Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16706 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 03, 2009 6:13 am) This is the pension squeeze companies aren't talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers -- complaining of the costs -- their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies' financial obligations for them to balloon. Article was from 2006. GM salarieds/execs no longer have pensions being accrued (right term?)( as of Dec '06). They will get pensions for what they earned but now have to put into 401's, which are no longer matched by GM as of a few months ago. And anyone hired in the last 15 years or so never had pensions, just 401's with match. Oh, I just looked it up. For new hires after 1992 GM puts 1% of salary into your 401 for your "pension" and did match up to 4% (but no longer).
|
|
|
The last I checked, the UAW doesn't make light bulbs. /hint |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 03, 2009 7:46 am) That only effect those whom are yet to get on the plan. Those prior have rights to this pool of money (pension) and the administrator of such a plan have legal obligations. When the stock market goes south, so do the funds within these pension plans. Therefore, they might be deemed underfunded and GM has the responsibility to fund and or wait for market conditions to improve. I have no knowledge of that executive plan dissolving. Which would have been an option in better times. Just payoff the present value and let each person go off on their own. I bet the money managers (Wall St) wouldn't take kindly to such an idea, since they draw benefit/income from managing the pension fund. On the next stock market boom, lets see how serious companies are about dissolving defined pension funds. The GOP should have done this for employers and not listened to the Wall St money managers. I most definitely would rather get the present value and do my own investing. Most plans have a fixed amount set. Such as $50 a month per year of service. They know how many folks are entitled, as well as how many have earned vesting. Then there are provisions for survivors. They then calculate what they need to satisfy the obligations. This is put into simplistic terms, some may have adjustments and or other stipulations. In any case all these things are taken into account and actuarials are made up. The insuring concern looks at these to see if they are over/under funded.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 03, 2009 7:44 am) I disputed my property assessment this year and got a 10% decrease. Here, in Texas, a group of taxpayers, I think it was five agreed that my home was worth a said amount. I could have taken it to the courts, but I thought it was reasonable. The pension number is beyond my knowledge and speculating would be an injustice. I'm an excellent cross examiner. Send me to Black Lake and let me give them the third degree. I've done it prior and there was nothing of substance. Just rumor and or ignorance doesn't make the UAW corruption.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 03, 2009 9:20 am) But the UAW sits around, says we've already suffered enough, we're not going to renegotiate the contracts, we don't care how little money folks doing the same job at Honda and Toyota make, and by the way, we have this huge expanse of land complete with a world class golf course, all of which is losing the union money but we're keeping it and here's your raspberry, honey. Not good PR if the union wants sympathy and support for the upcoming card check-off campaign. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 03, 2009 9:20 am) It is not ignorance except on the part of UAW members. That pension plan that is subsidizing the golf course for UAW members, should be under supervision. If you claim you have an asset in the fund that is not worth what the fiduciary says it is worth that is Fraud. All we are saying is the UAW says it is worth one amount when it is considered part of the Pension fund and another when it comes time to pay property taxes. My second and more pertinent question is this? How can you say this fancy resort and golf course is an asset to the members? First they have to pay $1000 per year for membership. Then up to $85 for 18 holes of golf plus $15 for a cart. How many UAW members have the time off to Drive 292 miles for a round of golf. This resort is purposely placed a long way from the grunts to keep low life members from using it. The fat cat leaders can go up and hang out as much as they like and call it a seminar or training. Also how many months per year does the course stay open in Northern Michigan? I would say 7 months max. So if you are lucky enough to get one round of golf per month and stay overnight because of the 6 hour drive each way, it will be about $400 plus food. The UAW leadership may have you fooled into believing that is a wonderful asset for UAW members. It would not fly with me. At least the Alaska Teamsters were honest when they built that massive resort community in Palm Springs (Indian Wells). They did it to make money for the pension fund. If you wanted to come and play golf it was at the going rate. Which was not as expensive as your UAW exclusive resort. PS That $400 does not include the wife or kids. You have to find someone rich enough to play against.