U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2015, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Floyd Co, VA
3,415 posts, read 5,131,103 times
Reputation: 7231

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
You can't get water from a stone. If the plan is substantially underfunded, where does the money for the benefit come from? One, of course, can sue if the trustees are abusing their power in the determination of reduced benefits. But, that remains to be seen. So far, OP is still getting his full benefit. New law, no precedents/basis for legal action, yet.
The bill prohibits anyone from bringing a lawsuit.



Retirees, widows, and widowers whose benefits are reduced cannot bring a lawsuit under the federal private pension law, ERISA, to challenge the legality of the reductions. - See more at: Summary of the pension cutback provisions in the Omnibus spending law | Pension Rights Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2015, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,534 posts, read 43,972,276 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by zugor View Post
The bill prohibits anyone from bringing a lawsuit.
Not if:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
the trustees are abusing their power in the determination of reduced benefits.
Claimant would have to prove noncompliance and violation of terms of this law. The trustees are NOT bulletproof if they violate the parameters under which they are allowed to reduce benefits.

Now, you may feel the legislation is too broadly written. In that case, perhaps using the ACA as an example, a class action suit could be brought on the legality of the legislation itself - similar to the various suits brought against the ACA, SCOTUS hearing on the ACA subsidies the most recent example. Your union reps would need to hire an attorney to look into this. That's why we have lawyers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,884 posts, read 25,306,858 times
Reputation: 26341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Not if:

Claimant would have to prove noncompliance and violation of terms of this law. The trustees are NOT bulletproof if they violate the parameters under which they are allowed to reduce benefits.

Now, you may feel the legislation is too broadly written. In that case, perhaps using the ACA as an example, a class action suit could be brought on the legality of the legislation itself - similar to the various suits brought against the ACA, SCOTUS hearing on the ACA subsidies the most recent example. Your union reps would need to hire an attorney to look into this. That's why we have lawyers.
Does anyone know if this is being considered/done? I would work for this!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Staten Island
1,653 posts, read 1,793,293 times
Reputation: 2353
You have to wonder if UPS is claiming insloventy whether true or false, and I have my doubts about it being true than the Post office with all it's issues can't be far behind in making the same claim, despite many of their issues coming from Congress ordering them to fund future retiree's pensions 20 years in advance. I feel like this bill was made for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 06:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
282 posts, read 305,751 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by northwesty View Post
Someone should go to jail for this, but they won't.. because they have already bought and paid for Congress, make the rules, and own and run the country.

This is only the beginning.
I agree that somebody should go to jail for the failing pension funds. But too many people are blaming the govt when these are private company pension funds. The company, company executives, the pension fund administrators, and the union leaders that setup the funds should be blamed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,469,891 times
Reputation: 27565
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSRSJim View Post
I agree that somebody should go to jail for the failing pension funds. But too many people are blaming the govt when these are private company pension funds. The company, company executives, the pension fund administrators, and the union leaders that setup the funds should be blamed.
I agree with this. But what happened is that they wrangled Congress into passing a bill that lets them stay in charge and cut retiree pensions instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 08:17 AM
 
8,185 posts, read 11,902,987 times
Reputation: 17949
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J View Post
You have to wonder if UPS is claiming insloventy whether true or false, and I have my doubts about it being true than the Post office with all it's issues can't be far behind in making the same claim, despite many of their issues coming from Congress ordering them to fund future retiree's pensions 20 years in advance. I feel like this bill was made for them.
The Post Office doesn't run its own pension system, so there's no issue there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,469,891 times
Reputation: 27565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Not if:

Claimant would have to prove noncompliance and violation of terms of this law. The trustees are NOT bulletproof if they violate the parameters under which they are allowed to reduce benefits.

Now, you may feel the legislation is too broadly written. In that case, perhaps using the ACA as an example, a class action suit could be brought on the legality of the legislation itself - similar to the various suits brought against the ACA, SCOTUS hearing on the ACA subsidies the most recent example. Your union reps would need to hire an attorney to look into this. That's why we have lawyers.
But the trustees will have the approval of the PBGC before they do anything.
A lawsuit doesn't seem very viable then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Oxygen Ln. AZ
9,321 posts, read 16,573,689 times
Reputation: 5692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
This was part of the spending bill just passed and affect ALL multi-employer pension plans.
It was a deal worked out between the unions and 2 Congressmen who authored the bill..one Democrat and one Republican so there should be no quibbling over politics regarding this law.

Instead of the pension going to the PBGC in case of default the unions get to keep administering the pensions and are allowed to make cuts themselves. Besides that the other new item in the bill is the change to ERISA that will allow them to cut retirees currently receiving pensions.

Yes, this is a HUGE deal because it sets a precedent for all other pension plans in the future.
Once on a pension you are no longer guaranteed a steady income up until you turn 80 years old at which time you are protected.

It's bad mojo folks. The multi-employer pensions are in the worst shape today and are the first to go down this path but don't for one minute think it will end there.

Anyone who has an employer pension fund needs to be aware of what got passed because one day this law can affect your pension..public , private, single employer, etc.
If only the good congresspeople and senators would gut their retirement packages......They all are overpaid in my opinion and not one person serving a two year term is qualified for retirement for life. This has to change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 11:06 AM
 
143 posts, read 132,568 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSRSJim View Post
I agree that somebody should go to jail for the failing pension funds. But too many people are blaming the govt when these are private company pension funds. The company, company executives, the pension fund administrators, and the union leaders that setup the funds should be blamed.
Yes, but government aided the effort by relaxing laws requiring certain pension contribution levels. They cooked up schemes to allow corporations to defer pension payments and thus report higher profit which resulted in more tax revenue for the federal government. And they continue to do so:

House Votes to Pay for Roads With Underfunded Pensions - The Wire

The construction lobby was very active in seeking the passage of this bill. The campaign contribution money was flowing fast. It is working for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top