The DOL files suit against the IAMPF and trustees

[Tim Nelson]

Tim's antics are quite well known, how is showing what he has done a personal attack?

I'm not in a position dealing with members funds, but your president is. I think we can logically conclude that the DOL's claims of $50,000 parties and bottles of wine into the thousands, most likely wasn't just a sausage party with only men. In fact, we can almost certainly say that women were there. And it is entirely likely that the $50,000 parties almost certainly included high priced hookers. Clearly not $20 whores. Is there a chance that no women were there? Well, yes, I guess I can't prove it, but I hate to think that Martinez was involved in a sausage party with no babes? I mean if he is going to piss away our pension [literally] and party party then I have to assume that the guy most likely got laid as well. Again, can I say with certainty? No, but I can't imagine 3 or 4 guys dropping %50,000 on a party only to sing kumbuya to eachother. Sorry 700 but the members need to know.

regards,

 

[700UW]

Show the forum where in the complaint that says they used hookers?

They were family holiday parties for fund employees and their family.

See Tim your lies and misinformation is why in 20 years you have never won a district or international election.

Hope you have deep pockets when they sue you for slander or defamatory character.

Keep up the lies

 

[FWAAA]

I have no idea whether hookers were involved, but quick logic reminder: the failure by the DOL to allege that the parties involved hookers isn't evidence of the absence of hookers and isn't proof that the ill-advised parties were hooker-free.

In a civil suit, the plaintiff alleges violations that they know they can prove (where they already have lots of evidence), and now that the suit has been filed, the discovery process (depositions, etc) may uncover more sordid details. As it's a civil suit, the defendants can't plead the fifth, so they'll have to answer the questions.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Show the forum where in the complaint that says they used hookers?

They were family holiday parties for fund employees and their family.

See Tim your lies and misinformation is why in 20 years you have never won a district or international election.

Hope you have deep pockets when they sue you for slander or defamatory character.

Keep up the lies

We can't say with certainty at this time if Martinez spent the money on hookers but it's hard to conclude that there were bottles of wine in the thousands yet females were not around. I can't come to any other conclusion myself, but I suppose someone can think that they drank the expensive wine among a sausage party singing kumbuya. I find that unlikely.

It's just that with expensive wine, it's really not hard to imagine females not far behind. And if so, then they almost certainly had to be high priced hookers.

regards,

 

[ChockJockey]

Show the forum where in the complaint that says they used hookers?

They were family holiday parties for fund employees and their family.

 
Relieved to know our money was being squandered on wholesome things, like family holiday parties featuring expensive wine, and not (as far as we know) hookers.  Let's take a look at those allegations again:

• Failing to loyally and prudently select fund service providers, including consultants and fund investment managers;

Well I mean, come on, If you're a fund trustee after a hard day of planning unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations the whole 'loyal and prudent' thing must really be a drag, who has the time?

• Regularly ignoring required procedures included in the fund’s governing plan documents;

It's only, what, $11B that a hundred thousand working people are going to rely on in retirement, who can bother with silly 'required procedures' when there are more important unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations to focus on, but (maybe) not hookers.  Priorities, people.

• Creating conflicts of interest for the fund;

This one is kind of vague, I think we can assume the DOL is alluding to hookers here.  Expensive hookers.

• Unlawfully soliciting and accepting gratuities from plan service providers;

Hmm, sounds...unlawful.  "Unlawful solicitation" from "service providers" might also be code for hookers.

• Spending and permitting others to spend fund assets lavishly on unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations.

I guess that's what happens when your pension is 105% funded.  Sounds like the IAM left the running of the trough to the pigs.
 
Standing by for more distraction and spin from the shill who has more disdain for Tim Nelson than he does the privileged scumbags getting drunk and fat off the retirement savings of working people.  Yes, the working people, the only ones getting screwed harder than the hookers that may or may not have been paid for with pension funds.  Lads, I got to say that 401(k) match never looked so appealing.

 

[WeAAsles]

What is up with all this Hooker talk? Since when did we all start hating on naked women? Man we're getting old now. Clinton got a BJ once and was busted, so what. He also likes Flowers, remember her.

Let's break down the money though a little and get away from the perception we all obviously have of this incident which is now obviously going to be handled with the DOL involved.

The impropriety looks like it may come out to around a Million (not counting if there were possibly bad investments?)

The fund holds currently 10.9 BILLION Dollars. That's 10,900 MILLION Dollars if you break it down by size. So if you're bank account has $10,900 DOLLARS in it by size difference it's basically as if $1,00 ONE DOLLAR was scimmed from the trust. Will that damage the payouts if that's all it was? No.

Now the fact that these guys may have been busted will most certainly protect the fund much better in the future. So possibly that could be the silver lining in all of this?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Relieved to know our money was being squandered on wholesome things, like family holiday parties featuring expensive wine, and not (as far as we know) hookers.  Let's take a look at those allegations again:

• Failing to loyally and prudently select fund service providers, including consultants and fund investment managers;

Well I mean, come on, If you're a fund trustee after a hard day of planning unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations the whole 'loyal and prudent' thing must really be a drag, who has the time?

• Regularly ignoring required procedures included in the fund’s governing plan documents;

It's only, what, $11B that a hundred thousand working people are going to rely on in retirement, who can bother with silly 'required procedures' when there are more important unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations to focus on, but (maybe) not hookers.  Priorities, people.

• Creating conflicts of interest for the fund;

This one is kind of vague, I think we can assume the DOL is alluding to hookers here.  Expensive hookers.

