NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

RichardDorrough
http://www.pionline.com/article/20160107/ONLINE/160109905/iron-workers-local-17-applies-for-multiemployer-benefit-cuts

Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts .

Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund, Cleveland, is seeking permission to cut benefits for participants, including retirees, as part of a proposed rescue plan awaiting approval from the Treasury Department.
Related Content
   
The pension fund had $91.9 million in assets and $223.2 million in liabilities as of April 30, 2014, according to its most recent Form 5500 filing. Of its 2,064 participants, 640 are active.

The plan is in “critical and declining” status and projected to become insolvent in 2032, according to a notice of critical status filed with the Department of Labor in August. In 2008, trustees developed a rehabilitation plan that reduced some adjustable benefits and called for a one-time contribution increase, according to the notice.

The application submitted to the Treasury Department on Dec. 23 would reduce benefits as of Dec. 1, 2016, if approved. The reductions would remain in effect “indefinitely,” according to a notice of application sent to participants, and will allow the plan to remain solvent with enough assets to pay the reduced level of benefits “indefinitely.”

The Treasury Department has 30 days to post the application on its website.

The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 allows trustees of deeply underfunded pension funds that would be insolvent within 15 years to reduce benefits, even for current retirees, after they have tried all other means. This requires approval by the Treasury Department, which has 225 days to respond. Those cuts can be no lower than 110% of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.'s guarantee. Disabled or older retirees have further protections.

The Iron Worker pension fund is the second multiemployer pension plan to apply for benefit reductions under MPRA. The $17.8 billion Teamsters Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Rosemont, Ill., applied Sept. 25 for a rescue plan that would be implemented July 1, 2016. The comment period on that application ends Feb. 1.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

STFU
PUNK !!!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

Ethics
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Just like uhbummacare, every generation of those who are "elected" to provide for financial security of their constituents, seem to do just the opposite, and get away with it every time.

"Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired".

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.MBG3okVW.dpuf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

Ethics
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
When Doug McCarron and his cronies steal money from UBC benefit and pension account funds from all over the country, he is doing so with basically an armored division of private security, hoping that no one gets wise to his corporate thuggery and ends him.

  Like all political thieves, they spread their crimes over years, so you don't really feel it all at once.

  1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool or trust fund, but:
"The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way." HELVERING v. DAVIS, US 619, 635 (1937)

2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are simply income taxes:
"...eligibility for benefits... (does) not in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes." FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US 603, 609 (1960).

3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer's right to do business. Consequently, his so called "contributions" go directly into the general fund of the treasury and,
4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amount of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US 603, 610 (1960).
5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. As the Court states:
"Congress included in the original act, and has since retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act". FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US 603, 610-11 (1960).
In effect, Social Security benefits are unlike pensions to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.
6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (a special kind of "employment/income tax") do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do not guarantee him anything.

They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.


They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.

They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.


 Pretty much just like a rank and file pension, or a well earned medical, dental, or vision benefit.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

Ethics
HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
But MY MY they are such liars

This is a fine example of a scam trying to use the new Multi employer law to steal from Retirees. One of the many to come.
The funds 5500 for the last 5 years can be found and viewed here https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app/disseminate?execution=e2s1 with the EIN #
510161467 ..(attached)
The news article said" the fund has $91.9 million in assets and $223.2 million in liabilities as of April 30, 2014" So what. The $223,2 million number is the number IF everybody in the fund was to be paid off on the spot today.That is not possible the fact is that at the start of the year the fund had assets of $85,722,489. At the end of the year the fund had 91,889,710  this shows a $6.1 million increase. Further this plan like many many around the country was under a rehabilitation program stared in 2008.. The latest 5500 said the following "This certification also notifies the IRS that the Plan is making the scheduled progress in meeting the requirements of its Rehabilitation Plan, as the Plan is projected to be solvent on May 1, 2026 (i.e., benchmark in the Rehabilitation Plan)

