Western conference fund %100 funded ?

Discussion in 'UPS Retirement Topics' started by wildgoose, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Western Conference fund members need to read this article even though your 100% funded the trustee`s think otherwise !

    Teamsters for a Democratic Union

    I wonder if Hoffa carries the Western Conference ?
  2. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    I can`t believe the western conference hasn`t commented on this thread ? If this is wrong please let me know but with a 100% funding it just doesn`t make any sense to do what they say they want to do to you ! Whats next ?
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    It's interesting to note that the Western Conference is fully funded as I was under the impression this fund several years ago was in about the same shape as Central States is. Even our last contract had a memorandum attached to the effect that CS would incorporate the same measures as the Western Conference Fund and this should have been seen as a big clue as to what was about to come.

    As the current contract talks with UPS take place, it will be interesting to see how the pension issue is addressed.

    Gee, I can't believe the APWA Browncafe peanut gallery hasn't chimed in on this!
  4. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member


    Mac, Socialism doesn't work on the east coast or the west coast. You know I've done a lot of preaching on here about this fact, but if people choose not to believe the writing on the wall, then what else can ya do? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink. After a while, the leading gets old and repetitive. I just assume people get weary of reading about it on here.
  5. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Hey Nospin why would the teamsters lie to us anyhow ? Heh ! I should have been a BA. Next best thing to politics ! Give your self a raise 20%. Better insurance than the poor clowns they watch over. Hey pack your bags were going to the panel - make sure you bring your golf clubs and strip club $ ! Fancy motels from the union dues "yahoo" Not to mention the better pension we have over the hourly`s. I don`t know what more we can do to make it more impossible to retire -maybe raise the maximum weight to 200 lbs. Its getting harder to get more creative. A Teamsters work is never done !
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Actually nospin, I wasn't thinking of you so you threw yourself into that pot of water!

    I understand your frustration and appreciate the effort. When I first read the link wildgoose posted I thought for a moment that the report of 100% funding was good and this may bode well but then my ears went up and I started thinking. IBT doesn't like it when we do this you know! :wink:

    If the Western Fund is 100% or near 100% funded and with all the cries of upset going on across the declining membership why not raise the benefits to at least back to where they were. Think about it. Why not?

    With scary organ music in the background I now ask the all important question, do they know something lurks out there that they are not telling us? Also like CS, did they seize the contractual allocated healthcare increases and move them over into the pension side to help save the pension fund? Are they, like CS, buying current healthcare in 2006' soon to be 2007' with 2003' contract dollars? Like CS, did they give the individual employee the choice of either having this healthcare money reallocated or allowing the employee to know all the facts and what the situation is and then giving the employee a choice in reallocating some or all of his/her pay raise to cover such costs?

    Your comment of socialism is very close to the heart of the answer but it does boil down to the fact that the union preaches unity and brotherhood and we all share equally. Really!

    Well 2 question on that which get's to wildgoose's latest post with some good comments from him/her. (Don't know your gender goose so I didn't want to assume and offend)

    1) Why is it that some pension jurisdictions have a much better plan than others? OK, I'll be a good little communal citizen and throw in completely but let's not do this half-a#s. Let's go all the way. I'm now leader of the IBT and I have full and total control of the whole ball of wax. Starting immediately, all pension and healthcare funds will be collasped into one single plan and there will be a single payout for all based on years of service and age. All for one and one for all! No more CS, Western Fund, New England, or any of the smaller independent funds. You all be in the same and you will all get the same amount as currently paid out by CS or the Western fund or whichever is least.

    Now 2 things just happend. The first was a lot of rifle bolts slamming shut from the one's who come here and praise the good union pension as they are gonna shoot me. And you know what, I don't blame them at all. I'd do the same if them. Secondly, support for APWA just shot through the roof!:lol:

    2) The second item gets to wildgoose's comments and that is, how can a union official sit there and claim unity and brotherhood and all that other BS and tell us, "we're with you all the way" when in many cases they themselves draw multiple pensions and enjoy other perks we likely don't even know about? Do I think they should be paid well for their services? If they are doing a good job, yes, absolutley. However, no union official, even the IBT President should never, ever draw a pension large than the largest monthly pension payout for the average Teamster member. If you want more in retirement as a union official, do like the rest of the collective that you claim to be apart of. Take some of your hard earned (I'm trying to give them the benefit of doubt here) weekly pay and get in the 401k or some other individual investment vehicle to add supplimental income to your retirement years.

