Since you jumped my I ass I called our B.A. today and got the name of our fund.It is New York State Teamsters Benefit Fund.There is no penalty on us.30 and out before 62 there is no penalty.Our last retiree was two years ago and he went at age 51 w/30 years.He is receiving over 5 grand a month,not projected,but receiving.I believe he had to get on his wifes insurance for a few years,but no penalty other than that.Why you jumped my ass I don't know,I was only asking what penalty you were talking about as I hadn't heard of it up here.
0
WHY DOES UPS PAY THEIR DRIVERS SO MUCH MONEY?
Started by , Sep 23 2002 05:54 AM
75 replies to this topic
#42
-
- Members
-
- 322 posts
Member
- Location:Northern N.Y.
- Interests:Putting in my 30 years and getting out.
- Local Union Number:687
Posted October 31 2005 - 01:39 PM
6,100 per month at age 48? Hmmm sounds like all of the rest of the Teamster are getting screwed by the damn yankees. I would like to see written proof of your retirement...There is a penalty for early retirement. 48 my ass! 
[/quote]
I didn't screw anybody,but blame me if it makes you feel better.Once again we don't have a penalty for early retirement,and yes that will mean age 48 for me w/ 30 years of service.Will that change?I don't know,but for now that is what it is here.
[/quote]I didn't screw anybody,but blame me if it makes you feel better.Once again we don't have a penalty for early retirement,and yes that will mean age 48 for me w/ 30 years of service.Will that change?I don't know,but for now that is what it is here.
#44
-
- Moderators
-
- 960 posts
Member
- Location:North Carolina
- Local Union Number:391
Posted October 31 2005 - 03:30 PM
gearjammer]6, on 100 per month at age 48? Hmmm sounds like all of the rest of the Teamster are getting screwed by the damn yankees. I would like to see written proof of your retirement...There is a penalty for early retirement. 48 my ass!
I didn't screw anybody,but blame me if it makes you feel better.Once again we don't have a penalty for early retirement,and yes that will mean age 48 for me w/ 30 years of service.Will that change?I don't know,but for now that is what it is here.
I am in Central States and I have heard that it BITES!! Guys around here talk about how bad the pension is compared to other places. Since I am only 37 I am not ready to retire just yet. I have heard that you can retire at 30 years full time service and get 3 grand a month but only at 62 will you get full pension. Not sure on all this though. But I do know that farther north , the pensions are way better.
When you fail to plan , you plan to fail!
#46
-
- Members
-
- 207 posts
Member
Posted October 31 2005 - 06:54 PM
gearjammer said:
I didn't screw anybody,but blame me if it makes you feel better.Once again we don't have a penalty for early retirement,and yes that will mean age 48 for me w/ 30 years of service.Will that change?I don't know,but for now that is what it is here.[/quote
Ok...So let me understand what you are saying...In NY you can start driving and or receiving credit towards a pension at the age of 18? And you can draw one at 48 after 30 years with the amount being $6,100. It seems to me that the Teamsters in the other states are funding you Yankees. I agree with everyone else vote no on any contract since the majority of Teamster are getting FUCKED!!
Ok...So let me understand what you are saying...In NY you can start driving and or receiving credit towards a pension at the age of 18? And you can draw one at 48 after 30 years with the amount being $6,100. It seems to me that the Teamsters in the other states are funding you Yankees. I agree with everyone else vote no on any contract since the majority of Teamster are getting FUCKED!!
#47
-
- Members
-
- 322 posts
Member
- Location:Northern N.Y.
- Interests:Putting in my 30 years and getting out.
- Local Union Number:687
Posted October 31 2005 - 07:14 PM
No you can't start driving until age 21.At age 18 I started on pre-load.Back then we could stay and do clerical,work metro if someone called in ,helper, etc.So it was quite possible to get full-time credit for part time years if we got enough hours.And yes it does start at 18,if that is when you start.You know what,instead of taking my word for it and directing your animosity at me,why not call my local and ask for the B.A. that handles UPS and ask some of the questions you are having a hard time believing me about.I'm not here to argue with you,but it is quite apparent you are not able,or willing to believe anything other than what you say.
