September 15, 2005: Fighting pension cuts can make a difference. That’s the lesson coming out of New England where angry Teamster members pressured the New England Pension Fund Trustees to backtrack on pension cuts they announced in July.

“I was featured in Convoy after I learned that the pension cuts were going to make it impossible for me to retire in November like I planned,” said Local 42 member Dan Faust, who is just a few months short of 30 years of pension credit “The next thing I know I got a call from my local officer and she told me the trustees had made changes because of all the fallout and I would be able to retire.

“I’m not saying it was all about that one article. The trustees heard from a lot of Teamsters who were furious and we won some positive changes as a result. I’m riding on cloud nine right now,” Faust said.

The news is not all good. For most Teamsters, the restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have 25 years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for their full special-service pension until age 57. Even if you had 25 years of credit by July 31, you will not be eligible for a Plan D special-service pension (30-and-out at $3,500/month) until you are at least 57.

“A lot of good Teamsters are still being hurt by these cuts and they are furious—and rightfully so,” said Faust. “Members understand that action has to be taken to protect our pension funds over the long term. But it shouldn’t be on the backs of hard-working Teamsters who have sweated all their lives to put money into these plans.”

Improvements Won
Under the original changes, Teamsters with 25 years who continued working after July 31 would have their pension frozen until they reach age 57. Then, at 57, the pension would snap back to the full rate. A member who had to retire before 57 because of injury or the closure of their company would get no additional benefit for their extra time worked.

The trustees have now eliminated this “snap back” provision. If, and only if, you had 25 years on July 31 and were eligible for a special-service benefit, then you will continue to earn the additional $150 per year or get to the 30 year/$3,000 benefit and be able to retire at any age. However, UPS, freight and other Teamsters working under a Plan D contract cannot receive their maximum benefit unless they wait until 57 to retire.

In a second victory, the trustees reversed a rule change that would have cut the pension accrual rate of all members covered by already-negotiated contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions after July 31, 2005. This would have meant pension cuts for many New England Teamsters covered under multi-year contracts that were negotiated before the pension rules were changed.

Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the negotiated and promised accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of five percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.

More Changes Ahead?
The quick reversal on the part of the trustees raises disturbing questions. If the fund could afford the new revisions restoring some cut benefits, then why were the cuts made in the first place? Exactly what information were the trustees looking at or not looking at prior to making the cuts in July?

As Convoy goes to press, the fund still has not put out anything in writing about the rule changes, fueling speculation that more changes may be coming. Many members say these rule changes don’t go far enough. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions.

Accountability Needed
Teamster members and officers have won some improvements already by putting pressure on the pension fund trustees.

This success is an example of how our union trustees on the pension fund are indirectly accountable if we apply enough heat. What is really needed is direct accountability.

The New England pension cuts show the need for us to elect delegates to the 2006 Teamster Convention who will support changes to the Teamster Constitution to hold benefit fund trustees directly accountable to Teamster members—and to support candidates for International office who will defend our pensions from attacks by the employers and corporate politicians.

September 15, 2005: The fight for pension justice has focused on the U.S. Congress in recent weeks, as Teamsters have organized to support legislation that helps Teamster funds, and to oppose a dangerous amendment that endangers our benefits.

Teamster members are starting to get results. On Sept. 8, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a pension bill which did not include the anti-worker “Red Zone Amendment” that would allow certain plans to make drastic cuts in promised early retirement benefits earned by long-time Teamsters.

Thanks to the heroic efforts of concerned members, key Senators understood the devastating effect this could have on workers who have earned 25- and 30-and-out benefits.

Teamsters have called, written and visited Representatives and Senators to make their views heard. We need to keep it up—the full Senate will likely vote on the pension bill in late September, and amendments will likely be made from the floor. Now is the time to be involved, to say Yes to pension reform, and No to an amendment that would repeal the anti-cutback language in federal pension law.

For more information on the bill and how you can help, go to the Pension Rights Center website at: http://pensionrights.org/pages/policy_multiemployer.html.

Pension Bills

The “Defined Benefit Security Act” was passed by the Senate HELP Committee on a vote of 18-2. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposed it, because of its provisions on cash balance plans. Essentially this part of the bill would allow companies to break early retirement promises in single-employer plans. This bad language would not directly affect workers covered by Teamster multiemployer plans.