• Unlawfully soliciting and accepting gratuities from plan service providers;

Hmm, sounds...unlawful.  "Unlawful solicitation" from "service providers" might also be code for hookers.

• Spending and permitting others to spend fund assets lavishly on unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations.

I guess that's what happens when your pension is 105% funded.  Sounds like the IAM left the running of the trough to the pigs.
 
Standing by for more distraction and spin from the shill who has more disdain for Tim Nelson than he does the privileged scumbags getting drunk and fat off the retirement savings of working people.  Yes, the working people, the only ones getting screwed harder than the hookers that may or may not have been paid for with pension funds.  Lads, I got to say that 401(k) match never looked so appealing.

Hey, Shill is my word on here. Shill or Pollyanna. lol

 

[FWAAA]

It's only, what, $11B that a hundred thousand working people are going to rely on in retirement, who can bother with silly 'required procedures' when there are more important unnecessary trips, parties and extravagant food, wine, and accommodations to focus on, but (maybe) not hookers.  Priorities, people.

<snip>

Lads, I got to say that 401(k) match never looked so appealing.

Well said. It's one thing when management treats you with disdain (that's their job - it's what they do), but these crooks are part of the union "family" that's paid to represent you.

An interesting tidbit from the complaint about the hiring of Graystone:

50. The minutes of that meeting disclose that the Board discussed a personal relationship between IAM President R. Thomas Buffenbarger and J.Weldon Granger, who is the father of John Granger, the Graystone representative who manages the Fund's account. J.Weldon Granger and his firm are currently one of the recommended counsels on www.goiam.org, the Union's website.

Cronyism at its best. This pension's board demonstrates more loyalty to Buffenbarger than to the participants they're paid to protect. I expect big city machine politics to function this way, but the IAM? Looks "teamsterish" to me.

About this "pension fund," it's not really a defined benefit pension from the employers' perspective; it's a defined contribution plan like a 401k, the management of which the workers have delegated to some fatcats in exchange for a "defined benefit" that can be reduced without a trip to bankruptcy court. The employer contributes a fixed amount per hour, making it a defined contribution plan, without giving the workers any of the upside generally possible with a defined contribution plan (the potential to invest well/prudently and possibly make for a more comfortable retirement).

 

[WeAAsles]

Well said. It's one thing when management treats you with disdain (that's their job - it's what they do), but these crooks are part of the union "family" that's paid to represent you.An interesting tidbit from the complaint about the hiring of Graystone:Cronyism at its best. This pension's board demonstrates more loyalty to Buffenbarger than to the participants they're paid to protect. I expect big city machine politics to function this way, but the IAM? Looks "teamsterish" to me.About this "pension fund," it's not really a defined benefit pension from the employers' perspective; it's a defined contribution plan like a 401k, the management of which the workers have delegated to some fatcats in exchange for a "defined benefit" that can be reduced without a trip to bankruptcy court. The employer contributes a fixed amount per hour, making it a defined contribution plan, without giving the workers any of the upside generally possible with a defined contribution plan (the potential to invest well/prudently and possibly make for a more comfortable retirement).

Not for nothing but this is piddle of a drop in the bucket compared to what corporations do so let's not forget that. Still not a fan of the old AA bleeding money through corporate ineptitude to get us all where we are today. Lots of mirrors people should be looking at in this world.

 

[Rogallo]

Not for nothing but this is piddle of a drop in the bucket compared to what corporations do so let's not forget that. Still not a fan of the old AA bleeding money through corporate ineptitude to get us all where we are today. Lots of mirrors people should be looking at in this world.

 
So when, in your view, does it become unacceptable?

 

[WeAAsles]

So when, in your view, does it become unacceptable?

Didn't say that it wasn't unacceptable the minute we all read about it.

 

[AP Tech]

I'm sure the IAM will have a statement out about this suit on Monday......oh, that's right...its on a need to know basis!!!

 

[Rogallo]

Didn't say that it wasn't unacceptable the minute we all read about it.

 
Thanks for clarifying. Your earlier post likening it to taking $1 from a $11,000 account sounded like you think it's insignificant, so therefor, acceptable.
 
A crook is a crook, period!

 

[WeAAsles]

Thanks for clarifying. Your earlier post likening it to taking $1 from a $11,000 account sounded like you think it's insignificant, so therefor, acceptable.
 
A crook is a crook, period!

Nah just thinking that at the amount the suit is talking about doesn't look like it would be anywhere near enough to damage the trust financially. Something absolutely that current plan participants would have every right to be up in arms about.

If we have a "CHOICE" to be a part of the plan with our JCBA I want to know more things about the plan and am not going to discount the thought because of this incident personally. When and or if the time comes I'll still have questions I'd like answered?

The average age of the funds participants?
What are the prospects in the future for the fund?
How many new participants is the fund producing?
And a few others?

There have been a lot of safeguards put in place to protect these multiemployer plans because the People (Government) doesn't want to be left on the hook taking care of us old fogies because these plans weren't managed properly. (Green Status) That yes took a chopping to get there let's not forget.

If I see what I think is a decent return I "may" consider jumping in???? Yea with helping out those higher up on the pyramid.

 

[WeAAsles]

Does anyone (honestly) know how much those in leadership positions will be drawing out of the plan? Is money being put in to supplement that return or is that a perk of the position?

And if leadership is producing a return on the investment of their work in the Union, I don't fault them for being compensated in retirement for that.