Tag Archives: retirement

Retirement, Union, UPS

Retirees better listen up

Dear Retiree,

As I write this Teamster retirees from across the Midwest and South are marching in Chicago to defend workers’ pensions.

They’re rallying at a meeting called by the Central States Pension Fund to brief Teamster officials on plans to cut retiree benefits.

Can you make a one-time contribution today to support actions like this to protect our pensions?

“We’re here today because we worked hard, sometimes gave up raises, to earn a decent pension,” said Greg Smith, from Akron Ohio.

Teamsters like Greg are the life-blood of the growing movement to defend our pensions—and TDU has their back.

TDU Organizer Peter Landon is on the ground today in Chicago helping to organize the rally. TDU has been working with pension committees in various states and providing the logistics for today’s rally.

TDU is going to continue to press the fight to defend pensions.

We’re going to keep making noise and making sure Teamster voices are heard from the Central States Pension Fund to Washington, DC—along with our allies at the Pension Rights Center, AARP and other unions.

Can you make your support for pension justice count over the long haul by signing up for a monthly contribution on your credit card?

In solidarity,

Ken Paff

Action, Corporate Greed, Political, Retirement

Your New Congress at Work for YOU!

What Retirees Need to Know about the New Federal Pension Rules
Mark Miller / Reuters
Dec. 18, 2014
     Only a small percentage of retirees are directly affected by the new rule.
But future legislation may lead to more pension cutbacks.
The last-minute deal to allow retiree pension benefit cuts as part of the federal spending bill for 2015 passed by Congress last week has set off shock waves in the U.S. retirement
Buried in the $1.1 trillion “Cromnibus” legislation signed this week by President Barack Obama was a provision that aims to head off a looming implosion of multiemployer pension plans—traditional defined benefit plans jointly funded by groups of employers. The pension reforms affect only retirees in struggling multiemployer pension plans, but any retiree living on a defined benefit pension could rightly wonder: Am I next
“Even people who aren’t impacted directly by this would have to ask themselves: If they’re doing that, what’s to stop them from doing it to me?” says Jeff Snyder, vice president of Cammack Retirement Group, a consulting and investment advisory firm that works with retirement plans.
The answer: plenty. Private sector pensions are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prevents cuts for retirees in most cases. The new legislation doesn’t affect private sector workers in single-employer plans. Workers and retirees in public sector pension plans also are not affected by the law.
Here are answers to some of the key questions workers and retirees should be asking in the legislation’s wake.
Q: Cutting benefits for people who already are retired seems unfair. Why was this done?
A: Proponents argue it was better to preserve some pension benefit for workers in the most troubled plans rather than letting plans collapse. The multiemployer plans are backstopped by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC), the federally sponsored agency that insures private sector pensions. The multiemployer fund was on track to run out of money within 10 years—a date that could be hastened if healthy companies withdraw from their plans. If the multiemployer backup system had been allowed to collapse, pensioners would have been left with no benefit.
Opponents, including AARP and the Pension Rights Center, argued that cutting benefits for current retirees was draconian and established a bad precedent.
Q: Who will be affected by the new law? If I have a traditional pension, should I worry?
A: Only pensioners in multiemployer plans are at risk, and even there, the risk is limited to retirees in “red zone” plans—those that are severely underfunded. Of the 10 million participants in multiemployer plans, perhaps 1 million will see some cuts. The new law also prohibits any cuts for beneficiaries over age 80, or who receive a disability pension.
Q: What will be the size of the cuts?
A: That is up to plan trustees. However, the maximum cuts permitted under the law are dramatic. Many retirees in these troubled plans were well-paid union workers who receive substantial pension benefits. For a retiree with 25 years of service and a $25,000 annual benefit, the maximum annual cut permitted under the law is $13,200, according to a cutback calculator at the Pension Rights Center’s website.
The cuts must be approved by a majority of all the active and retired workers in a plan (not just a majority of those who vote).
Q: How do I determine if I’m at risk?
A: Plan sponsors are required to send out an annual funding notice indicating the funding status of your program. Plans in the red zone must send workers a “critical status alert.” If you’re in doubt, Snyder suggests, “just call your retirement plan administrator,” Snyder says. “Simply ask, if you have cause for concern. Is your plan underfunded?”
The U.S. Department of Labor’s website maintains a list of plans on the critical list.
Q: How quickly would the cuts be made?
A: If a plan’s trustees decide to make cuts, a notice would be sent to workers. Snyder says implementation would take at least six months, and might require “a year or more.”
Q: Am I safe if I am in a single employer pension plan?
A: When the PBGC takes over a private sector single employer plan, about 85% of beneficiaries receive the full amount of their promised benefit. The maximum benefit paid by PBGC this year is $59,320.
Q: Does this law make it more likely that we’ll see efforts to cut other retiree benefits?
A: That will depend on the political climate in Washington, and in statehouses across the country. In a previous column I argued that the midterm elections results boost the odds of attacks on public sector pensions, Social Security and Medicare.
Sadly, the Cromnibus deal should serve as a warning that full pension benefits aren’t a sure thing anymore. So having a Plan B makes sense. “If you have a defined benefit pension, great,” Snyder says. “But you should still be putting money away to make sure you have something to rely on in the future.”