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 03, 2009 9:07 am) That only effect those whom are yet to get on the plan. Those prior have rights to this pool of money (pension) and the administrator of such a plan have legal obligations. When the stock market goes south, so do the funds within these pension plans. Therefore, they might be deemed underfunded and GM has the responsibility to fund and or wait for market conditions to improve. I have no knowledge of that executive plan dissolving. Which would have been an option in better times. Just payoff the present value and let each person go off on their own. I bet the money managers (Wall St) wouldn't take kindly to such an idea, since they draw benefit/income from managing the pension fund. The GM pension is still funded even though the market is down. If it does drop more I guess it could become severely underfunded but it will go back up. But perhaps I am misinterpreting your statements which is easy to do. Are you saying you think there is still a pension continuing to accrue for execs at GM? I am confused now on where you were going. The fund is funded, now you want to just give the money to the employees and not wait for them to retire? Why would GM need to do this? Does it somehow save the company? Are you saying GM should stop the pension plan for the UAW members? Perhaps just turn over the money to the union reps? Or cash it out to the members themselves and tell them they are on their own for retirement? As of 11/24/08 G.M. appears to have enough money in the pension fund to pay its more than 400,000 retirees their benefits for many years — even with the markets swooning around it. That is largely because of the conservative way G.M. has managed the fund recently, and it explains why G.M. has not joined the long list of companies pressing Congress for pension relief. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/business/25auto.html
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 03, 2009 10:00 am) I think they (the UAW) claims that the education center is funded by interest from their strike fund. Where do we get that this is pension money? Fiduciary is a legal responsibility, and more than likely they are an independent third party. Surely your 401K plan isn't managed by your company and or union? this goes way back to the Teamsters. I don't want to besmirch them, but they have had lots to do about keeping a disinterested third party watching the pension funds. How can you say this fancy resort and golf course is an asset to the members? Its called summer family scholarships and anyone from any local can apply. About 10,000 members take advantage of this every year. I did and had no problem. Then I've been there during the winter for leadership education. Chaplin's have their week there. Editors have their week there too. It's not La Jolla, but it serves a purpose and the golf course was added later on. Then too I am aware they conduct business with the auto makers from there too. Its rustic and not what your thinking. The millionaire who owned the original lodge prior, let Lucy and Desi use it for their honeymoon. If you go there, don't expect some SPA type resort. Far from it. Its more like back to nature and closest thing I can compare it to is the YMCA of the Rockies, near Estes Park, Colorado. Which was not as expensive as your UAW exclusive resort. Your not even close. I've been to that posh resort and its geared to the leisure class/idle rich. So, please spare me this comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 03, 2009 10:14 am) Well, I am not quite sure what to say, or perhaps more accurately where to start, with regard to this article in the New York Times today on the surprising financial health - at least for now - of the GM pension plan. As the company otherwise founders, the article describes years of responsible, forward thinking stewardship of the pension plan’s funds, including with regard to investments of the plan’s assets. Obviously, as the article points out, with the company itself in grave danger of running out of money, that may not continue for too much longer, but GM’s handling of the pension plan to date is clearly commendable, particularly so in a world in which so many other businesses insist that they cannot possibly carry the risks and expenses of offering a defined benefit plan. But GM’s contrary experience raises more questions than it answers. Is it only a company with a gigantic financial footprint - like a GM - that can handle the long term financial investments and exposure needed to run a defined benefit plan? Or is a well thought out investment strategy and a corporate willingness to actually contribute the money needed to execute it all that is needed, such that other companies - many of whom have abandoned pension plans - could have pulled it off as well, had they been so inclined? Or, finally, does GM’s current predicament and the likelihood that, barring a turnaround of the company’s fortunes, its pension plan will be in trouble as well, show that defined benefit plans are simply impractical at best in modern American economic life, where - as the GM example shows - the length of pension commitments is not concomitant with the likely life span of the company that makes those commitments? http://www.bostonerisalaw.com/archives/cat-pensions.html
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