    You want great pension plans for all union members that are secure and offer good payouts? The first place to start is a push by the membership to have that above about no official getting more than average member rule laid in stone in the union by-laws along with an end to multiple pension draws. If you move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, then your credits move but again if there was only one plan then this practice would end now would it not! Maybe we just got a glimpse for one reason why there are so many differnt plans!

    Why TDU hasn't lead this charge more I've never understood and I wrote them about this back in the very early 90's along with one to Ron Carey. Ron did respond back with an "I Hear Ya!" but what changed? Nothing as I can see. Changed for the worse in our case. Hard to believe but there is one union effort I know of that in fact will do just this and it's APWA. Amazing how ahead of the curve these guys are in that respect. Van was way all over this already when I first talked to him over a year ago.

    Look, I know the report of near 100% funding for the Western fund is good and I know CS has had some improvement with the better stock market but also having taken our healthcare increases starting in 04' and will do so through the end of this current contract. This isn't some secret, it's on their website and in their quarterly magazine or you can call them and they will openly and forthrightly admit it on the phone. Oddly enough, CS just dramaticaly raised their pension payouts by about 40% but there's a catch. That 40% increase doesn't kick in for another 30 years. Lady at CS also explained this to me in detail on the phone.

    It all comes down to, what are the "devil in the details!"
  7. pretender

    pretender Active Member


    Excellent points! I have often rhetorically wondered why all of the funds could not be combined into one, so that all of us brothers and sisters could equally share. After all, we members of CS are "sharing" our benefits with the less fortunate retirees whose companies are no longer around...

    However, more importantly to me, is the point you bring up about the allocated healthcare increase going toward the pension. There are a lot of people like me (and I assume you), that could live with the reduced pension benefits, because we have 25+ years locked in at the old benefit level. The only thing that is holding us back, is the the lack of healthcare. I can't believe that the powers that be, whether it is UPS or IBT, realize this, and don't want to make healthcare available...
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I agree with your points about the healthcare and living with a reduced pension and I can even handle the 57 age retirement. What I'd like to see is the complete elimination of the retirement work rules as they only relate to non-IBT employers. It's ironic that a UPS manager can work 30 years at UPS, retire on Friday and start work on Monday at FedEx in a similar management capacity and UPS only wants to know where to send the retirement check. A friend of mine who retired from mangement back in the spring is now working for a logistics company and loving it. You think UPS cares? Nope!

    Truly amazing that we remain so blind to things like this and then proudly sing in lock step, "we are the union, blah, blah, blah" Did the union ever once look at statistics that show people who remain active in retirement generally live a much healthier life meaning their healthcare costs remain a lesser burden over time? Oh yeah, they're (CS) banking on the other part that setintary people in retirement generally die much quicker but there is a cost side to that equation. It also should be factored that prior to that early death (some cases that doesn't happen) those same folks run up a huge healthcare bill trying to stay alive. Those other active retirees generally are in very advanced years once reality of life's termination sets in and instead of advanced invasive and costly treatments of life prolonging, they are given treatments designed to just make the inevitable as comfortable as possible which are less costly than the more invasive drugs. Also if someone retires at 55 and remains active, then by the time real problems set in, they will be on medicare's nickle anyway and CS is off the hook.

    Personally, I guess they will do whatever they do but I'm looking to either put my wife or kids or maybe both in business for themselves and if that happens I can tell you right now that I will do a lot of "unpaid volunteer work!" Now I'll also be the first to admit that I didn't see the retiree fairy who left me that brand new pickup truck and loaded out bass boat in the driveway so I have no way of explaining that!

