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 Union Issues
What happened in the 2008 contract??
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: 653032" data-attributes="member: 18044"><p>PobreCarlos,</p><p> </p><p>You'll just have to adjust to the use of the term Insolvency. It's the Law (ERISA). And the government agency that insures pension plans is the PBGC. Their proceedures for dealing with Insolvency are the official proceedures, and they matter, regardless whether you like it or not.</p><p> </p><p>The PBGC insurance plan that insures multi-employer plans (like Central States) is in deficit, but the PBGC's seperate single-employer plan, (that insures UPS plans) is running a deficit about 25 times as great. I wouldn't call the former insolvent.</p><p> </p><p>Central States' $19.3 billion in assets will in fact last quite a while, as the retirement bill is not all coming due at once. Most participants can't retire now as you claim. Indeed, one of the major complaints against Central States was that early retirement was taken away and they had to wait until age 65 to retire. The quarterly Central States Financial Reports indicate the average number of retirees has been holding steady from one period to the next. </p><p> </p><p>And let's not forget that Central States has money coming in every month in the form of new contributions, which can only add to the length of time it will take to exhaust the $19.3 billion.</p><p> </p><p>I don't understand your reference to the "de minimis rule." You were claiming <u>most</u> of the small employers <u>in the fund</u> aren't sharing the burden. But the "de minimis rule" applies only to <u>a few</u> small employers who <u>leave</u> the fund.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 653032, member: 18044"] PobreCarlos, You'll just have to adjust to the use of the term Insolvency. It's the Law (ERISA). And the government agency that insures pension plans is the PBGC. Their proceedures for dealing with Insolvency are the official proceedures, and they matter, regardless whether you like it or not. The PBGC insurance plan that insures multi-employer plans (like Central States) is in deficit, but the PBGC's seperate single-employer plan, (that insures UPS plans) is running a deficit about 25 times as great. I wouldn't call the former insolvent. Central States' $19.3 billion in assets will in fact last quite a while, as the retirement bill is not all coming due at once. Most participants can't retire now as you claim. Indeed, one of the major complaints against Central States was that early retirement was taken away and they had to wait until age 65 to retire. The quarterly Central States Financial Reports indicate the average number of retirees has been holding steady from one period to the next. And let's not forget that Central States has money coming in every month in the form of new contributions, which can only add to the length of time it will take to exhaust the $19.3 billion. I don't understand your reference to the "de minimis rule." You were claiming [U]most[/U] of the small employers [U]in the fund[/U] aren't sharing the burden. But the "de minimis rule" applies only to [U]a few[/U] small employers who [U]leave[/U] the fund. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
What happened in the 2008 contract??
Top