My brother's Teamster's Union pension was just cut....

[Punkingal]

Cut from $2700 to $1300. This is so awful....his wife is recovering (we hope) from lung cancer, and he has to spend all his time caring for her. He worked for 30 years and this was supposed to be there to take care of them. I'm heartsick. I come from a family of Teamster's Union workers, dad, brothers, brothers-in-law...I can't seem to take this in. How the world has changed...I knew that, but this kind of thing just brings it home in a big way.

[CTyankee]

1. what in the hell happened? this is not right...

[Waldorf]

8. The teamster pensions are running out of money.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/07/teamsters-pension-fund-warns-400000-of-cuts.html

He said the Central States fund had been hit by powerful outside forces — the deregulation of the trucking industry, declining union membership, two big stock crashes and the aging of the population — and it was currently paying out $3.46 in pension benefits to retirees for every dollar it received in employer contributions.

[TipTok]

13. Sustainability...

[saturnsring]

2. who cut it?

[Punkingal]

6. The union did...they cut most everyone.

[Blus4u]

82. Omaha Steve posted about this a couple weeks ago.

Peace

[Omaha Steve]

84. Gov mandated managers that have included Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust.

Go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11178170 or here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/102410005

Obama made a deal last year with Congress that didn't help.

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/devastating-proposed-pension-cuts-rock-teamsters-in-midlands/article_5f03ab36-1665-5c44-a254-17c1c8ec9370.html

Snips: There are still several steps in the review process before the cuts can be implemented, including a vote by those affected.

Nyhan said the fund has been under a consent decree with the U.S. government for 35 years that dictates all assets of the plan are overseen by independent asset managers cleared by the Department of Labor and employed by the court — managers that have included Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust.

Unions have tried for years to get congressional help on underfunded pensions, but Congress has resisted any kind of bailout. Instead, it made a change to the law late last year that allows multi-employer pension plans projected to be insolvent in the foreseeable future to reduce benefits in an effort to keep the fund afloat.

Those over 80 or disabled are shielded from cuts, but others — like Ziemba, who hauled freight for various companies for many years before retiring in 2002 — are getting hit hard.

He said pension funds tried to get the federal government to help them out several years ago when Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate, but were unsuccessful.

FULL story at link.

[Punkingal]

92. Thanks for the link...

I will pass it on to my brother.

[jwirr]

96. Glass-Steagall happened. All these pensions are now in the

investment banks instead of local commercial banks that invest only in low risk local investments. That is my guess as to what happened.

[Omaha Steve]

98. I started an entire new post on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027256471

[SheilaT]

3. I consider myself fortunate that my own very small pension

was cut by two thirds some years before I started collecting, and it was never going to be an amount I'd count on. I worked for over ten years for one of the predecessors of USAir, and in one of their several bankruptcies they got out from under their pension obligations, and what I now get from the PBGC is about one third of what it would have been. As I said, I'm fortunate that I never expected much money there, and that the cut was well before I started collecting. Sometimes I do think it would be nice to have that extra money.

But your brother has been depending on that money to live on, and it wasn't all that much to begin with. I trust he also gets SS, but even so, the loss is huge.

[Punkingal]

7. yes he gets SS...and he knew this was coming...but it still sucks.

[SheilaT]

10. Of course it sucks.

I hope my comments on my situation don't sound virtuous and smug. To the contrary, I honestly think I'm lucky that while I always knew I'd get a small pension from that job (which I left when I was 31 years old), but that it would be quite trivial. In fact, I possibly made a mistake by not collecting that at the earliest age possible, but oh well.

I am able to put off collecting SS until I turn 70. I understand only about 2% of people wait to that age.

[NBachers]

31. Me too- I'm 66 now, and still working. I had no idea the percentage was so small.

I'm toying with the idea of working past 70, and plowing the SS and 401k into some account. That is, if the 401k still exists at that point.

