Over70irregs
❤️ MORE 😡 LESS
Union Pension too dependent on one employer? Technology is moving fast. Hard to unionize machines?
Union Pension too dependent on brown?
- Thread starter Over70irregs
- Start date
AKCoverMan
Well-Known Member
A lot of UPS Teamsters are not aware of how broadly the union reach is. In our Local UPS is s good chunk of employees but we have many other contracts as well. Growing membership, organizing new work groups, and stronger contracts will benefit all of o various pension plans.
Over70irregs
❤️ MORE 😡 LESS
Big interest spread fear against worker empowerment.
news.google.com
Google News
Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
news.google.com
Gabba
It's a vicious cycle
first off, i think the pension is pre-funded so it wouldn't stop if UPS went out of business tomorrow. second, i'm not sure what you think the alternative would be exactly, aren't all pensions funded by the company the employees work for? how would it work otherwise? like if boeing and sodexo also were on the hook for all our pensions UPS going out of business would just drag the other companies down the same hole, what company would agree to such a scheme, there's no upside!? and then, what do you expect anyone to do about it?
JustDeliverIt
Well-Known Member
Big interest spread fear against worker empowerment.
Google News
Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
New York Post article, say no more. Might as well be in the National Enquirer, same credibility.
Whither
Scofflaw
Gotta love how these shills claim they're trying to protect "the working stiffs" from the big, bad unionsBig interest spread fear against worker empowerment.
Google News
Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
Sissy Brown Short Shorts
Well-Known Member
If my understanding is correct before the trucking industry was deregulated in the 80s basically every trucking company paid into a massive union pension pot. The deregulation led to a lot of these companies going under and only a handful survived. Then these huge trucking companies were paying for pensions for union members that were never employed by them in the first place. UPS got out of that with having their own pension (managed by the union) and master agreement, but the union takes UPS’s money that’s supposed to go into our pension plan and uses it to fund old ones anyways (basing that off a local union issue we had years ago) UPS has the money to fund it but the union squanders it. Our pension plan last time I looked was insolvent in 2024. Honestly I’d rather have a company run pension plan. UPS shouldn’t have to fund other people’s pensions when they don’t work for them. I act as though I won’t have a pension or social security. I put 15% of my pay into 401k and Roth IRA. I may be wrong or partially wrong on that info, that’s just what I’ve made sense of bits and pieces of info I’ve gotten over the years.
But UPS being cheap years ago is hurting them now. They got into those multi-employer plans but they was paying on the lower end of the scale while their employees were receiving better pension benefits than what the company put in for
Sissy Brown Short Shorts
Well-Known Member
But there were are less companies now and UPS was having to pay more. Sounds like a bunch of commie gobbledygook if ya ask me. Each company should have its own pension based on what the company can provide to its workers. UPS makes enough to run its own and if smaller companies can’t provide enough to meet a certain threshold then with company and union input create agreements between different companies and the union to have multi employer pensions. At least in a perfect world. Problem is people live too long now, retire too early and drain the system for decades. Pensions were great when you retired at 62 and died at 68 now you retire at 25 years and if you started at 21 like me you can retire at 46 and collect a pension for 40 years or more. Longer than what you worked for in the first place. Not a good system anymore. Same problem with social security. Throwing more money at it won’t solve it, needs some serious reform but when you start talking about taking away money you got a lot of blowback so we’re just stuck in a spiraling problem. The plans were better back in the day but you only had people living off them for a couple of years.
Social security is exactly the same way.
If you made $50,000 a yearduring your entire career and I made $100,000, I wouldn't get double of what you get even though I paid double .
Sissy Brown Short Shorts
Well-Known Member
Social security is having the same problem because less people are being born. Right now it’s a reverse pyramid. Tens of millions of baby boomers are getting into social security territory and if I remember correctly only 1 tax paying worker is replacing every 3 or 4 retiring. And again these people are going to be collecting for decades instead of a few years.
It Was supposed to be a safety net but unfortunately they used it for too many other things and raided the fund too many times.
Sissy Brown Short Shorts
Well-Known Member
And also like pension plans being worse as time goes on social security payments are going to lower as less money gets in and more is payed out.
And the government can print out money
So.....
Babagounj
Strength through joy
2030 or 2035 is when SS is supposed to run out of money and begin a 27% cut to benefits.
One must remember this when calculating your retirement planning.
That is one of the reasons I'm waiting till 70 to collect SS.
The other reasons are I don't need it now and whenever I begin SS ,my Medicare MAGI payments will rise.
One must remember this when calculating your retirement planning.
That is one of the reasons I'm waiting till 70 to collect SS.
The other reasons are I don't need it now and whenever I begin SS ,my Medicare MAGI payments will rise.
And what happens if you die before age 70?
AKCoverMan
Well-Known Member
You won’t care then.