#48
-
- Members
-
- 291 posts
Member
Posted November 01 2005 - 04:33 AM
gearjammer,i apologize if your correct,just in central states we are so daggone used to gettin screwed an hearing people getting screwed,an seeing that central states trustees testify in congress that they set it up to make it harder for us to retire,thats its hard to believe any teamster actually has it good.
#50
-
- Members
-
- 322 posts
Member
- Location:Northern N.Y.
- Interests:Putting in my 30 years and getting out.
- Local Union Number:687
Posted November 01 2005 - 01:33 PM
cwildkats said:
gearjammer,i apologize if your correct,just in central states we are so daggone used to gettin screwed an hearing people getting screwed,an seeing that central states trustees testify in congress that they set it up to make it harder for us to retire,thats its hard to believe any teamster actually has it good.
I understand now.I called the pension fund today and got some particulars and I honestly didn't realize the major disparities in the different Teamster pensions.It does seem that some of us are getting royally screwed.That is why I originally questioned the penalty part of your post because up here I hadn't heard of such a thing.
#51
-
- Members
-
- 246 posts
Member
Posted November 01 2005 - 03:11 PM
gearjammer,
Here is an example of what your pension would be if you were in the central states fund.
All part time years are under control by the company plan, it pays a percentage of what your 30 year pension would be at 65. So if you worked 10 years you get one third of a 30 year pension, 20 years two thirds and so on. You start vesting at age 21, so any years before that you get no credit. Those part time years under the company plan are penaltized 6 percent per year prior to age 65, so if you want to retire at age 50, the amount is reduced 90 percent. Just recently a full time employee with about 30 years in checked into his 20 plus years under the company part time plan wanting to retire at age 50 with 30 years vested. His monetary amount under the plan would be under 100 dollars per month.
The full time years worked prior to 2004 under central states are credit with 100 dollars per service year, after 2003 those are reduced 6 percent prior to age 62. His full time seniority date is l998 under the first wave of combo positions, he would get about 500 dollars for those years prior to 04, the years after are credit at 75 dollars per year and reduced at the six percent penalty. Basically he will not get any credit if he decided to retire earlier than age 62 for the following years.
Heres the math: 20 years part time = 100 per month
5 years full time under old rules = 500
5 years full time new rules = 150
Total with 30 total vested years at age 50 is 750 dollars per month, minus taxes, spouse reduction and of course health and welfare payments.
You can see how many of us are feeling, glad you guys are working well with your plan but expect alot of envy for the have nots in our union.
Here is an example of what your pension would be if you were in the central states fund.
All part time years are under control by the company plan, it pays a percentage of what your 30 year pension would be at 65. So if you worked 10 years you get one third of a 30 year pension, 20 years two thirds and so on. You start vesting at age 21, so any years before that you get no credit. Those part time years under the company plan are penaltized 6 percent per year prior to age 65, so if you want to retire at age 50, the amount is reduced 90 percent. Just recently a full time employee with about 30 years in checked into his 20 plus years under the company part time plan wanting to retire at age 50 with 30 years vested. His monetary amount under the plan would be under 100 dollars per month.
The full time years worked prior to 2004 under central states are credit with 100 dollars per service year, after 2003 those are reduced 6 percent prior to age 62. His full time seniority date is l998 under the first wave of combo positions, he would get about 500 dollars for those years prior to 04, the years after are credit at 75 dollars per year and reduced at the six percent penalty. Basically he will not get any credit if he decided to retire earlier than age 62 for the following years.
Heres the math: 20 years part time = 100 per month
5 years full time under old rules = 500
5 years full time new rules = 150
Total with 30 total vested years at age 50 is 750 dollars per month, minus taxes, spouse reduction and of course health and welfare payments.
You can see how many of us are feeling, glad you guys are working well with your plan but expect alot of envy for the have nots in our union.
#52
-
- Members
-
- 939 posts
Member
- Location:Adirondacks
- Interests:Snowmobiling
Posted November 01 2005 - 04:10 PM
Can any of you point out some reasons for the differences and how your fund got to where it is?? If one can do as well as ours, their must be some way to make yours better, maybe not as good as others, but better than it is now. I am sure I'll hear how we should start a new package union and so on, but that is not the answer, in my OPINION. I guess I don't understand how the funds can differ so much from one area to another.