[hfojvt]

54. I don't think it pays to wait

My 2008 report (I cannot seem to find a more recent one) said
$592 at age 62
$862 at age 67
$1,070 at age 70

8 years is 96 months so 96*592 = $56,832

leaving aside any interest that might be earned on that money (for one thing because most of it will probably be spent)

1,070 - 592 = $478
$56,832/$478 = 118 months = almost ten years

Granted, my dad is now 82 and my mom 80, but that's no guarantee that I will live that long. Second, you are money ahead until at least 80. Even for people who survive that long, quality of life can drop way off. For example, my dad's aunt lived to be 94. She died in 1991. Well, we visited her in the nursing home in 1984 and she was miserable.

So yeah, she got extra money for those 7 years, but that extra money didn't really do her any good at all. And both of her brothers died at 79.5 and dad's oldest brother was 73. (although his 2nd brother is now 85, and seems to be doing fairly well (although his 78 year old wife is having memory issues.)

Anyway, my plan is to collect at the first available opportunity - age 62.

[Blus4u]

81. Be sure to investigate thoroughly before pulling the trigger on SS at 62.

I believe you can only earn $15K per year when you draw your reduced amount at 62.
If you exceed the $15K limit you have to pay double or triple the overage amount back to SS.
This penalty stays in effect until you reach the age where you would qualify for 100% of your SS.
I was born in 1951 and my full qualifying age is 66.

Peace

[WinkyDink]

100. I plan to collect in late 2016, age 67---not wait to 70 BECAUSE: I had the S.S. Office calculate my

in toto payments from age 67-->85 and from age 70-->85 (my arbitrary "end date&quot . The former TOTAL SUM was about $55K more than the latter, EVEN THOUGH the MONTHLY comparisons are to the advantage of the latter.

(Ages 65 and 66 did not benefit by either comparison formula.)

Edited to add: I currently collect my late husband's SS as his widow. So that was another major factor in my calculations.

[BernieFan57]

4. Expect more of this shit unless we elect more like Bernie Sanders.

We're dying a death of thousands of cuts.

Nothing ever happens to our advantage, it's alway a chipping away of good things we used to enjoy.

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. Senator Sanders can not alter the fundamentals of math. n/t

[PatrickforO]

27. Actually he could, if he went nose to nose with the bankers, got rid of the Fed, and

nationalized the central bank.

Of course, that isn't being talked about now, but it's a nice thought. Because you know this is supposed to be a government of, by and for us, the people, and it seems to me that our government should help guarantee our pensions.

Call me Don Quixote, I guess...

And I'm really sorry about this Teamster's pension. It totally sucks.

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. None of what you suggest will solve the problem the pension fund is experiencing.

You just can not get the returns necessary to make up for the loss of contributing members.

If you want to look for a place to lay blame, look to the 40 plus year campaign by conservatives to demonize union membership and the constituent lack of interest on the part of the average American worker, specifically truck drivers.

People seem to think that pension fund money can just be made to magically appear or somehow be guaranteed by government mandate. There is simply no way to expect a contribution of 10% of a salary over the course of 25 or 30 years to miraculously transform into a 60% (or whatever) payout for another potential 30 years.


It is truly unfortunate, but this is a fact (tongue firmly planted in cheek);

People live too long.

Pensions were fine when a worker would work till he was 60 or 65 but had a life expectancy of 80 or less, typically 75 or so. Now people routinely live into their late 80's and as such, you have this increasing pool of aging pension receivers relying on a shrinking pool of pension contributors.

[Major Nikon]

53. It isn't magic, nor does it need to be

Changes in life expectancy wasn't the problem. It was mismanagement. A pension fund should never rely on existing workers to fund retirees.

A 10% contribution of salary over a career most certainly can provide for a very lucrative retirement. Millions of people have built substantial 401K accounts in just that way.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. "A pension fund should never rely on existing workers to fund retirees. "

A pension fund relies on two things;

1) Returns on it's investment portfolio that are appropriate to meet its obligations, and

2) a steady stream of new contributors.

The Teamster fund has apparently been unable to do either. If the returns are a result "mismanagement" then they are no different than any other pension fund out there. It isn't managed by your average Joe. They use professional money managers, consultants, brokerages and analysts.

A 10% contribution of salary over a career most certainly can provide for a very lucrative retirement.

Sure. When the length of that retirement was 20 years or less and there was a steady stream of new contributors.

