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: 133794"><p>Just be sure you compare apples to apples. Take a Teamster member and compare him to an IAM member. Ideally they should be the same age with the same years of accrued Pension Credits. There's no question the IAM plan is superior, especially if you compare it to Central States. My sense of fairness tells me that first we should average all Teamsters plans, then average all IAM plans (or UPS plans, or whatever) and then compare averages to averages. It's not fair to compare, say, one of the worst teams in the American League with one of the best teams in the National League, and conclude the National League is better, and better by the degree of difference between the two teams compared. I realize this average-to-average comparison makes the bad guys seem not quite so bad, and the good guys seem not quite so good, but it is the fair, and hence most accurate way. Obviously, many in the Central States plan will not be very interested in the niceites of statistically valid comparisons. They lost money and they are angry.</p><p></p><p>Apples-to-apples also means comparing a presently earned retirement benefit amount of one plan with a presently earned retirement amount of another plan. And if the one plan benefit is not collectible until, say, age 65, then the other must be as well. Do not project that one worker will sit inactively for years waiting for his inflation-eroded checks to begin on his 65th birthday, while the other worker keeps working and adding to his Pension Credit account and thus earning a higher benefit amount. The two are not being fairly compared.</p><p></p><p>It's very hard to compare pension funds fairly because they have different features, and even their similar features have differing details. For example, I assume everyone will compare the Teamster benefit to the grandfathered IAM benefit. No one will use the IAM "new groups" scale that is 40% less. Maybe a fair comparison would use a weighted average of the old and new IAM scales for comparison, even though no one may actually receive such an average. Like when you average one-child and two-child families and conclude the average family has one-and-a-half children. It's statistically valid, so long as everyone understands there are no actual "half children" running around loose. </p><p></p><p>We should also realize that fortunes ebb and flow, and there were times when the funds that are in bad shape now were doing well and those that are now doing well may someday fall on hard times. So comparisons must also take into account that a snapshot in time may catch one fund at a bad time and the other at a good time.</p><p></p><p> I'm not defending the bad performing funds. Just trying to speak accurately about them and to quiet the shrill, inaccurate critics. Remember, I'm not even in the Central States fund. I never told any one to join the fund. The idea of contributing money into a retirement fund that will confiscate your money until you earn it back by earning five years of something called "Vesting Service" (formerly ten years!) strikes me as nutty. And yet you did it, and so did I. OK. I admit it. When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 133794"] Just be sure you compare apples to apples. Take a Teamster member and compare him to an IAM member. Ideally they should be the same age with the same years of accrued Pension Credits. There's no question the IAM plan is superior, especially if you compare it to Central States. My sense of fairness tells me that first we should average all Teamsters plans, then average all IAM plans (or UPS plans, or whatever) and then compare averages to averages. It's not fair to compare, say, one of the worst teams in the American League with one of the best teams in the National League, and conclude the National League is better, and better by the degree of difference between the two teams compared. I realize this average-to-average comparison makes the bad guys seem not quite so bad, and the good guys seem not quite so good, but it is the fair, and hence most accurate way. Obviously, many in the Central States plan will not be very interested in the niceites of statistically valid comparisons. They lost money and they are angry. Apples-to-apples also means comparing a presently earned retirement benefit amount of one plan with a presently earned retirement amount of another plan. And if the one plan benefit is not collectible until, say, age 65, then the other must be as well. Do not project that one worker will sit inactively for years waiting for his inflation-eroded checks to begin on his 65th birthday, while the other worker keeps working and adding to his Pension Credit account and thus earning a higher benefit amount. The two are not being fairly compared. It's very hard to compare pension funds fairly because they have different features, and even their similar features have differing details. For example, I assume everyone will compare the Teamster benefit to the grandfathered IAM benefit. No one will use the IAM "new groups" scale that is 40% less. Maybe a fair comparison would use a weighted average of the old and new IAM scales for comparison, even though no one may actually receive such an average. Like when you average one-child and two-child families and conclude the average family has one-and-a-half children. It's statistically valid, so long as everyone understands there are no actual "half children" running around loose. We should also realize that fortunes ebb and flow, and there were times when the funds that are in bad shape now were doing well and those that are now doing well may someday fall on hard times. So comparisons must also take into account that a snapshot in time may catch one fund at a bad time and the other at a good time. I'm not defending the bad performing funds. Just trying to speak accurately about them and to quiet the shrill, inaccurate critics. Remember, I'm not even in the Central States fund. I never told any one to join the fund. The idea of contributing money into a retirement fund that will confiscate your money until you earn it back by earning five years of something called "Vesting Service" (formerly ten years!) strikes me as nutty. And yet you did it, and so did I. OK. I admit it. When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top