    I'm not a razor edge knife in the draw but I'm sharper than them!
  9. Ironshot

    Ironshot Member

    I see, hear this noise of 100% funded Western Conf. Fund...But could you provide a link to the news source? Maybe, a independant source?
    If, If it is 100% funded. Cuts have been made last I heard? Even with "redistribution" it won't be enough to fix anything with the CS or NE funds. So, keep doing the goosestep and sing on "brothers". I'll work for UPS contributions for UPSers only. Frankly, I don't believe in "Income redistribution" policies. They never have worked anywhere they have been applied. See if the kids in Chicago would go for a "redistribution" plan? (I see movement in the cement "futures" markets aleady.) Now the IBT "Fruitcakes" can chime in.
    I hope everyone had a safe and Happy Thanksgiving! (Peanuts & Fruitcakes)
  10. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Does anybody really know if the Western Conference fund is really 100% funded then why were there be a 30% reduction in future accruals ? Please let a western conference person chime in ? Thanks
  11. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund:
    Net Plan Assets: $26,318.9 million
    RPA 94 Current Liability: $31,508 million
    Funded Status: 93%
    Total Contributions: $1,068.7 million
    Underfunding Multiple: 1.0x

    Funded Status is computed by taking the Net Plan Assets and dividing them by 90% of the RPA 94 Current Liability.
    Funded Status = NPA divided by (RPA 94 Current Liability times .90)
    At least that's how Moody's calculates it, and they don't have an axe to grind. Others may calculate the funding ratio differently. Moody's explains their methodology in this August 2006, 16-page Adobe PDF document where they analize all the major pension funds. . . .
    Skip to pages 14-15 to compare your fund with other Teamsters and trucking industry funds. By Moody's formula, the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund is 93% funded (using 2004 data.) Meaning, for every $100 of future benefits the fund is obligated to pay, they only have $93 on hand to pay them with.

    An Underfunding Multiple of 1.0x means it would take one extra year's worth of employer contributions (above and beyond the normal, scheduled employer contributions) to bring the fund up to the 100% funding level.

    Also, there are many assumptions that go into manageing a pension fund. If you assumed you would earn, say, 8% on you assets for the year, and you only earned 7%, you just came up short by over $263 million dollars!!! What if you did this several years in a row, or what if you only earned 6% or 5% or actually lost money? If, say, you expected to earn 8%, but actually lost 8%, you are 16% short. That's over $4.2 billion. You've got some "splainin" to do.

    You could also be wrong on the number of participants who will get vested, or die, or retire early, or the number of companies who will go out of business, and other factors, as well. A pension plan must balance itself not just for the current year, but for many years to come. Many funds are in trouble. Even the ones that seem financially sound, may have problems that are known today, but which won't surface until several years into the future. Actuaries determine if a fund has a future funding problem, and the trustees must take action now to correct it.

    The new pension law requires that funds not only have a plan to cure their known funding deficencies, but that they avoid future funding shortfalls as well.

    Note that fund trustees can not usually cut benefits already earned, so cuts must be made in future accruals. This other well-intentioned law (ERISA) has the effect of making cuts all the more severe in future accruals, where they are concentrated, because the cuts can't be spread over all participants equally.

    The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund is probably currently funded at a better rate than the 93% cited above because of the benefit cuts that have reduced it's liability, and better investment performance that has increased net assets. The fund's 2005 Form 5500 should be available online soon at Free Erisa dot com.
    Welcome to freeErisa.com!
  12. Bill

    Bill Member

    UPS realizes that there is a problem, and that is one of the reasons that they wanted to take over the pension fund back in 1997. UPS offered more pension money, and kept the 30 and out, but the Teamsters (who are allegedly working for us) rejected the UPS offer, and "rewarded" us with less pension money. Under the 'best contract ever", we lost our benefits, suffered pension cuts, union dues went up, and the cost of inflation has reduced your $5 per hour raise over the length of the contract to less buying power than before this contract took effect. The Teamsters keep telling its members that they have years of experience negotiating contracts. If this is the best that the Teamsters can negotiate, then I don't want them negotiating future contracts. UPS has no reason to contribute more money into the Teamster pension plan, since we receive less than half of what we should be getting. Why should UPS have to pay for other workers in other companies? If the APWA took over, this problem would be solved. Everyone working for UPS would win under this scenario, including management. Wake up already. Withdraw from the Teamster union, and send these do-nothing leaders a message that they understand. When they start receiving less union dues, their paycheck will go down too. Maybe then, and only then, will the Teamster leaders do something. Let's see if they like receiving a pay cut!!!!!!
  13. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    UPDATE . . . A letter to Contributing Employers sent by the Chairman of the Employer Trustees, dated November 13, 2006 . . .
    The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust
    states the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund is "fully funded" as of January 1, 2006.