FWIW, I am a Teamster, but my company does not take part in any pension fund, instead they offer a 401(k).

[philosslayer]

73. Well thats what Social Security does

[Major Nikon]

91. Social Security is NOT a pension plan. It's a government sponsored insurance plan.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. That's so cute that you would think that.

[Major Nikon]

95. Not as cute as not knowing what OASDI stands for.

[PatrickforO]

58. Oh but it would. Redeeming pensions would be a specific 'project' the government would

print money for. Every one of those Teamster pensions could be made whole. Seriously - there's a book you should read called 'Web of Debt' that shows how this was actually done at times in the history of this country. The argument against the government printing its own money is that there will be too much inflation. This isn't true because a) as the money supply is expanded, demand for goods and services also expands, and b) if the government 'borrowed' this money that these pensioners need from the bankers instead of printing it, the money supply would still come out of 'thin air,' and the interest we paid on it would itself cause scarcity and inflation.

The government, if it nationalized the central bank and printed the money necessary for each thing it wanted to do, could create thousands of jobs on infrastructure projects, make troubled pensions whole, fund single payer healthcare and ensure free tuition at all colleges and universities. How do you think the Land Grant colleges worked?

Isn't that a hell of a lot better for the people than 40 years of union busting? It's a different way of thinking, because such a policy would bring about abundance instead of scarcity.

[A HERETIC I AM]

64. Well, until such time that you can convince Congress to do such a thing, it is a rather pointless...

exercise.

It does not solve the problem at hand, stated in post #8 above;

He said the Central States fund had been hit by powerful outside forces — the deregulation of the trucking industry, declining union membership, two big stock crashes and the aging of the population — and it was currently paying out $3.46 in pension benefits to retirees for every dollar it received in employer contributions.

[PatrickforO]

65. You're right. It doesn't. And Congress won't do a damned thing unless

millions of us are standing up to pressure them to do so. That is why we have so much corporate propaganda, dumbed-down schools, a new right wing effort to buy student governments in colleges and universities, the Citizens United ruling and reality TV. The oligarchs, particularly the bankers on Wall Street, do not even want Americans to realize what they COULD do.

[A HERETIC I AM]

66. You mean this, more or less;

[PatrickforO]

67. That's great!

[Blus4u]

85. I believe many of the big integrated steel companies saddled the government with their

pension fund liabilities when they went bankrupt in the 70's and early 80's.
This sounds something like you describe.

Peace

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. Printing money without undergirding economic growth causes currency inflation.

Edited to add -- which translates into currency devaluation which, in turn, destroys the value of those who worked to earn what they currently possess.

[PatrickforO]

102. That is a fallacy because inflation is based on too many dollars chasing too few goods and services

However, if the money supply is expanded, this means demand for goods and services will rise, and production will rise correspondingly. If production rises and the result is more available goods and services, then inflation will not happen. Again, that is a fallacy promoted by the big bankers for over a century now.

Now, about currency devaluation, you do have a point, because if all of a sudden the USA decided to scrap the Fed and nationalize its central bank, Wall Street would surely fight back by attempting to call loans faster than they could be paid off, thus contracting the money supply. These 'raids' would at first devalue the dollar.

But you should look into this, Unicorn. This nation's whole political history, up to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act on December 22, 1913, is the story of the battle between the United States and foreign (and then domestic) bankers. While we can say that if the US government nationalized the central bank, they would literally create money as needed - out of thin air.

The thing you have to remember is that the Fed, which is owned by Citibank and JP Morgan Chase, ALSO creates money out of thin air.

The only difference is that if the government does it, we stay debt free. If the Fed does it, we owe private bankers interest on the money created. Big difference.

[Yupster]

80. Pension funds generally use long term corporate bonds

for a large chunk of their investment mix.

Long term corporate bonds just 109 years ago paid 7-8 %. Now they're paying below 5 %. But many pensions are still using over 7 % for their assumed return. Like you said, it's just math. You can do something about it or ignore it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

108. Pension funds generally use a wide mix of asset classes.

including but not at all limited to;

Individual stocks
Stock options, - puts, calls, covered calls, etc.
Credit swaps
Currency swaps
Foreign bonds
All manner of domestic bonds, including Mortgage Backed Securities, US Treasury securities and all types of corporates, from triple "A" to triple "C"
Commodity contracts as well as Futures contracts
Exchange Traded Funds
Closed End Funds
And a whole host of other assets that most people don't come close to.

