Bailout mania...
 

"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

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

Bailout mania...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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

A base to keep the old and infirm from starving was the basis for Social
Security. The Widows and Children's act. But LBJ figured out how to get
lots more money to spend for a war he and his family profited highly from,
but promising hire payouts, when raising the contribution amount. Worked
great for LBJ, early in, just like a good Ponzi scam. Up until LBJ I paid
1% of the first $3300 a year and the employer matched it. $660 a year
total. But now is about 16% total, and the government is hiding lots of
deficit spending via SS contributions. You think Clinton really balanced
the budget? Take out that 16% SS money, and the deficit would be huge.
Same as now. You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?
Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

Bailout mania...
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If it
wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335 million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and Ford in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the same and
say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own. Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of recession.
Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good case
study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler has left.

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.

Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to work to
get the money...

************************************************** *****

You are freekin' unbelievable!
In one breath you whine about getting a free handout so you can buy a new
vehicle and in the next, badmouth the hard working uniom man for expecting
to get money without working. What makes you so special?



It's far too complicated you you to understand. Please stay in
alt.lemmings where you belong.

Bailout mania...
 

Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If it
wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and Ford in
1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the same and
say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate and
not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own. Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and businesses
out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill must be
paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't print out
of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of recession.
Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. The war
in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in bankruptcy of
the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good case
study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler has
left.

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to work to
get the money...

************************************************** *****

You are freekin' unbelievable!
In one breath you whine about getting a free handout so you can buy a new
vehicle and in the next, badmouth the hard working uniom man for
expecting to get money without working. What makes you so special?
JustHate is an important man...he runs a boat-building company that
doesn't build boats and a motorcycle racing team that doesn't race
motorcycles.


I heard he races that new bike around the kitchen table.



Where did you hear that, dummy?

Go take a nap.

Bailout mania...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"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.



There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Bailout mania...
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Federal income tax but not state income tax.

I think the closed down a mini van plant in Baltimore or are going to
close one down soon.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension
money was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Privately held by whom? Who owns the stock?