The bill has positive provisions. It would allow multiemployer plans more breathing room to recover following stock downturns. It would also impose stricter standards on plans, so that they would have to make reasonable actuarial assumptions and interest projections, and speed up the funding of benefit improvements. At least theoretically, it would hold trustees and managers to a higher standard of fund management, and prevent our plans from being taken over by the federal pension insurance program, which provides only very low guarantees. The Senate bill would require disclosure to participants of full actuarial reports and other financial documents. TDU members have lobbied in favor of this transparency provision.

The House version of the bill is similar, but includes the dangerous amendment that would allow cutbacks in accrued benefits.

Hoffa and Pension Reform

The International Union supports the pension bill, but also says “If… this bill turns out to be harmful to multi-employer funds, the Teamsters Union is committed to doing everything possible to defeat it.” (August Teamster Leader.)

The Hoffa administration has launched a major campaign with petitions, PR, and bulletins but never names a single item in the pension bill that they support or oppose. This secrecy makes it impossible for members to write or talk to their legislators, unless they just want to say “whatever Hoffa says, that’s right.” It’s hard to motivate Teamsters and retirees with that leadership.

What’s most dangerous is the Red Zone Amendment. A critically important protection won in 1984, the anti-cutback provision, should not be given up without a fight. Insiders in Washington report that UPS management is pushing this dangerous amendment, and we can see why. But we can’t see why our union would go along!

Pension Movement on the Move

The fight for pension justice for Teamsters and retirees continues to spread. Teamsters in the Central States, Western, Central Pennsylvania, New England and other plans are organizing and fighting back.

This month the focus is on Congress, but the longer term emphasis has to be on winning accountability and honesty out of our union pension trustees.

That is the battle that can and will be won.

September 15, 2005: “Teamsters who want new IBT leadership can’t wait until 2006 to get started,” said Atlanta Local 728 President Randy Brown. “We have work that’s got to get done this fall. We need to petition to get a reform slate officially accredited, and we need to prepare to win the delegate elections. Those have got to be priorities for Teamsters who want change in this union.”

Brown is part of the Committee for New Leadership, a network of Teamster officers and leaders working to pull together a strong and diverse reform slate for the International Union election in 2006.

September 5, 2005: The committee is preparing to announce an initial slate of candidates and to launch an accreditation petition drive so these candidates will have the right to publish their program in the campaign “battle pages” section of the Teamster magazine.

“A number of us are prepared to run for the General Executive Board as part of a reform team,” said Dan Scott, the Secretary-Treasurer of Seattle Local 174. “We need leadership at the IBT that can bring together Teamster members and officers to rebuild this union’s power and take on the big challenges including organizing Overnite, defending members’ pensions and benefits, building strong local unions, and gearing up for successful negotiations at UPS and freight in 2008.”

“We’re prepared to work with all Teamsters who want to dump Hoffa, to make sure every Teamster that wants change feels represented in a new IBT leadership,” said T.C. Bundrant, the president of Tenn. Local 549.

Teamster members are getting involved by building local campaign committees, making fundraising plans and preparing to run in upcoming elections for IBT Convention Delegate. Special campaign preparation meetings will be held at the TDU Convention in November.

If you’re interested in building the campaign in your area, contact TDU.

Click here: Cracks in Hoffa Unity
Click here: Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
Click here: TDU Wins Changes in Election Rules

September 5, 2005: That’s what the banner on the Local 206 truck said at the Labor Day picnic in Portland, Ore. Because it’s true.

“Before the SEIU withdrew, they discussed the issue for two years, but Hoffa yanked 1.3 million Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO without any kind of consultation with members or local officers. That is not a responsible way to make a decision of this magnitude,” says Local 206 President Bill Zimmerman.

“I’ll be at the TDU Convention to talk with fellow Teamsters about what leaving the AFL-CIO means for our union—and what we can do to build labor solidarity on the local level and change the Teamsters to win.”
Do you have comments on the Change to Win Coalition? Send your thoughts to:


Teamster Viewpoint
Convoy Dispatch,
PO Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210


Click here: Changing to Win at Overnite?
Click here: Coalition Launches Rival Federation
Click here: Teamster Viewpoint: Leaving AFL-CIO Threatens Union Solidarity

September 1, 2005: In his two terms as Teamster general president, James Hoffa has delivered a dues hike, pension cuts, a shrinking membership, and the return of allegations of organized crime influence at the highest levels of the union—all while turning a financial surplus into a deficit.

