Pensions at risk

Chuck Schalk

Veteran
Nov 17, 2006
1,042
1,174
 
The IAM and the Teamsters are Multi-pension plans.  This article validates why we do not need to join a multi-employer pension plan but we must demand and negotiate higher company contributions to our 401K!
Note: the PBGC insures multi-pension plans much less than single employer plans. Meaning, that multi-employer pensions if they fail the PBGC will pay out a max of 1100 or 1200 dollars per month regardless of what your plan paid you. A single employer pension plan is substantially higher if they fail and the PBGC takes it over. Why would anyone put their only pension asset from a single employer of American Airlines into sink hole of a multi-employer pension makes no sense at all. I question why our TWU labor leaders would push us into a financial sink hole?  Maybe because they have their own TWU pension?
Do not let the pension issue get in the way of changing representation.
The IAM officials will tell you that their pension is 100% funded based on current accounting practices. What that means is the pension based on paper is 100% but in reality is underfunded based on actual obligations and realistic accounting practices.
 
 
 

[SIZE=24pt]US Pension Insurer Ran Record $62B Deficit in 2014[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]WASHINGTON — Nov 17, 2014, 6:11 PM ET[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer[/SIZE]
 
 ​
[SIZE=11.5pt]The deficit run up by the federal agency that insures pensions for about 41 million Americans has nearly doubled, to $62 billion. And the agency says that without changes[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt], its program for pension plans covering 10 million of those workers will be insolvent within 10 to 15 years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]It was the widest deficit in the 40-year history of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which has now run shortfalls for 12 straight years. The gap grew wider in recent years because the weak economy triggered more corporate bankruptcies and failed pension plans. If the trend continues, the agency could need an infusion of taxpayer funds to pay retirees, who are guaranteed their pensions by law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]The PBGC said Monday that the increased deficit was due [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]to worsening finances of some multi-employer pension plans, which are pension agreements between labor unions and a group of companies, usually in the same industry. The $62 billion deficit reported for the year ended Sept. 30 compared with $36 billion in the previous fiscal year.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]Without changes such as increased insurance premiums, the agency says it expects [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]its multi-employer insurance program to run out of money in 10 to 15 years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]The PBGC was created in 1974 as a government insurance program for traditional employer-paid pension plans, which have become much less common in recent decades as most employers turn to retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. The traditional plans are most prevalent in industries such as auto manufacturing, steel and airlines.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]If an employer can no longer support its pension plan, the PBGC takes over the assets and liabilities, and pays promised benefits to retirees up to certain limits.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]The agency didn't name the multi-employer plans that it expects to run out of money or how many are involved. It said they represent a minority of the total 1,400 or so multi-employer pension plans, which cover about 10 million workers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]"Plans covering over 1 million participants are substantially underfunded[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt], and without legislative changes, many of these plans are likely to fail," PBGC Acting Director Alice Maroni said in a statement. The agency said in its annual report that it has "sufficient liquidity to meet its obligations for a number of years."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]The agency said the deficit in its multi-employer insurance [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]program jumped to $42.4 billion[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt] in the budget year that ended on Sept. 30, [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]from $8.3 billion in 2013[/SIZE]
 
robbedagain said:
this is about the PBGC  not the IAM pension  which I understand to be funded by around 105%  but someone can correct that if im mistaken
 
[SIZE=11.5pt]The PBGC said Monday that the increased deficit was due [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]to worsening finances of some multi-employer pension plans, which are pension agreements between labor unions and a group of companies, usually in the same industry. The $62 billion deficit reported for the year ended Sept. 30 compared with $36 billion in the previous fiscal year.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]Without changes such as increased insurance premiums, the agency says it expects [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]its multi-employer insurance program to run out of money in 10 to 15 years.[/SIZE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Nothing in the article at all about the IAMNPF.

Thread is misleading and the PBGC also insures DPB.

Who insures your 401k?

That would be no one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
josh  I personally work with a number of folks who lost quite a lot during the mid 2000s in the financial collapse etc. 
 
chuck  that article has nothing regarding the IAMPF     The IAM pension is fully funded
 
robbedagain said:
josh  I personally work with a number of folks who lost quite a lot during the mid 2000s in the financial collapse etc. 
 
chuck  that article has nothing regarding the IAMPF     The IAM pension is fully funded
It"s only fully founded due to the pay outs cuts, maybe?
 
or tied to anything in which if the economy fails  so could the 401ks
 
personally  I like the idea of 401k with pension with ss for retirement..
 
I had a pension with Eastern Airlines after 9 Years all I had to show for that was $25 dollars a year or $3000, if I had a 401K i would have had more in my pocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Overspeed said:
The DOL has an endangered or critical multiemployer pension fund list on the web. I don't see the IAMNPF on here. I see a lot of IBT funds though.
 
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusnotices.html
 
IAMNPF "Green Notice" meaning the fund is funded 80% or above. Chuck your facts don't pertain to the IAMNPF but the PBGC's concern over other plans.
 
True, but would the IAMNPF remain green if all the legacy US ground workers left and stopped contributing? It might not be the current status that is of concern, but instead the future status unless the TWU/IAM Association farce is successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Would the fund remain green if the IAM/US members left? Probably since those contributions are funded at 80% and would stop if they left. But then if the IAM/US members can remain in the IAMNPF by joining the Association that would be good for them. If they vote down the Assoc they risk losing greater accumulations in the IAMNPF by either becoming TWU or worse, AMFA members.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person