And FWIW, you don't have to go back 109 years to find bond yields that high.

In the 80's under Reagan, the 30 Year Treasury bond was yielding in excess of 13% for a time and had a 10% or higher coupon for months. Those series are now finally being redeemed and thankfully, being covered with bonds at less than 4% coupon.

Current high grade, long term corporate paper yields about a point above the 30 year Treas.

[Yupster]

109. Yes my 109 years ago

was supposed to be 10 years ago.

It's also true that pension funds use a wide mix of investments, but corporate bonds has always been a very large portion of it, pick your own percentage whether it's 40 % or 70 %.

Either way, you're not going to get an 8 % return if 50 % of the money is getting under 4 % and the other half goes up and down with the market. Many of these pension funds are assuming an unreasonable return rate in today's world of investments.

[Omaha Steve]

88. A bailout like the one proposed by Sanders!!!

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/devastating-proposed-pension-cuts-rock-teamsters-in-midlands/article_5f03ab36-1665-5c44-a254-17c1c8ec9370.html

Snip:
She pointed to proposals to address the issue on Capitol Hill, including one from Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now that Capitol Hill is dominated by fiscally conservative Republicans, a bailout like the one proposed by Sanders is a non-starter, Nyhan said.

[PatrickforO]

103. I had one other thought on this.

In 2008, we were forced to bail out Wall Street. No one asked, Congress just did it.

Why not bail out the Teamsters?

[A HERETIC I AM]

107. If congress had not done that, the economy would have collapsed

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2015, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

The same can it be said regarding the Teamster pension fund

[jwirr]

97. No put he can with our help stop the investment banks from

gambling with our pensions. Restore Glass-Steagall.

[former9thward]

101. The Teamster pension plan is run by the Teamster Union.

If anyone gambled with it, it was the union.

[Skittles]

5. if you have a pension, be aware someone is working very hard to get rid of it

or slash it

yup

[hughee99]

104. You must be mistaken... I've been assured that pensions are GUARANTEED

unlike other forms of retirement savings.

[Skittles]

106. they could have been

but when Reagan made greed and idiocy fashionable, it all shifted

[virgogal]

9. That is dreadful---less than half.

What on earth was the reason?

I wish your brother and his wife well.

[Travis_0004]

11. The teamsters fund doesn't have the money

They are paying out about 3.46 for every dollar they collect. They are loosing about 2 billion a year. With only about 18 billion in assets, they will be bankrupt if nothing changes. And as the assets go down, they collect less interest, so it will only get worse.

[Punkingal]

12. Yes...

My brother said it is because their membership is so much smaller than it used to be.

[Travis_0004]

15. And when driverless trucks come they are really in trouble

I think that is 25 years away but the day is comming.

[snooper2]

71. you working on driverless trucks for google LOL

you love that topic

[Travis_0004]

77. No, but the reality is the day is comming.

[virgogal]

17. Thanks.

[GummyBearz]

14. Yea, I will get a lot of flak for this, but I like my 401k fund just fine

Wall street may try to steal it from me, but at least I can control that by investing in things that suit my risk appetite, including going all cash. With a pension, you assume putting in 10% of your paycheck for ~40 years will result in a no-risk guarantee that you can with draw 80% of your ending salary for the next 40 years??... But in reality you can't control it at all. Some people think its guaranteed ... obviously its not.

Sorry to the boomer crowd, but the new generations are right on this one. I left my old company with a sizable 401k savings, and that all rolled right over to my new job. I wont be counting on anyone but myself to ensure my retirement. If I fuck it up, I wont be on a message board blaming a big bureaucracy, I will just have myself to blame, and have to work for the rest of my life (which is something the middle class of my generation will likely be doing anyway).

[liberal_at_heart]

16. Well I'm glad you got yours but the majority of Americans have less than $100000 in

401(k) retirement funds. Americans don't have money to put into a retirement account right now. They are too busy paying outrageously high rents, utility bills, grocery bills, college loans, health care premiums, deductibles, and copays, and pharmaceutical bills.

