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
when to retire?
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="Ms.PacMan" data-source="post: 2576466" data-attributes="member: 4656"><p>Actually in 2008, ERISA (not the Treasury Dept) prevented any reduction in benefits to those in pay status and restricted cuts to future beneficiaries and then only to severely troubled plans.</p><p><em>Which is why UPS bought us out of the plan - and that had to be approved by the Treasury Dept.</em></p><p></p><p>In 2014, the Treasury Dept was empowered to enact the terms of the Kline-Miller act (MPRA)<strong>. </strong>Your chronology doesn't work. How could the Teamsters possibly know in <strong>2008</strong> terms of a bill passed in <strong>2014</strong> would give the Treasury Dept authority to rule on pension benefit cuts?</p><p></p><p><em>The Teamsters didn't initiate the buyout - UPS did. But the Teamsters did think that the buyout would shore up the fund.</em></p><p></p><p>In 2008, the Teamsters UPS NMA negotiators were being vigilant in anticipating negative future Congressional acts.</p><p></p><p>There were several reasons given why the "Rescue Plan" was rejected but I've not seen any concern for the "burden on UPS" listed.</p><p>The Treasury Dept suggested cuts based on three levels, and UPS beneficiaries/participants were to get the least cuts. However the Treasury Dept suggested the plan failed to equitably spread cuts.</p><p></p><p><em>Exactly - the cuts were most severe for current employees (my own estimated pension cut was 70%) and UPS would have to make up that difference. Whereas retirees (not made whole) would have the littlest cuts which would have placed an enormous burden on UPS. </em></p><p></p><p>I've read the Treasury Dept rejection letter and many accompanying letters of theory exhaustively. You might enjoy reading the UPS lobbyists written section in the Kline-Miller Act,</p><p><u>26 U.S. Code § 432 (e) (9) (D) (vii) (lll) (bb)</u> which requires (make whole) terms <strong>in a CBA</strong> to be in place for the third level of reductions to even be considered.</p><p>Looks like terms in a CBA are necessary after all.</p><p></p><p><em>The Kline Miller act of 2014 has nothing to do with UPS buying out the pension in 2008 (as you said above) therefore that code in the act about requiring terms in a CBA doesn't apply and wasn't even in existence in 2008. There was no law or act in 2008 requiring the make whole agreement to be in a CBA. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>The Treasury Dept required the make whole agreement when UPS exited the fund so that when CS failed the PBGC wouldn't be bankrupted.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>And like I said before I think the only reason it's even in the contract is so the Teamsters can take some perverse credit for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ms.PacMan, post: 2576466, member: 4656"] Actually in 2008, ERISA (not the Treasury Dept) prevented any reduction in benefits to those in pay status and restricted cuts to future beneficiaries and then only to severely troubled plans. [I]Which is why UPS bought us out of the plan - and that had to be approved by the Treasury Dept.[/I] In 2014, the Treasury Dept was empowered to enact the terms of the Kline-Miller act (MPRA)[B]. [/B]Your chronology doesn't work. How could the Teamsters possibly know in [B]2008[/B] terms of a bill passed in [B]2014[/B] would give the Treasury Dept authority to rule on pension benefit cuts? [I]The Teamsters didn't initiate the buyout - UPS did. But the Teamsters did think that the buyout would shore up the fund.[/I] In 2008, the Teamsters UPS NMA negotiators were being vigilant in anticipating negative future Congressional acts. There were several reasons given why the "Rescue Plan" was rejected but I've not seen any concern for the "burden on UPS" listed. The Treasury Dept suggested cuts based on three levels, and UPS beneficiaries/participants were to get the least cuts. However the Treasury Dept suggested the plan failed to equitably spread cuts. [I]Exactly - the cuts were most severe for current employees (my own estimated pension cut was 70%) and UPS would have to make up that difference. Whereas retirees (not made whole) would have the littlest cuts which would have placed an enormous burden on UPS. [/I] I've read the Treasury Dept rejection letter and many accompanying letters of theory exhaustively. You might enjoy reading the UPS lobbyists written section in the Kline-Miller Act, [U]26 U.S. Code § 432 (e) (9) (D) (vii) (lll) (bb)[/U] which requires (make whole) terms [B]in a CBA[/B] to be in place for the third level of reductions to even be considered. Looks like terms in a CBA are necessary after all. [I]The Kline Miller act of 2014 has nothing to do with UPS buying out the pension in 2008 (as you said above) therefore that code in the act about requiring terms in a CBA doesn't apply and wasn't even in existence in 2008. There was no law or act in 2008 requiring the make whole agreement to be in a CBA. The Treasury Dept required the make whole agreement when UPS exited the fund so that when CS failed the PBGC wouldn't be bankrupted.[/I] And like I said before I think the only reason it's even in the contract is so the Teamsters can take some perverse credit for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
when to retire?
Top