       Funny how the rats running the plan have claimed  The plan is in “critical and declining” status and projected to become insolvent in 2032, according to a notice of critical status filed with the Department of Labor in August..Yet these same rats tld the IRS""This certification also notifies the IRS that the Plan is making the scheduled progress in meeting the requirements of its Rehabilitation Plan, as the Plan is projected to be solvent on May 1, 2026 (i.e., benchmark in the Rehabilitation Plan)There is no justification to cut any retirees pension check and retirees of this plan need to bring this fraud to the attention of the DOL... Go see for yourself..
Richard Dorrough
http://www.theratlist.com
Ask why the EBSA and Phylis Borzi refuse to investigate the actions of Union leaders as they rob and pillage their multi employer funds. Ask how Borzi has been traveling the world with the AEIP,Mebco and NCCMP conspiring to rob American Retirees funds.

 IN 2011 the Workforce Committee and its subcommittee on Labor and Pensions held hearings .One such was to find "

"Ways to Strengthen the Plans"  Calendar | Education & the Workforce Committee

I agree with the NCCMP that the next wave of PPA reform must find new revenue
sources, reduce liabilities and change plan design. Funny now in 2015 the NCCMP is finding sources of capital  with pension check cuts.Reduced liabilities came when pension checks were cut 50-60 % AND the change to paln design is happening right now. That is why Kline had a hearing on April 29th with ONLY Defrehen, McManus, Srcoggins and Sandherr gving testimony
What is on the table now is reducing  liabilities in the form of cutting retiree benefits.
The  NCCMP and GAO  acknowledges the  necessity to do everything in terms of plan design, revenue enhancement, and benefit reductions for non retirees before considering  educations for current retirees.
 
 
       

 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR AND PENSIONS OF THE
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.
"
Strengthening the Multiemployer Pension System: What
Reforms Should Policymakers Consider?”
Room 2175 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC
June 12, 2013