[Major Nikon]

19. The point is still valid

Who would best manage your retirement account?

A) Your employer

B) Your union

C) Yourself

[AOR]

20. The point might be valid ideology...

that doesn't make it any less libertarian horseshit and speaking in the tongues of a lifetime social scab. Capitalism is oppressive and unsustainable in the long haul for the majority of workers regardless of one's personal portfolio. That is the bottom line and that is objective reality. The "libertarians" had better hold on tight to those portfolios... because it would be a damn shame to let a lifetime of "adult realism", "good consumer choices", "smart portfolio management", and a strong political leaning to sell out the working class, the elderly, and the poor go to waste when the shit hits the fan.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. This country will have one hell of a wake up call when the generation we played guinea pigs with

does not have enough to retire on. We will either have to increase funding for SS or just let people work until they die.

[AOR]

26. It's stunning how many of these "libertarian thinkers" think they will be immune...

from the ravages of capitalist crisis and austerity simply by "going it alone" and "personal responsibility." A few will survive...the majority will be rendered into poverty.

[GummyBearz]

33. "Libertarian thinker"

Wow... ok. How about reality thinker. I put money into a pension for 10 years. I will never get money out of that pension. I also put money into a 401k, I will get money out of that 401k. Which should I choose to do next?? Derp.

[Major Nikon]

37. I suspect the irony that the Teamsters endorsed Saint Ronnie in 80 and 84 is lost on that one

[AOR]

43. The demands and the solidarity of the working class on a whole...

is not about you as an individual. Yours is the lament of the lifetime social scab. Did the OP blame you for his/her brother's situation ? No ? Then why do you inject yourself into the thread to make a screed attacking "boomers" and pension plans. Workers are getting screwed. Washed up and washed out, young and old, former and present. What part of that don't you get and what makes you think you stand outside that fact ? Rather than show solidarity you lay the blame where it doesn't belong and shill for the "good owners who have 401k plans."

[GummyBearz]

45. I feel bad for the OP

It sucks getting promised something by people who pretend to look out for the solidarity of the working class, only to realize they don't give a crap at all. I interjected my thoughts on that point quite clearly... screw the people who "take care" of the union pension fund. They are crapping on the OP's brother and it really really sucks. I (being from a younger generation) will not be drawn into their pyramid scheme that relies on ever increasing young members to pay out the promises made to the older members.

You see that as me saying "F- you" to all union members. What I'm really saying is F- you to the guy who PRETENDS to give a crap about union members, and makes them promises that cannot be kept.

[AOR]

49. You say...

"I (being from a younger generation) will not be drawn into their pyramid scheme that relies on ever increasing young members to pay out the promises made to the older members."

This is a pure right-wing Zero Hedge, Karl Denninger, Austrian economic talking points bullshit. Why not just come out and label Social Security a ponzi/pyramid scheme also ? You know you want to.

I got news for you "GummyBearz"...capitalism is the ultimate pyramid scheme... and no amount of libertarian squirming around that fact like a slippery eel will change it. Yes much of the union leadership has been co-opted and neutered in service to capitalism. This is no secret to leftists. It doesn't excuse for a minute the spewing of libertarian tripe and dividing workers young and old.

[GummyBearz]

55. I'm a socialist living in a capitalist country

You don't know anything about me, but your assumptions are amusing. I will take REAL socialist policies over capitalist policies, and REAL capitalist policies over phony socialists promises masking ugly capitalist policies any day. Libertarian my ass, I just want to fucking retire some time before I die.

[Punkingal]

52. I know this much, and it sounds like you don't...

The pioneers in the labor movement cared a hell of a lot more about workers than corporations did, and there are still plenty of people who know unions represent their interests and that corporations don't give a shit about them. I did not say the union screwed him, and neither did he. He understands the economics of it. It doesn't make it any easier just because you understand it.

As for 401-K's....they can disappear really fast in a crash. Nothing is a sure thing these days...unless you are a one percenter that is.