#53
-
- Members
-
- 322 posts
Member
- Location:Northern N.Y.
- Interests:Putting in my 30 years and getting out.
- Local Union Number:687
Posted November 01 2005 - 05:24 PM
ohioclerk said:
gearjammer,
Here is an example of what your pension would be if you were in the central states fund.
All part time years are under control by the company plan, it pays a percentage of what your 30 year pension would be at 65. So if you worked 10 years you get one third of a 30 year pension, 20 years two thirds and so on. You start vesting at age 21, so any years before that you get no credit. Those part time years under the company plan are penaltized 6 percent per year prior to age 65, so if you want to retire at age 50, the amount is reduced 90 percent. Just recently a full time employee with about 30 years in checked into his 20 plus years under the company part time plan wanting to retire at age 50 with 30 years vested. His monetary amount under the plan would be under 100 dollars per month.
The full time years worked prior to 2004 under central states are credit with 100 dollars per service year, after 2003 those are reduced 6 percent prior to age 62. His full time seniority date is l998 under the first wave of combo positions, he would get about 500 dollars for those years prior to 04, the years after are credit at 75 dollars per year and reduced at the six percent penalty. Basically he will not get any credit if he decided to retire earlier than age 62 for the following years.
Heres the math: 20 years part time = 100 per month
5 years full time under old rules = 500
5 years full time new rules = 150
Total with 30 total vested years at age 50 is 750 dollars per month, minus taxes, spouse reduction and of course health and welfare payments.
You can see how many of us are feeling, glad you guys are working well with your plan but expect alot of envy for the have nots in our union.
Here is an example of what your pension would be if you were in the central states fund.
All part time years are under control by the company plan, it pays a percentage of what your 30 year pension would be at 65. So if you worked 10 years you get one third of a 30 year pension, 20 years two thirds and so on. You start vesting at age 21, so any years before that you get no credit. Those part time years under the company plan are penaltized 6 percent per year prior to age 65, so if you want to retire at age 50, the amount is reduced 90 percent. Just recently a full time employee with about 30 years in checked into his 20 plus years under the company part time plan wanting to retire at age 50 with 30 years vested. His monetary amount under the plan would be under 100 dollars per month.
The full time years worked prior to 2004 under central states are credit with 100 dollars per service year, after 2003 those are reduced 6 percent prior to age 62. His full time seniority date is l998 under the first wave of combo positions, he would get about 500 dollars for those years prior to 04, the years after are credit at 75 dollars per year and reduced at the six percent penalty. Basically he will not get any credit if he decided to retire earlier than age 62 for the following years.
Heres the math: 20 years part time = 100 per month
5 years full time under old rules = 500
5 years full time new rules = 150
Total with 30 total vested years at age 50 is 750 dollars per month, minus taxes, spouse reduction and of course health and welfare payments.
You can see how many of us are feeling, glad you guys are working well with your plan but expect alot of envy for the have nots in our union.
I do see now why there are hard feelings.After two days on the phone w/ the B.A. and the pension fund trying to make sure I did not misrepresent myself I now see the disparaging differences in the Teamster pensions .I don't feel this animosity should have been directed at me,but I'm a big boy and will get over it.That being said,I most definately don't think it is right.We do the same job and should be rewarded as such in retirement.It is my understanding that there have been a lot of poor choices made on the part of the administators on certain funds and that is beyond reproach as far as I am concerned,but I am just a little fish in a great big pond.
#56
-
- Members
-
- 768 posts
Member
- Location:East Coast
Posted November 08 2005 - 03:57 AM
gearjammer said:
Nice avatar BlackCloud 
Yes, it is quite fitting. But, you have to love that he is very intuitive, and usually, right on the money.
P.s .... BlackCloud, I might be a proud Skidoo owner, soon.
#57
-
- Moderators
-
- 4,230 posts
Hardcore Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Georgia
- Local Union Number:728
Posted November 08 2005 - 06:32 PM
rumblestrips said:
gearjammer said:
Nice avatar BlackCloud
Yes, it is quite fitting. But, you have to love that he is very intuitive, and usually, right on the money.
