2% pay raise in Oct 2020
08-29-2020, 02:36 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Sure. Now that would mean the company signing on the dotted line to a forever increasing liability under an uber expensive liability plan that they currently have no interest in increasing over the past 20+ years. Honestly whats the odds of them agreeing to that?
I’m simply pointing out that we can keep the current plan AND get an increase without having to negotiate for it every bargaining cycle. In other words, the assumption of your argument is not valid. We do not need to scrap the current plan in order to get something that has increases without having to negotiate it every time.
There is an alternative to your argument that accomplishes what you are arguing for. Are you willing to want that or are you just looking to say no to anything that is the current plan?
08-29-2020, 03:59 PM
#132
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by FXLAX
I’m simply pointing out that we can keep the current plan AND get an increase without having to negotiate for it every bargaining cycle. In other words, the assumption of your argument is not valid. We do not need to scrap the current plan in order to get something that has increases without having to negotiate it every time.
There is an alternative to your argument that accomplishes what you are arguing for. Are you willing to want that or are you just looking to say no to anything that is the current plan?
There is an alternative to your argument that accomplishes what you are arguing for. Are you willing to want that or are you just looking to say no to anything that is the current plan?
Last edited by Noworkallplay; 08-29-2020 at 04:17 PM.
08-29-2020, 04:04 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by DR K
I’ll be waiting for those company names to do some research...
6,000 members
New Orleans Carpenters’ Pension Plan Brochure
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
83,000 participants
$6.1 billion in assets in present pension fund
Voted in July 2020
Apart from the MLB, those are the only two I can find.
Speaking of the MLB... they used the variable plan to supplement a fixed plan already in place. Perhaps that is something to look into. Keeping the original A-Fund and negotiating an increase through a VBP?
08-29-2020, 04:11 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
I most definitely would take an increase to the current A plan and a bump to the B uncapped. However, that still leaves us in the same predicament in the future. I just don’t see the company agreeing to any reasonable increase to the current A plan due to how expensive it is.
I’m only speaking to your point of having to negotiate increases every cycle with the structure of the current A plan. That is not necessary true. I thought that, from what you wrote, that is what you were saying. But I get that you are also believe it’s not likely to happen.
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
Speaking of the MLB... they used the variable plan to supplement a fixed plan already in place. Perhaps that is something to look into. Keeping the original A-Fund and negotiating an increase through a VBP?
We might as well just increase the B fund (plus cash over cap). Accomplishes the same and is less complex.
08-29-2020, 04:21 PM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
[QUOTE=Noworkallplay;3118837 I just don’t see the company agreeing to any reasonable increase to the current A plan due to how expensive it is and the liabilities.[/QUOTE]
How expensive is it and what liabilities are you referring to? You seem to have all the answers so educate us with facts please.
How expensive is it and what liabilities are you referring to? You seem to have all the answers so educate us with facts please.
08-29-2020, 04:25 PM
#136
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 95
Thanks for digging that stuff up Not Mr!
At first glance, both appear to be multi employer plans, which have very different regulations on the IRS and PBGC websites So I’m not sure how to compare them properly.
The carpenters‘ variable plan can go down up to 10% a year, Which is obviously different than our proposal which can only go up.
The food workers appears to be a traditional pension, I don’t see any variable component but I may have missed it.
I like your idea of adding a provision for those who want to take more risk Versus scrapping the whole thing.
I do really appreciate you trying to find some comparable plans since the ones that have been provided in Union comparisons don’t seem to add up.
At first glance, both appear to be multi employer plans, which have very different regulations on the IRS and PBGC websites So I’m not sure how to compare them properly.
The carpenters‘ variable plan can go down up to 10% a year, Which is obviously different than our proposal which can only go up.
The food workers appears to be a traditional pension, I don’t see any variable component but I may have missed it.
I like your idea of adding a provision for those who want to take more risk Versus scrapping the whole thing.
I do really appreciate you trying to find some comparable plans since the ones that have been provided in Union comparisons don’t seem to add up.
08-29-2020, 04:32 PM
#137
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 95
USMC that is the billion dollar question that will never be answered.
How is it cost prohibitive from a regulatory standpoint to increase our current A fund but we can invest in a similar manner in a “new” pension fund and make it rain without the same regulatory funding issues?
if 2006 legal reform is the given reason, I find it odd that in that environment congress or the irs would have EASED the funding requirements and we were grandfathered in to the older more restrictive laws.
so much to be explained beyond pancakes and inquiring minds want to know and not be dismissed as simple minded.
How is it cost prohibitive from a regulatory standpoint to increase our current A fund but we can invest in a similar manner in a “new” pension fund and make it rain without the same regulatory funding issues?
if 2006 legal reform is the given reason, I find it odd that in that environment congress or the irs would have EASED the funding requirements and we were grandfathered in to the older more restrictive laws.
so much to be explained beyond pancakes and inquiring minds want to know and not be dismissed as simple minded.
08-29-2020, 05:07 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by FXLAX
We might as well just increase the B fund (plus cash over cap). Accomplishes the same and is less complex.
08-29-2020, 05:20 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by DR K
USMC that is the billion dollar question that will never be answered.
How is it cost prohibitive from a regulatory standpoint to increase our current A fund but we can invest in a similar manner in a “new” pension fund and make it rain without the same regulatory funding issues?
if 2006 legal reform is the given reason, I find it odd that in that environment congress or the irs would have EASED the funding requirements and we were grandfathered in to the older more restrictive laws.
so much to be explained beyond pancakes and inquiring minds want to know and not be dismissed as simple minded.
How is it cost prohibitive from a regulatory standpoint to increase our current A fund but we can invest in a similar manner in a “new” pension fund and make it rain without the same regulatory funding issues?
if 2006 legal reform is the given reason, I find it odd that in that environment congress or the irs would have EASED the funding requirements and we were grandfathered in to the older more restrictive laws.
so much to be explained beyond pancakes and inquiring minds want to know and not be dismissed as simple minded.
Even if this is True, Do I Still Have to Pay Big Premiums to the PBGC to Sponsor a DB Plan?
The variable benefit plan is a DB plan and is subject to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums. However, the major portion of the premiums paid by current traditional DB plan sponsors is in the “variable rate premium” portion. The variable rate premium is a percentage of the amount of underfunding for the plan. Thanks to three different Congressional actions, this premium, which was less than 1% just a few years ago, is scheduled to increase to over 4% of the underfunding of the plan in a few years. But with the variable benefit design, the plan will always be very close to 100% funded because there is no investment risk by the sponsor. A plan with no underfunding does not pay variable rate premiums!
It is also important to note that as long as the hurdle rate is at least 5%, the plan is not considered a “statutory hybrid plan” per final IRS regulations and thus would be exempt for those special rules.
Findley: Variable Benefit Plan Brochure
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