[GummyBearz]

56. I agree with you on the pioneers of the labor movement

I just am afraid those pioneers are long gone now. And yes, 401k's can disappear. As I originally said, if I mismanage my savings and have to work for the rest of my life, that is on me. I would just rather bet on myself to take care of myself more than a money manager.

[GummyBearz]

30. I'm well aware of that scenario

Read the part in my post where I said I will "have to work for the rest of my life (which is something the middle class of my generation will likely be doing anyway)."

As you put it, my generation got played as guinea pigs. Thanks a lot boomers. Enjoy whats left of your pensions, my generation wont get any (and yes I did put in 10 years at a company that has a pension plan, I just know I wont ever see a dime of what I put into it. A guy from the boomer generation will get all that)

[liberal_at_heart]

51. sorry, not buying into the generation war. My father's generation, my generation, and my

children's generation are all in this together. I will stand and fight for all of us. I will not allow others to divide us.

[GummyBearz]

57. My father has an awsome pension

Backed by the state of california. I will be contributing to it (taxes) for a long ass time. I wont be having any children. I don't think I fit your cookie cutter mold.

[Major Nikon]

25. I suppose I could add a 4th option

D) Counting on a socialist revolution

Option C still seems to be the best choice despite whatever ideological overtones you want to attach to it.

[AOR]

28. Standard issue red-baiting...

but I wouldn't expect less from your post on the little interaction you've provided. What you fail to get, and what I suspect you'll never get Nikon, is that the struggles of working people and labor on the WHOLE are not defined by subjective personal portfolios.

[Major Nikon]

36. You funny

You manage some kind of bizarre libertarian screed out of a simple point and yet I'm the one who is "baiting".

[AOR]

38. I can assure you if you're feeling shortchanged...

it's by nature and not by what I posted. I suspect you have nothing in defense of you touting "personal responsibility" in response to an OP that describes precisely the end-result of capitalism and it's effects on workers in the long run.

[Major Nikon]

39. I don't know if you've noticed...

But I'm not taking your bait.

Don't let that stop you from posting completely laughable strawman gibberish complete with quotes around things I didn't write. The entertainment value alone is worth it.

[AOR]

44. Says the one who pops out of the lounge...

to defend right wing talking points. What you wrote was more than enough to know where you stand and it's not in solidarity with the working class. Prior interaction with you on another thread was confirmed in this one. Cheers

[Major Nikon]

48. 401K is a right wing talking point!

Who knew?



Sad to see you go, but least I can get a break to wipe the tears.

[Skittles]

41. if you think it's yourself

remember many people don't have time to become finance experts

http://thebillfold.com/2015/03/the-grand-401k-experiment-has-been-a-failure/

[Major Nikon]

46. Sure, because pensions have been a resounding success

The thought of Christ Christie investing pension funds in whichever hedge fund manager that enriches his campaign coffers the most seems just peachy. What was I thinking?

[whatthehey]

83. I can make anyone "expert" enough in a single minute

I'll do it right now.

1) At the very least max out any employer matching if offered. Contribute as much as possible

2) Never ever ever take any money out pre-retirement unless death or homelessness are the only, and imminent, alternatives

3) Don't panic and move out of stocks in down markets. That's when your biweekly contribution buys the most shares. If you can afford it, INcrease your contribution in down markets. Certainly never decrease it unless facing the same alternatives above

4) Rebalance every 3-5 years, keeping 100 (115 if you are less risk-averse) - your age as a % of your balance in broad stock funds such as a SP500 or Russell 2000 index fund (plus others if you have the interest and time) and the rest in bonds. Never keep anything in a 401k in cash unless it's for short term rebalancing. Cash gains nothing


That's it. That's all the expertise you need to manage a 401k which will beat probably 60% of professional money managers. And the pension managers can't ever reduce it.

[Skittles]

18. I got mine, fuck you all

Who does that sound like? You do realize 401K was not even an option for a lot of those retirees for most of their career - oh fuck it, why even bother

[Punkingal]

24. Thank you!

[GummyBearz]

32. You got yours AND mine.

I put in 10 years at a company that has a pension plan, I just know I wont ever see a dime of what I put into it. A guy from the boomer generation will get that. So, you got yours, and mine. Thanks for the good fucking... I wont be asking for another though. 401k only companies from here on out for me.

