passed by the US Central Government (in this case during Jimmy Carter's administration) have unintended consequences. I think Trump is running across this phenomena as he and the Repubs try to implement new policies. Just like at UPS, it's always easier to add than it is to take away.

 

[Catatonic]

Instead of ups's monthly contributions going into a general fund where everyone then draws from, why don't the monthly contributions going into the employees individual account?. So when you retire whatever's in your account is yours.

If that were the case, the Teamster Union Officials would lose a lot of power and a source of money for risky investments.

 

[Faceplanted]

The " contractor" loop hole made the rich far richer and screwed us. More and more people are becoming contractors even in the medical field. I'm not for regulation but lots of these people imho don't fit the "contractor definition"

 

[Brownslave688]

I'd say based on this post, you are not aware of how the pension funds got into the shape it is in.

No it's easy to blame it on fewer workers. But a properly ran pension plan should not depend on current contributions for past benefits.


Take @UpstateNYUPSer pension. The $50 a week or whatever it was at the beginning of his career was nowhere near enough to promise a 5k a month pension.


But why on earth would the union say we mismanaged and overpromised on your pension? When most members will keep drinking the kool aid that we need more members paying in.

 

[Brownslave688]

This has everything to do with fewer Union workers.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

No it's easy to blame it on fewer workers. But a properly ran pension plan should not depend on current contributions for past benefits.


Take @UpstateNYUPSer pension. The $50 a week or whatever it was at the beginning of his career was nowhere near enough to promise a 5k a month pension.


But why on earth would the union say we mismanaged and overpromised on your pension? When most members will keep drinking the kool aid that we need more members paying in.

You really should refrain from giving financial advice as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Wally]

Why not add on years of service instead of 30 and out?

 

[Brownslave688]

You really should refrain from giving financial advice as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah I'm a 30 something that already has a net worth way over anything you'd ever dream of having. Clearly I have no idea.

You're right though I forgot to mention that pensions were never meant to cover someone retiring at 50 for 30+ years.

Pensions worked back in a time when 15 years or so was the average retirement.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Why not add on years of service instead of 30 and out?

There is a YOS requirement already in place.

Perhaps you guys should refrain from commenting on what you know nothing about.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

Yeah I'm a 30 something that already has a net worth way over anything you'd ever dream of having. Clearly I have no idea.

You're right though I forgot to mention that pensions were never meant to cover someone retiring at 50 for 30+ years.

Pensions worked back in a time when 15 years or so was the average retirement.

Easy there- you are engaging with a guy who has amassed two years of gross pay in his 401k-. And he isn't retiring for another year- you could learn a thing or two. Lol.

 

[retired2000]

And poor investments

 

[Wally]

There is a YOS requirement already in place.

Perhaps you guys should refrain from commenting on what you know nothing about.

So adding more won't help?

We have so called-experts now running things. How's that working?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

So adding more won't help?

We have so called-experts now running things. How's that working?

Experts cannot overcome a 6K retiree/active shortfall.

 

[Wally]

Experts cannot overcome a 6K retiree/active shortfall.

What do they do then?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

What do they do then?

Reduce benefits or ask for a bailout.

 

[Mugarolla]

You're right though I forgot to mention that pensions were never meant to cover someone retiring at 50 for 30+ years.

Correct.

Experts cannot overcome a 6K retiree/active shortfall.

It should never have come to this. Retiree pension payments should never have to rely on active pension payments.

The money should already be there for the retiree's, and the active payments "should" be going into the fund to support their retirement.

But, due to over promised pension amounts, the stock market, mismanaged funds and people living longer, the majority of US pension funds have turned into Ponzi Schemes. But they never started out this way.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Correct.



It should never have come to this. Retiree pension payments should never have to rely on active pension payments.

The money should already be there for the retiree's, and the active payments "should" be going into the fund to support their retirement.

But, due to over promised pension amounts, the stock market, mismanaged funds and people living longer, the majority of US pension funds have turned into Ponzi Schemes. But they never started out this way.

Our issues were employers going out of business and not fulfilling their financial obligations and the downturn in 2008.

 

[retired2000]

Also our local made a lot of side deals ex p&c. Foods and yellow freight