    ". . . The Trust had fallen into less than fully funded status during the declines in the investment markets between 2000 and 2002. . .

    . . . the Trustees of the Fund, both the Employer and Union, were committed to returning the Trust to a fully funded status as soon as it was possible to do so.

    Therefore, I am delighted to advise you that this commitment has been realized. Our Plan’s enrolled actuary, as well as a separate independent actuarial firm retained by the Trust, has advised the Trustees that as of January 1, 2006, the Trust no longer has an unfunded vested benefit liability (UVBL). This means there is no withdrawal liability for employers who withdraw from the Plan in 2006. . . . "
    - - - - -
    Note that full funding means that the fund has 100% of the money on hand to pay all present and future currently vested pension benefits. However this assumes all of the actuarial assumptions made by the plan trustees are accurate. Lots of things can go wrong with a pension plan, especially less than expected investment gains, and sometimes even investment losses. Therefore, it's best to "overfund" the plan up to 110 or 120 or even 130 and 140% so as to be prepared for any adversity in the future. A 130% fund that looses 30% of it assets in a stock market downturn, for example, would still be 100% funded. It's prudent to overfund so you are prepared for the inevitable rainy days.

    Visit . . . The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust
    See my lengthy discussion of the entire UPS/Teamster pension situation here . . .
  14. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Per the formula listed on the TDu site a 30 year employee would now get 4950 a month when he retires? Not too shabby.
  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    wild goose am I correct? Is someone with 30 years now retiring with 4950 a month. If so whats wrong?
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    wild goose appears to be reluctant to answer the question.
  17. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Tieguy i am not in the western conference so i do not know how their pension payouts are and if that amount is true it is very good but at 93% funded and futurre accruels reduced by 30% i suspect the insurance will be having some shortfalls and the retiring age will escallate to 62 if not 65 ! Poor old package car drivers will be like fat old people in their 80`s because there ain`t none !
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    ok thats fair. I was surprised to hear the alarms about the western conference since it appears that they are making some gains to the positive.
  19. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Hey tieguy the western conference is doing good on their investments ? Why are they getting the pension cuts ? Or is it a way of trying to fix our Central States maybe ? Like i said if i were in the western conference or upstate NY or IAM i probably wouldn`t even be in here but we are not treated like a partner ! Unity - heh right !
  20. PADriver

    PADriver New Member

    I have recently read (on the Western Conference Web site) that we of the Western Conference have reached fully funded status again. With that full funding the trust will timidly begin raising accruals again. For 2007 the accrual will go from 1.2% to 1.65%. I would like to see more, but I am realistic. I have seen many companies take over their employee pension funds and then wipe them out leaving the employees with nothing. I will be eligible to retire with Teamsters and UPS at age 51. I will not have work restrictions if I work in a non-Teamsters covered field. Additionally I have been advised to notify the Trust about my work intentions before beginning the work. This gives the Trust time to let me know if my intended work choice will violate the pension rules of the Trust.Based on my annual statement and doing the math with the new accrual and UPS's annual payment into the Trust on my behalf I will be drawing close to $5,000.00 per month at 51. That is not so bad, now is it? And the thing is I don't have to retire at 51 if I don't want to. I make way more working that I will in retirement. I get 7 weeks paid vacation every year. I have a nice bid route. My college age kids get their medical paid for by UPS. We have maintanance of benefits here, so no medical cost increases. The company has paid for it all. All of the senior drivers that I work with, myself included own at least two houses, or a nice house and a motorhome. Everyone has nice cars and takes nice vacations. The company in general allows us to work as much OT as we want so if money gets tight we can catch up easy. And no lay offs, most senior drivers with bid routes are pretty much going to work every day. About the only reason to retire is that you don't want to do the work any more or you want to make room for some of the kids coming up through the ranks. And just so you know I am not a company management plant or anything, I am actually the shop steward in my building and by working within the confines of the contract that we agreed to I have had a pretty darn good life at UPS.As far as merging all of the pension trusts into one, I strongly oppose. The West took the right steps at the right time to protect the Trust. All of the other Pension Trusts need to do the same. We out here in the West forfitted a lot by reducing the accruals. I will work longer because of it. But I am thankfull that the Trust was prudent and that I will have a strong pension when I do choose to retire.