[Skittles]

40. LOL

how the F*** would you know what *I* got? Gawd - can you say ARROGANT? OH YES YOU CAN.

[GummyBearz]

47. LOL

You do realize you just previously put the words "I got mine, fuck you all" into my mouth, right?

So how the F*** would you know what *I* got? Gawd - can you say ARROGANT? OH YES YOU CAN.

[Skittles]

50. that was in reference to YOU, not ME, Einstein

you're crowing about what YOU have in derision of what these folk have lost - THAT IS ARROGANCE

*DONE HERE* - I DETEST wasting my time

[GummyBearz]

59. How is the irony lost on this?

You put me into some pigeon hole that you pulled out of no where, then go nuts when I reply saying I cant do that.... wasting time seems to be your strong suit.

Wasting money paying into a pension I will never receive is not my strong suit. To all those who put money into pensions, and are getting money out, I say great. That is how it should be. Obviously that paradigm is falling flat on its face, as the OP points out.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. What is your basis for saying you will never get your pension? 'I just know' is not actual basis.

You say your own father gets a fat public pension, yet you are certain no one gets their pension?

[GummyBearz]

70. You posted at the same time I did

copying and pasting from below:

"
My first job had both (pension and 401k). I paid into that pension for 10 years. People railing on me as being "anti-labor" or such wont even listen when I say this.

But what sucks is, that company has already began scaling back its pension payouts, and I'm 30 years away from retirement... The writing is on the wall, those 10 years of "paying in" will amount to zilch for me in retirement.
"

[Go Vols]

99. Yep,no 401k when I joined the Union and still none, which is good.

I worked 20+ years(now its 30 to retire),retired, and draw a pretty decent pension.

For the average 401k participant, the 33 point difference between this plan's BrightScope Rating (57) and the top rated plan (90) could equate to:

18 additional years of work
Up to $216,800 in lost retirement savings.

http://www.brightscope.com/401k-rating/507677/Board-Of-Trustees-Iron-Workers-Local-401-Annuity-Fund/521548/Iron-Workers-Local-401-Annuity-Fund/

401k dosen't sound to good for Ironworkers

[Fla_Democrat]

110. Funny, I bet some of the Teamsters thought the same thing...

401k dosen't sound to good for Ironworkers

Funny, I bet some of the Teamsters thought the same thing... I bet a few are thinking differently, now.

[Go Vols]

112. Its a shame they got the choice

Most people go thru money like water.

If I am gonna bet on something,it would be football,not on Wall Street.

[tammywammy]

22. My parents had pensions with different employers

My father is retired and my mom's retiring at the end of the year. They both had in addition to the pensions a 401k and IRAs. I never had the option for a pension, so they always reinforced how important putting away in the 401k is.

This isn't to say I don't think having a robust Social Security isn't vita, it very much is.

[Fla_Democrat]

29. This may be entertaining...

[B Calm]

62. Why can't you have both? When 401K's were first brought out, it wasn't suppose to

replace pensions. That was the way republicans sold to us.

[GummyBearz]

69. yea

My first job had both. I paid into that pension for 10 years. People railing on me as being "anti-labor" or such wont even listen when I say this.

But what sucks is, that company has already began scaling back its pension payouts, and I'm 30 years away from retirement... The writing is on the wall, those 10 years of "paying in" will amount to zilch for me in retirement.

[B Calm]

74. PBGC will protect your pension.

[MichMan]

86. Multi employer is different.

While there are still some amount guaranteed, the multi employer PBGC is structured differently. If it goes to that, the current retirees would take a much bigger cut than what the Teamsters are proposing.

[brewens]

35. For a few years I worked with Teamsters, some of whom voted Republican the whole time.

Toatally, "I got mine" type guys. I don't hold that agianst Teamsters in general, but those are the kind of guys that fucked everyone. Guys at another union distributor voted out the union with of course the older guys being grandfathered in somehow. They had no problem screwing the younger guys.

I'll eventually see a couple of those old guys and if they whine about their pension being cut, I'll be telling them they shit in their own messkit! WTF do you think is gonna happen when you vote and do everything else you can to fuck other people out of getting in the union?

