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: 123553"><p>APWA seems to be limiting its promise of a $7,000 a month pension, and lowering its prediction of a 12.34% or more return on investment. But it's hard to know for sure. Now I'm reading that the APWA plans to sue the pension funds to recover as much of UPS' past contributions as possible and transfer the money into a new UPSers-only pension fund. Do they have any idea how high a burden of proof they will have to meet to get a judge to order this? Years ago the New England Teamsters Pension Improvement Committee (NETPIC) tried. They sued the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund asking that the UPS monies be partitioned within the fund so UPS contributions would benefit UPSers only. Their fallback position, if Judge Harrington wouldn't agree to a partition, was to withdraw UPS contributions and turn them over to a new fund made up of UPSers only. Sound familiar? Despite being on the side of the angels, NETPIC lost on both counts. Then they appealed and lost again in front of a three judge panel. The 27 page appeal decision is illuminating reading. Save a copy and read it later. . . .</p><p></p><p>USCA1 Opinion 91-1542</p><p></p><p>If anyone has a copy of the original opinion by Judge Harrington, please post it. I attended the six day trial and have lots of handouts and notes, but I don't have the judge's opinion. I do have the above link to the denial of appeal opinion, but it restates some of the original issues, and is must reading. You'll learn that the monies are not yours or the Teamsters, but technically the property of the Trust. That when the Trust confiscates the contributions of all employees who fail to achieve vesting status, (back then, ten years), that's OK, it's what pension funds do! That if UPS retirees get only 40% or so of their contributions back in the form of retiree benefits, that's OK. Because the Trust adopted a "no transfer" clause, they can refuse to transfer funds to a new fund, period. </p><p></p><p>Judges are very reluctant to intervene in private party arrangements, especially those involving labor negotiations. The Law assumes each of you, and your employer and union, knew and agreed to every word of the Trust Agreement, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, pension law, laws in general, and stay fully up-to-date on all matters under the sun. Although trustees have a fiduciary duty to operate the fund for the sole benefit of the participants, they are decision-makers and can exercise their judgement to favor or penalize one group or another, so long as they are not unreasonable, and there is a higher fund purpose they hope to achieve. If Congress set forth pension fund rules that make them inherently unfair, the courts must take that unfairness as a given and accept it without objection. Courts will only act if you can show unreasonableness, arbitrariness, or outright criminality on the part of the trustees. Life is hard, then you die.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 123553"] APWA seems to be limiting its promise of a $7,000 a month pension, and lowering its prediction of a 12.34% or more return on investment. But it's hard to know for sure. Now I'm reading that the APWA plans to sue the pension funds to recover as much of UPS' past contributions as possible and transfer the money into a new UPSers-only pension fund. Do they have any idea how high a burden of proof they will have to meet to get a judge to order this? Years ago the New England Teamsters Pension Improvement Committee (NETPIC) tried. They sued the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund asking that the UPS monies be partitioned within the fund so UPS contributions would benefit UPSers only. Their fallback position, if Judge Harrington wouldn't agree to a partition, was to withdraw UPS contributions and turn them over to a new fund made up of UPSers only. Sound familiar? Despite being on the side of the angels, NETPIC lost on both counts. Then they appealed and lost again in front of a three judge panel. The 27 page appeal decision is illuminating reading. Save a copy and read it later. . . . USCA1 Opinion 91-1542 If anyone has a copy of the original opinion by Judge Harrington, please post it. I attended the six day trial and have lots of handouts and notes, but I don't have the judge's opinion. I do have the above link to the denial of appeal opinion, but it restates some of the original issues, and is must reading. You'll learn that the monies are not yours or the Teamsters, but technically the property of the Trust. That when the Trust confiscates the contributions of all employees who fail to achieve vesting status, (back then, ten years), that's OK, it's what pension funds do! That if UPS retirees get only 40% or so of their contributions back in the form of retiree benefits, that's OK. Because the Trust adopted a "no transfer" clause, they can refuse to transfer funds to a new fund, period. Judges are very reluctant to intervene in private party arrangements, especially those involving labor negotiations. The Law assumes each of you, and your employer and union, knew and agreed to every word of the Trust Agreement, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, pension law, laws in general, and stay fully up-to-date on all matters under the sun. Although trustees have a fiduciary duty to operate the fund for the sole benefit of the participants, they are decision-makers and can exercise their judgement to favor or penalize one group or another, so long as they are not unreasonable, and there is a higher fund purpose they hope to achieve. If Congress set forth pension fund rules that make them inherently unfair, the courts must take that unfairness as a given and accept it without objection. Courts will only act if you can show unreasonableness, arbitrariness, or outright criminality on the part of the trustees. Life is hard, then you die. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top