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="tieguy" data-source="post: 123606" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>Tieguy, about 3,500 employers still contribute to the Central States Pension fund and/or the Health & Welfare fund. </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">And the great weakness of a multi employer plan would be what has happened to the CS states plans which is hideously underfunded due to the loss of contributing employers. While the 3500 employers looks impressive you know that number is totally misleading. For someone who lists other misleading sources you now appear to be attempting to mislead this crowd with such a number. The true number as you should know is how much is going in the kitty and how much is coming out. As you should know too much is coming out too fast and you should also know UPS is the biggest contributer of funds going in. Now instead of misleading the crowd with the 3500 number you should be explaining why there is too much coming out of CS and not as enough going in? As you do so you will stumble across what the rest of us already know. </span></p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Ah yes one of my favorite arguments from the Multi employer plan Stalwarts. CS is in danger of failing. Should it do so please tell us about the 10,000 a year its recipients get from its insurer. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Then tell us about the private plans insurance requirements. Is it not true that single employer plans are much more heavily regulated and have to meet much more stringent funding guidelines then multi-employer plans? Is it not also true that the insurance payout from a single employer plan is 3 to 4 times that of a failed multi-employer plan or approximately 30 to 40 thousand a year?</span></p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">and yet they still screw up. Thus your argument contradicts itself. How can a plan which is in danger of failing be drawing strength from anything. Its failing dude there is no strength here. </span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Dude you are really out there now. All your theories of should be happening with multi-employer plans is in fact not happening now. If anything you now give those here no hope for a better pension since you discredit the private plans and we already know the multiemployer plans are failing miserably. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 123606, member: 1912"] Tieguy, about 3,500 employers still contribute to the Central States Pension fund and/or the Health & Welfare fund. [COLOR=blue]And the great weakness of a multi employer plan would be what has happened to the CS states plans which is hideously underfunded due to the loss of contributing employers. While the 3500 employers looks impressive you know that number is totally misleading. For someone who lists other misleading sources you now appear to be attempting to mislead this crowd with such a number. The true number as you should know is how much is going in the kitty and how much is coming out. As you should know too much is coming out too fast and you should also know UPS is the biggest contributer of funds going in. Now instead of misleading the crowd with the 3500 number you should be explaining why there is too much coming out of CS and not as enough going in? As you do so you will stumble across what the rest of us already know. [/COLOR] 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. [COLOR=blue]Ah yes one of my favorite arguments from the Multi employer plan Stalwarts. CS is in danger of failing. Should it do so please tell us about the 10,000 a year its recipients get from its insurer. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Then tell us about the private plans insurance requirements. Is it not true that single employer plans are much more heavily regulated and have to meet much more stringent funding guidelines then multi-employer plans? Is it not also true that the insurance payout from a single employer plan is 3 to 4 times that of a failed multi-employer plan or approximately 30 to 40 thousand a year?[/COLOR] 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. [COLOR=blue]and yet they still screw up. Thus your argument contradicts itself. How can a plan which is in danger of failing be drawing strength from anything. Its failing dude there is no strength here. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] 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. [COLOR=blue]Dude you are really out there now. All your theories of should be happening with multi-employer plans is in fact not happening now. If anything you now give those here no hope for a better pension since you discredit the private plans and we already know the multiemployer plans are failing miserably. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top