P.s .... BlackCloud, I might be a proud Skidoo owner, soon.
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matt 6; 33
#58
-
- Members
-
- 939 posts
Member
- Location:Adirondacks
- Interests:Snowmobiling
Posted November 08 2005 - 06:41 PM
I guess this thread has kinda' turned around a bit. It was about us being overpaid, and then about our pensions. I hope both can be sustained and I also hope our brothers and sisters can enjoy the same. No matter what we all say on here, please remember that we are still brothers and sister. 8O 8O
#59
-
- Moderators
-
- 4,230 posts
Hardcore Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Georgia
- Local Union Number:728
Posted November 08 2005 - 06:45 PM
BlackCloud said:
I guess this thread has kinda' turned around a bit. It was about us being overpaid, and then about our pensions. I hope both can be sustained and I also hope our brothers and sisters can enjoy the same. No matter what we all say on here, please remember that we are still brothers and sister. 8O 8O
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matt 6; 33
#60
-
- Members
-
- 2,373 posts
Veteran Member
Posted November 18 2005 - 09:21 PM
gearjammer, in the western USA under the Western Conference Teamsters Retirement Plan, the situation is very similar to yours. In other words, while they did suffer some reductions on prospective benefits, the early retirement programs are alive and well. BUT, and that is a big but, retiree health care has never been included in the pension program. I do not know whether retiree health care is included in yours on the east coast.
Most areas in the west do indeed have retiree health care coverage provided for in their UPS contract, but those retiree health care plans are attached to the active health care programs and do not place a financial burden on the pension plan.
In the case of CS, they got hit by the big double whammy, the loss of investment revenue coupled to the bigger liability to the trust, the retiree health care program. The dramatic health care increases in the USA are real, and the money to sustain the trust's responsibilities is a monster burden when superimposed onto pension benefits.
The cost of health care in the USA has skyrocketed under the republican administrations, and there are more strikes caused by unsustainable health care costs than any other issue in bargaining these days. The health care issue is compounded for the unionized industries because we invariably demand and get spousal and dependent coverage and in many instances the spouse and dependents would otherwise be uncovered, so we end up subsidizing non Union companies' health care costs, to our own employers detriment. Its not the plight of our employers that worries me its the excessive economic burden and its going to come out of our pockets. That is one of the main reasons for despising companies like Walmart that bleed us and our society.
There are additional burdens on the horizon for Union pension programs as the republican majority keeps imposing further restrictions as well as accounting regulations on 'defined pension benefit programs' which are what the best Union programs really are. These pension programs are Union worker's most valuable assets and while we should always demand the highest level of transparency and accountability from those to whom these responsibilities are entrusted, we must learn to diferentiate friend from foe and not fall prey too easily to the bad mouth that we are continuosly subjected to.
alex y.
Most areas in the west do indeed have retiree health care coverage provided for in their UPS contract, but those retiree health care plans are attached to the active health care programs and do not place a financial burden on the pension plan.
In the case of CS, they got hit by the big double whammy, the loss of investment revenue coupled to the bigger liability to the trust, the retiree health care program. The dramatic health care increases in the USA are real, and the money to sustain the trust's responsibilities is a monster burden when superimposed onto pension benefits.
The cost of health care in the USA has skyrocketed under the republican administrations, and there are more strikes caused by unsustainable health care costs than any other issue in bargaining these days. The health care issue is compounded for the unionized industries because we invariably demand and get spousal and dependent coverage and in many instances the spouse and dependents would otherwise be uncovered, so we end up subsidizing non Union companies' health care costs, to our own employers detriment. Its not the plight of our employers that worries me its the excessive economic burden and its going to come out of our pockets. That is one of the main reasons for despising companies like Walmart that bleed us and our society.
There are additional burdens on the horizon for Union pension programs as the republican majority keeps imposing further restrictions as well as accounting regulations on 'defined pension benefit programs' which are what the best Union programs really are. These pension programs are Union worker's most valuable assets and while we should always demand the highest level of transparency and accountability from those to whom these responsibilities are entrusted, we must learn to diferentiate friend from foe and not fall prey too easily to the bad mouth that we are continuosly subjected to.
alex y.