Written Testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci
Bernard and Irene L. Schwartz Professor of Economics, The New School for Social
Research Thank you for inviting me to testify about options to strengthen
multi employer pension plans.
I am Teresa Ghilarducci,
Bernard and Irene L. Schwartz Professor of Economics
Policy Analysis, and Chair of the Economics Department, at The New School for Social
Research, in New York City. I am the
author of several books on retirement policy
including the only academic book on multiemployer pension plans
.
Though I am a full time academic I have practical experience
representing retirees and managing post employment benefits. I am a trustee of two retiree health plans for the United Auto workers and Steelworkers retirees of the three American auto companies  and Goodyear Tire
–I am a trustee for nearly 900,000 retirees.
I am also a former corporate director of YRCW May 2010 May 2011 a key employer
sponsor of many multiemployer plans including the Central States
Pension Fund for the Teamsters. In that role I had the legal responsibility to represent the
sole interest of the corporations' shareholders.
I agree with the PBGC, General Accounting Office, and the findings and analysis of the
National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans Commission report Solutions Not Bailouts which conclude multi employer plans have economic benefit; they should and
can be preserved and strengthened if action is taken quickly.
Further, preventing large plan insolvency will protect the PBGC and many employers
workers, and retirees.
      The NCCMP proposal to prevent insolvency by allowing benefit cuts for current retirees in special circumstances is well informed and makes paramount
preserving long term benefits for retirees. However,
Congress should ensure that retiree protections are sufficiently protective Insolvency hurts everyone especially retirees who Defrehn, Randy. and Joshua Shapiro. National
Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans. 2013. Solutions not bailouts: a report on the proceedings, findings and recommendations of the Retirement Security Review Commission Washington DC. February.; Gotbaum, Joshua. 2012 and 2013. Testimony before
the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee house Committee on Education and the Workforce. On December12, 2012, and March 5, 2013; Jeszeck, Charles. 2013.
Testimony: Multiemployer Plans and PBGC Face Urgent Challenges risk taking a large cut in current benefits to the PBGC maximum orworse, obtaining nothing if the PBGC
depletes its assets. The NCCMP’s statement of facts is consistent with the General Accounting Office and the PBGC's description of the financial situation of multiemployer plans.Economic Case for Strengthening Multiemployer Plans Multiemployer plans allow
employers and workers to optimize labor contracts in situations when employers cannot or will not commit to long term contracts with employees, but still depend on skill
ed workers loyally attached to the industry and craft.
What needs to be emphasized is that multiemployer pension plans, health plans, and
importantly apprenticeships plans are complements. They create a framework enabling
many types of workers who otherwise would
be without obtain a decent wage, training and employee benefits In short, workers, who in other countries are at the bottom of the labor market, can be in the United States near middle class construction laborers, janitor, coal miners, electricians, maids for luxury hotels, big rig truck drivers etc. All employers gain from the training and industry loyalty;
Multiemployer pension plans would be stable if all employers who benefit paid contributions. But only unionized employers pay. The PBGC, NCCMP, and GAO do not address future sources of revenue, Yet they deem, as do I, that current employers cannot contribute more without losing competitive advantages. Premium increases may be tolerated however. Thinking bigger is to consider that Congress establishing the Railroad Retirement System (see appendix) set a precedent to collect from consumers,shareholders, and current workers to pay for pensions. Congress should not give up seeking more revenue sources for the PBGC multiemployer fund. Ways to Strengthen the Plans I agree with the NCCMP that the next wave of PPA reform must find new revenue sources, reduce liabilities and change plan design.
What is on the table now is reducing liabilities in the form of cutting retiree benefits.
The NCCMP and GAO acknowledges the necessity to do everything in terms of plan design, revenue enhancement, and benefit reductions for non retirees before considering
reductions for current retirees.The GAO and NCCMP agree that the vast majority of multis
survived the 2008 recession  through shared sacrifice by raising contributions and cutting allowable benefits such as early retirement benefits.But the PBGC's multiemployer trust fund still faces probable insolvency because large critically underfunded plans
,when failed, will likely petition for PBGC assistance over the next ten years and the PBGC will not have enough funds. There are several pension plans in the red zone that have done everything they can to survive and I agree some plans can’t survive without reducing retiree benefits. But cutting retiree benefits is dangerous because current employees and workers may give up on the plan and employers.
Delaying the cuts is good policy, every year longer is important for a retiree
who have few options left to maintain living standards. Cutting benefits for current workers are justified only when benefits will keep the plan solvent and maintain lifetime benefits and other protections are in place.While the PBGC multiemployer plan still has assets the GAO report shows retirees in insolvent plans would suffer, on average, a
much reduced benefit up to the PBGC's guarantee. That maximum PBGC benefit of $1073 per month is about 50% of what the average long tenured retiree receives. When the PBGC runs out of money, the retiree could receive nothing. I was a critic of the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 but I am pleased and surprised at the success of the Actwith the good faith of Congress,to help many multiemployer survive the recessionno one predicted.
Now, that I have established multiemployer plans should continue, how can we strengthen them? Cutting benefits for current retirees is the last resort.