[SheilaT]

42. An astonishing number of union members

have voted Republican over the years. It's like they absolutely haven't a clue exactly why they have a union.

[brewens]

75. That's been a huge problem. Even those that have never been union have benefitted greatly

from unions. There can't be any more socialist organization than a labor union. Those idiots think they're all self made working class heroes. If not for the unions, what they did all their lives would have been almost slave labor.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. Yep. They get paid a good wage with good benefits because they had a strong union.

And inevitably, because they are being paid more they don't seem to get that if it weren't for the union, they would be making "working poor" wages. "I make 22 dollars an hour, but my union dues are eating up my pay check at 20 dollars a month. What good are they? Fucking parasites!" Really, you'd be better off if you were paid 11 dollars an hour with crappy insurance and no union dues?

I worked in a union shop and one of the departments went non-union and suddenly their required metrics went up drastically and their benefits went down in two years and pay raises became a joke.

[brewens]

87. If you ask a lot of the tissue mill guys in my area, they'll tell you they make good

money because that's the way it's always been. Now that mill didn't exist before the labor movement but they don't get that before that, any kind of job like that was subsistence wages. No one ever retired for years to go fishing or whatever they wanted.

My brother-in-law just retired from there. He gets it. His last day was like in June and he had enough vacation built up, despite taking his share of days off all along, that his official retirement date was just a few weeks ago.

I do blood drives out there and another guy was talking about the same thing. He was asked what his plan was and he hadn't figured it out exactly. He's got a lot of vacation time too and was going to see just where he stood on when his last day was to maybe "vacation out" or stick it out and take the lump sum vacation pay. That's something no mill worker in 1910 would have ever had to worry about.

[Omaha Steve]

89. Union households constantly vote 75% or more on election day

When Congress flipped R in 2010 UNION votes reduced the blood shed.

OS

[MichMan]

60. Hoffa allowed UPS to bail

Nobody is mentioning that Hoffa gave the green light allowing UPS, the biggest employer, to pull out of the pension fund in exchange for being able to organize a small division.

[Travis_0004]

78. Theh did pay a few billion when they bailed out.

[B Calm]

61. Doesn't surprise me. Teamsters is corrupt as hell and even endorse republican candidates.

[Omaha Steve]

90. Judge Approves Agreement Ending 25 years Government Oversight Of Teamsters Union

https://teamster.org/news/2015/02/judge-approves-agreement-ending-government-oversight-teamsters-union

FEBRUARY 17, 2015

(WASHINGTON) – Today, Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved an agreement that ends more than 25 years of government oversight of the Teamsters Union.

The agreement, reached last month between the United States of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, dismisses the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which led to a consent decree that the Teamsters Union has operated under since 1989.

The consent decree is replaced with a final order, in which the government’s continued involvement in the internal affairs of the Teamsters Union will be phased out over a five-year transition period which commences immediately and ends in 2020.

The final order provides for continued direct membership elections of the Teamsters Union’s International officers and for independent investigation and monitoring of internal disciplinary matters involving allegations of corruption.

FULL story at link.

[mnhtnbb]

72. That is awful. Just awful.

I hope your sister in law's recovery is lasting. No help with the stress of watching that pension cut
by more than half!

It really, really bothers me that the powers that be in this country--whether in unions, corporations, or government--
can no longer be trusted when it comes to retirement funds for people who have worked their whole lives
for some organization.

It's very, very sad.

[abelenkpe]

76. This is where we should print money.

[reformist2]

105. Yep. People will be shocked at first, but it is the only solution, short of rethinking capitalism.

Most people 40+ have been trained to think that money-printing = inflation.

They have no memory, either personally or historically, that it was FDR's money printing that allowed the country to muddle through the 1930s. And there was no inflation, because people really did need the money!

[1939]

111. Why have taxes and treasury bonds?

The government should just print the money it needs. Just think, no more deficit and benefits can be as lavish as anybody wants them to be. We can fund education at $50K per child. Fully paid college for all. We can have the largest military in the world. Everyone over the age of fifty gets $20K a month in SS benefits. Medical care is totally free.