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
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 122367"><p>To read UPS' official (misleading) views on pensions visit the UPSers Dot Com website. Logon to <a href="http://www.upsers.com" target="_blank">http://www.upsers.com</a> then click the My Life & Career tab, then Finance & Retirement, then Multi-employer Plans. </p><p></p><p>To read the official (misleading) view of the Association of Parcel Workers of America, visit . . .</p><p>ItsMAP.Com</p><p>Among other things, they still, after all this time, say: "(44 weeks=less than 4 years)" when they of course mean "(44 months = less than 4 years)." </p><p> And . . . </p><p>ItsMAP.Com</p><p></p><p>To read the official (misleading) view of the Central States Fund visit . . .</p><p>Central States Funds | Home</p><p></p><p>Tieguy, about 3,500 employers still contribute to the Central States Pension fund and/or the Health & Welfare fund. The great strength of a multi-employer fund is that it is not dependent on a single company. A single-employer plan is totally dependent on its one and only contributing company, and the fund fails when the company does. Individual companies fail all too frequently. Just look at all the household names you grew up with and had confidence in, that are now just a memory. Some multi-employer funds, even dysfunctional ones like Central States (which operates under court supervision and still manages to screw up), achieve even greater strength by including employers from many industries, not just one. Thus, even if an entire industry, like steel or airlines, experiences financial losses and bankruptcies, the fund keeps chuggin' along, albeit not on all cylinders. Actual bankruptcy --- the inability to pay promised benefits --- is all but impossible in a multi-employer fund that has an adequate number of contributing employers, especially if they are in diverse industries. Single-employer plans fail at 100 times the rate of multi-employer plans!!! Although single-employer plans have better insurance coverage, the insurer, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation,</p><p>Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)</p><p>is itself practically bankrupt and faces huge liabilities from the many funds that it will have to bail out in the future. Also, the higher benefit guarantees of a single-employer fund are not a market driven result but a political one. And the guarantees, as unreliable as they will be, are only relevant if a plan actually fails. It is plan success we should be focused on. In any event, Defined Benefit plans are getting less popular by the day, as employers switch to 401(k) and other Defined Contribution plans, or no plans at all. </p><p></p><p>Visit the fund I'm in at New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund</p><p>Click on Slide Show Untitled Document to view an impressive (misleading) explanation of why the trustees had to cut our benefits and raise the early retirement age from 52 to 57, and why it's not their fault. The're actually wise, prudent, concerned, foreward-looking, humanitarians who have the courage to take necessary corrective action when circumstances demand. Like when they loose a boat-load of our money in the stock market. </p><p></p><p>Click on Tables (table 11) to see that despite all the cuts, 30 full years of Pension Credits, at age 57 (earlier if you were grandfathered before they made the cuts) will get you $3,500 a month, and you can get the maximum $4,700 with 33 to 38 full years of Pension Credits, depending on your age. Cezanne, part-timers can get these same benefits too, although they would need to work more than part-time hours, and work extra years to qualify. Part-timers who don't qualify, must settle for Table 12 where the dollar amounts are exactly half the "full-timer" ones. Part-timers have been covered by the New England fund all along, and they are subject to the same rules as full-timers. But they tend to get only a partial pension credit each year, say seven to eleven months' worth, depending on how many hours they work. Consequently, it takes them, and any full-timer who started out as a part-timer, longer to accumulate the necessary full year Pension Credits. The special 50% part-time pension, for those part-timers who really do only work part-time hours, was added about a decade ago. </p><p></p><p>To read the (misleading) view of the Motor Freight Carriers Association, visit April 29, 2004 Pension</p><p></p><p>To learn about pension issues visit Watson Wyatt Worldwide at Watson Wyatt United States - Hot Topics, 2006 Pension Funding Reform</p><p> and </p><p>Watson Wyatt - Insider</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 122367"] To read UPS' official (misleading) views on pensions visit the UPSers Dot Com website. Logon to [url]http://www.upsers.com[/url] then click the My Life & Career tab, then Finance & Retirement, then Multi-employer Plans. To read the official (misleading) view of the Association of Parcel Workers of America, visit . . . ItsMAP.Com Among other things, they still, after all this time, say: "(44 weeks=less than 4 years)" when they of course mean "(44 months = less than 4 years)." And . . . ItsMAP.Com To read the official (misleading) view of the Central States Fund visit . . . Central States Funds | Home Tieguy, about 3,500 employers still contribute to the Central States Pension fund and/or the Health & Welfare fund. The great strength of a multi-employer fund is that it is not dependent on a single company. A single-employer plan is totally dependent on its one and only contributing company, and the fund fails when the company does. Individual companies fail all too frequently. Just look at all the household names you grew up with and had confidence in, that are now just a memory. Some multi-employer funds, even dysfunctional ones like Central States (which operates under court supervision and still manages to screw up), achieve even greater strength by including employers from many industries, not just one. Thus, even if an entire industry, like steel or airlines, experiences financial losses and bankruptcies, the fund keeps chuggin' along, albeit not on all cylinders. Actual bankruptcy --- the inability to pay promised benefits --- is all but impossible in a multi-employer fund that has an adequate number of contributing employers, especially if they are in diverse industries. Single-employer plans fail at 100 times the rate of multi-employer plans!!! Although single-employer plans have better insurance coverage, the insurer, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is itself practically bankrupt and faces huge liabilities from the many funds that it will have to bail out in the future. Also, the higher benefit guarantees of a single-employer fund are not a market driven result but a political one. And the guarantees, as unreliable as they will be, are only relevant if a plan actually fails. It is plan success we should be focused on. In any event, Defined Benefit plans are getting less popular by the day, as employers switch to 401(k) and other Defined Contribution plans, or no plans at all. Visit the fund I'm in at New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund Click on Slide Show Untitled Document to view an impressive (misleading) explanation of why the trustees had to cut our benefits and raise the early retirement age from 52 to 57, and why it's not their fault. The're actually wise, prudent, concerned, foreward-looking, humanitarians who have the courage to take necessary corrective action when circumstances demand. Like when they loose a boat-load of our money in the stock market. Click on Tables (table 11) to see that despite all the cuts, 30 full years of Pension Credits, at age 57 (earlier if you were grandfathered before they made the cuts) will get you $3,500 a month, and you can get the maximum $4,700 with 33 to 38 full years of Pension Credits, depending on your age. Cezanne, part-timers can get these same benefits too, although they would need to work more than part-time hours, and work extra years to qualify. Part-timers who don't qualify, must settle for Table 12 where the dollar amounts are exactly half the "full-timer" ones. Part-timers have been covered by the New England fund all along, and they are subject to the same rules as full-timers. But they tend to get only a partial pension credit each year, say seven to eleven months' worth, depending on how many hours they work. Consequently, it takes them, and any full-timer who started out as a part-timer, longer to accumulate the necessary full year Pension Credits. The special 50% part-time pension, for those part-timers who really do only work part-time hours, was added about a decade ago. To read the (misleading) view of the Motor Freight Carriers Association, visit April 29, 2004 Pension To learn about pension issues visit Watson Wyatt Worldwide at Watson Wyatt United States - Hot Topics, 2006 Pension Funding Reform and Watson Wyatt - Insider [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top