Retirement, Union, UPS

Republican Pension Cuts and You

FAQs: What the Pension Bill Means for You

The ink is still drying on the pension cut deal that was attached in the dead of night to Congress’s spending bill. Some FAQs can be answered now; TDU will provide updated information as it becomes available

Does this bill mandate pension cuts?

No. This bill permits “deeply troubled” pension plans, those which could become insolvent over the next 10-20 years, to cut already-earned pensions of retirees and active workers. These cuts will be up to the trustees of the pension fund; the trustees are 50% union officials, and 50% management reps. No cuts will go into effect immediately.

Could this affect other Teamsters, or just those in the Central States Pension Fund?

Most Teamster funds will be completely unaffected. The Western Conference Fund is in the “green zone.” Other large Teamster funds, such as New England, Local 705, Local 710, Local 804, Local 177, Joint Council 83, and most others will be unaffected, even if they are in the “red zone.” For example, Local 804 just won significant pension benefit increases in their recent contract.

Certain deeply troubled small Teamster funds may be affected. New York Local 707’s pension fund is nearly insolvent, as freight jobs dried up, and their biggest employer YRC got concessions to drastically cut their contributions to all pension funds. So we expect the Local 707 Fund to consider pension cuts.

How will it affect Teamsters in the Central States Fund?

The Director of the Fund, Thomas Nyhan, was a principal lobbying force for this bill, and has stated that CSPF will impose cuts on retirees and active Teamsters. The Trustees of the fund, who are 50% management and 50% Teamster officials politically aligned with Hoffa, support the bill and support cutting pensions. They will make the decisions on when, who, and how much to cut, within the bounds of the new legislation.

Have Central States officials indicated how much they will cut?

In the past, Al Nelson, the Benefit Services Director of Central States, stated that a cut of about 30% would be what is needed.

But now the legislation has changed that. It requires that workers (so-called “orphans”) who retired from companies that went bankrupt (such as CF, Allied Systems, Preston, or Hostess, for example)  be cut first and hardest.

This horrendous language is contained on page 81 of the pension legislation.

At this point, no one knows what the cuts will be, because we do not know how this legislation will be interpreted or applied. The next move will be by the Central States trustees.

The legislation also has protective language for some retirees: those over 80, those receiving only a disability pension, and to a partial degree, those who are 75-80.

How will this affect UPS retirees in the Central States Fund?

UPS bought enough influence in Congress to save an estimated $2 billion through a special interest loophole that shifts the company’s cost burdens on to Teamster retirees who will face additional pension cuts as a result.

On pages 81-82 of the pension legislation there is a loophole dedicated to exactly one corporation, UPS. This loophole means that CSPF will probably not be able to cut the pensions of UPS workers who retired after January 1, 2008, because they are “Priority 3” in order of cuts (the best priority).  

UPS retirees do not benefit one cent from this loophole because their pensions are already protected by the contract. Article 34, Section 1 of the current UPS master agreement, requires UPS to make up the full pension to UPSers if CSPF imposes cuts.

UPS’s special interest loophole means the company won’t have to make up for any pension cuts. As a result, all non-UPS retirees will face $2 billion more in pension cuts. Retirees are footing the bill so that UPS doesn’t have to pay the obligations it agreed to in the contract.

It is not known if the “UPS Exemption” also covers UPS Teamsters who retired from Central States before January 1, 2008. These Teamster retirees deserve to know their status and if they may face pension cuts.

Will Teamsters and retirees get a vote prior to any cuts?

A ‘fact sheet’ issued by the bills sponsors claims that workers and retirees will get a vote before cuts could be made. But this is not true because of additional loopholes in the deal.

First, those in Central States can be deprived of a vote, because it is a large fund and its failure could seriously impact the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

To add insult to injury: a majority of all participants – not just voters – would be required for a No result. In other words, not voting would count as a vote in favor of a pension cut!

If Central States makes these cuts, will the fund be secure?

Maybe. Certainly slashing the benefits would improve the bottom line. But in the long run a pension plan needs contributing employers, and here is where the Hoffa administration has failed badly. They severely undermined the Fund by letting UPS pull out 45,000 participants, and they have not organized new companies into the fund. Central States set up a special “hybrid” kind of plan to allow new companies to join the fund with zero withdrawal liability. It was designed for organizing. But it has not been used for new companies. That has to change.

Will Teamster officials and Central States officials have to take cuts?

That remains to be seen. Because their work for the fund or local unions will not count as “orphan” time, they may or may not face cuts.  But Thomas Nyhan, the fund director, is paid $662,060, so he probably isn’t worried. Neither is Hoffa: he is in the lucrative Family Protection Plan, which pays far more than a working Teamster could dream of collecting.

Sign up for email updates at www.tdu.org and like us on facebook.

The Pension Rights Center’s backgrounder on the pension-cut bill

TDU