Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate and
then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other benefits.
That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit is
bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout for
pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate
and then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other
benefits. That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.


I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this matter.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.



D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

I've had a Rollover IRA for over 20 years and nobody has stolen the
money from the account.

Why are union pension funds being raided by union pension fund managers
and union executives so frequently? The unions need to hire a
professional managers for the unions and Series 7 Licensed pension fund
managers.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit is
bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout for
pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.



D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and
aided the prosecutors.

I've had a Rollover IRA for over 20 years and nobody has stolen the
money from the account.

Why are union pension funds being raided by union pension fund managers
and union executives so frequently? The unions need to hire a
professional managers for the unions and Series 7 Licensed pension fund
managers.


Hysterical, absolutely hysterical.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit
is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout
for pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities.
The employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar
model, where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given
year or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So
rather than the traditional model, the construction unions and the
employers whose employees they represent devised a model that
provided *instant portability* for union members. It also works for
the benefit of traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the
spring, summer and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they
work union in Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to
their home local's pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate
and then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other
benefits. That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.


I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this matter.

Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking) and
401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate corporate
policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this model is
followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the union.

2. See 1., above.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.


You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking) and
401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate corporate
policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this model is
followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the union.

Why don't they change it. Surely the union has enough muscle in the form
of bargaining power to get it changed or do they not want the
responsibility of managing their members pensions and benefits. It
sounds like they want the company on the hook if costs go up.

2. See 1., above.

The UAW should be able to get a very good deal with an insurance
companies on an insurance policy for medical, dental, life and other
benefits. Again, it sounds like the union doesn't want the
responsibility if the costs go up.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.

Doesn't sound like they do enough for their members.

You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Exempt employee, I get a nice deposit into my checking account every two
weeks. Oh, and it is at will employment. Just the way I like it.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money
for the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit
(medical, dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking)
and 401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate
corporate policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this
model is followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the
union.

Why don't they change it. Surely the union has enough muscle in the form
of bargaining power to get it changed or do they not want the
responsibility of managing their members pensions and benefits. It
sounds like they want the company on the hook if costs go up.

2. See 1., above.

The UAW should be able to get a very good deal with an insurance
companies on an insurance policy for medical, dental, life and other
benefits. Again, it sounds like the union doesn't want the
responsibility if the costs go up.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.

Doesn't sound like they do enough for their members.

You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Exempt employee, I get a nice deposit into my checking account every two
weeks. Oh, and it is at will employment. Just the way I like it.





Bert, I suggest you direct your UAW questions to the UAW. I am not a
member of that union and I haven't really known anyone there since my
days working Dem politics and PR in Detroit. That was a long, long time
ago.

While I assist international unions, these days I stay out of their
politics. I help whoever is in charge...and when those players change, I
help the new guys/gals. I don't make policy or assist in making
policy...but once there is policy, I help promote it.

Bailout mania...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and
the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to
any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees
retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work has
no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.


D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to your
attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union covered
by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements except for
unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather,
bonding is required because experience has shown that when people are
entrusted with the money or property of another, there will be instances
when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or dishonesty. Bonding is
therefore required to insure the union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example,
a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling"
union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or
employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's account is
"handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no physical
contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be bonded include
union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees such as business
agents, trustees, key administrative and professional staff, and clerical
personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in computing
the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for computing the
approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury securities,
corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans receivable are common
examples of liquid assets. Property of a relatively permanent nature, such
as land, buildings, furniture, and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know whether
they are approved and your national or international union may be able to
assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS
office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond with a company
on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond
through an agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has any direct
or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example, many
national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union is
covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the bonding
requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The easiest
way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who handle
funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office. Copies
of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA and the
CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are also
available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for their
affiliates should examine the timetables established for affiliates to
report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The amount of bonding
coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year. This can be of
particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage must be increased
because of an increase in the amount of funds handled during the fiscal
year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is inadequately bonded from
receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or
control of any of the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the
parent organization requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds
handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then promptly
arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is required,
adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer, which is a
violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in my
earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock at a
discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is theft.
They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not ripped
off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail term,
does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.