Each plan will have unique circumstances and futures so is it is not possible to legislate how the benefit cuts should be implemented. The NCCMP proposal outlines key duediligence criteria the cuts must prevent insolvency, the cuts must help participants maintain their benefits in the long run the long run is emphasized; the cuts must reduce exposure of employers in order to attract new employers to the multiemployer plans; and to protect the PBGC's risk of insolvency.Further, the NCCMP acknowledges that the plans have to meet objective standards of insolvency and that no benefits will be improved until the cuts are restored.Specific Ideas to Protect Retirees As a trustee of the Voluntary Employee Benefits Trust the Auto and Steelworker VEBAS for almost 8 years; I've been involved in an orderly and transparent process to reduce retiree benefits in their health plans in order to maintain and maximize their benefits. The retirees understand that increasing cost sharing and restrictions on drug and medical benefits are necessary to keep their retiree health plans intactand immediate restrictions keep the plan going for a lifetime so the cuts aren’t permanent and drastic. What is the legal authority? The VEBAs were established by the courts, without a bankruptcy and not within bankruptcy codes, which designated independent trustees and in the case of the Steelworkers specific
representatives of retirees. As an independent trustee I and my fellow public trustees
represent the beneficiaries of the plan soley, and the court instructs us to distribute cuts to keep the very old and poor safe from cuts. The Autoworkers and Steelworkers plans each have unique structures that hue to the core principle of protecting retirees. In some of the cases current workers and the employer have an obligation in the court agreement to continue to contribute to the retiree health obligations When the courts established the VEBAs the retiree health care plans it constituted a transfer of employer liability to a trust fund for retiree health benefits the court was very concerned about the governance structure of the plans and that retirees, who are most vulnerable and the state has an interest in protecting, were represented. In addition to having very specific language about how the cuts but the court agreements defined who vulnerable retirees a
re. In the case of the auto VEBA retirees who had very low pension amounts were
defined as vulnerable and in the Goodyear Steelworker case vulnerable retirees include the very old retirees. Different rules and definitions of vulnerability are appropriate for different settings.
   In summay, I agree with the basic principlesn the NCCMP Commissions report
that the governance of an insolvent plan that cuts retiree benefits must include affirmative and specific protections for retirees.I supportthe analysis of the
NCCMP Commission’s report and the direction of the solutions. Based on my experience and researchCongress needs to provide a governance structure so that retirees are represented by an independent and well resourced fiduciary.I agree that the PBGC is a good place to house a retiree advocate. However Congress should ensure that the retirees have an advocate actively responsible to ensure fair treatment of retirees Effective retiree representatives have to help shape the cuts, assess the distribution and define, in terms particular to the plan and industry, who the most vulnerable retirees are.
I have learned that different rules will have very different distributional effect
s under different circumstances.Congress should not give up on the idea that there
could be new revenue sources to multiemployer plans besides from employers in critical status (who are already paying many more times the average contribution to the fund
)Congress should give serious thought to an industry wide assessment to help pay for these legacy cost.(See Appendix.)lastI am quite excited about the reports description of new benefit designs including the target benefit though discussion of new flexible and
attractive design is for another day they should be included in a PPA 2.0. Any solution to
insolvency risks should include a design that mitigates future risks of insolvency.
APPENDIX: More Revenue SourceThe United States faced a similar situation with mature and insolvent employer pension plans in the early 1900s and an industry tax restored Retiree benefits. The American Express company (a railway) established the first corporate pension plan in 1875. Recessions and competition from smaller new railroads caused the first plans to cut and stop paying benefits. If not for retiree protests, Congress would not have created the Railroad Retirement system in 1934 before Social Security. The Railroad Retirement system collects pension contributions from all employers in the industry to pay for the depreciation of long tenure employees. The underlying justification was that the young railroads enjoyed legacy benefits provided by railroads
–the development of the industry and they should share in paying for the legacy costs.
In 2010, during my tenure as corporate director for YRCW, it was public knowledge that
the trucking company had three problems: loss of revenue from the 2008 recession, a
shortage of skilled truck drivers, and, more importantly, a large nonunion logistics company’s setting prices below costs to gain permanent market share in key markets.
Both firms would benefit from more people wanting to be truck drivers, but the newer
nonunion company’s strategy was early 20thcentury nonunion railroads’ strategy
-to slash prices and labor costs; making hard physical labor even less attractive.i
I also taught economics at the University of Notre Dame for 25 years which is in South Bend, Indiana the site of the Studebaker corporation whose abrogation of pension benefits in 1963 which generated support for ERISA. I lived in a community with many retirees benefiting me from PBGC insurance and Studebaker retirees who did not. The peace of mind and increase in the material standard of living of elderly households with a modest, but secure, source of Social Security supplement is significant.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

STFU
PUNK !!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NCCMP RATS ...Iron Workers Local 17 applies for multiemployer benefit cuts

member
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Dorrough is the great white hope, angry as hell, ignorant to the way the world works, tries the republican tactic that every thing is baad. little angry white boy finds himself to be old and washed up. his picture says it all.