Now Hoffa will have to answer for that record—and the decline of Teamster power on his watch.

A group of local Teamster leaders has formed an exploratory committee to discuss what it will take to defeat Hoffa in next year’s election for IBT office. Local officers have launched the Committee for New Leadership to put together the program and leadership team that can rebuild Teamster power.

Teamster members will have a choice in the 2006 balloting—and the opportunity to vote for a new leadership and new direction for our union.

“Right now, we’re at the stage of reaching out and building the alliances and campaign infrastructure we’ll need, not just to win this election but to successfully lead this union on a new course,” said Jack Reardon, vice president of Local 170 in Massachusetts. “Our job is to build a grassroots army for change.”

“Growing numbers of Teamsters are saying that our union is in crisis,” said Oregon Local 206 Secretary-Treasurer Tom Leedham. “If we want to save our union, we’ve got to work together.”

The Committee for New Leadership has not announced a candidate. Under the Teamster election rules, the official candidate accreditation process begins this summer with a petition drive.

“We want to hear from Teamsters about your ideas,” said Randy Brown, Atlanta Local 728 president. “No one’s going to fix it for us. We’ve got to do this together.”

TDU encourages concerned Teamsters to get involved in this campaign to save our union. Contact the Committee for New Leadership at:
newleadership2006 [at] gmail.com.

August 28, 2005: The current debate in Congress over pension “reform” tends to leave out the most important issues: protection of pension benefits for families, and protection of our pension system into the future. Instead the debate is focused too narrowly on cutting benefits and allowing corporations to eliminate defined benefit plans—plans that have been crucial to eliminating old-age poverty in the U.S.

Two experts who testified earlier this year in Congress addressed these broader concerns. Teresa Ghilarducci is a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Norman Stein is a professor of law at the University of Alabama who teaches and writes on labor and employee benefits.
Below are excerpts from their testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. These comments were addressed to the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation on single-employer plans (not Teamster plans), but show the kind of approach that is needed to deal with the pension issue.

The multi-employer (including Teamster plans) legislation now before Congress has the same pro-employer slant that these experts noted in the earlier bill.

Click on the links below for the for full testimony:

Teresa Ghilarducci (Associate Professor of Economics
University of Notre Dame)

Statement of Norman P. Stein On Behalf of the Pension Rights Center

On the roots of the “crisis”:

Norman Stein: “The worst of the problems of defined benefit plans are concentrated in a few industries that have undergone major structural change, partly in response to actions taken by the federal government. … If the airline industry had not been deregulated, United, Delta and U.S. Airways would have been better situated to fund their pension plans adequately.”

Norman Stein: “As a society, we need to accept some responsibility for the current financial problems in the defined benefit system. We should not lose sight of a simple fact: the current fiscal stresses on defined benefit plans and the PBGC are not the product of illegal fraud committed by mendacious corporate managers nor the selfish actions of the millions of Americans who have relied on defined benefit plans. Rather, the problems are, at least in retrospect, the results of the laws that Congress enacted and of actions taken by the Executive branch.”

On the proposed reform legislation:

Teresa Ghilarducci: “The whole idea of ERISA and pension protection was to ensure that promises made and indirectly paid for by workers weren’t reneged on. But this bill steps away from protecting accrued benefits. The bill unfairly places the losses of funding failures on workers.”

Norman Stein: “The administration proposal would require that certain underfunded plans freeze future benefit accruals and would bar benefit improvements. Such restrictions are wrong, so long as new benefits are funded and old benefit liabilities are being amortized under appropriately rigorous schedules.”

On access to information:

Teresa Ghilarducci: “Why not add a worker representative on the board of trustees? … [T]hrough their representatives they would have a genuine link and awareness of ongoing pension funding issues. A worker representative would further transparency goals.”
On what needs to be done:

Teresa Ghilarducci: “Implement funding rules that freeze benefit accruals for funds with below 60 percent funding, but don’t make 80 percent a blanket trigger. … [R]eform should help employers find ways to stay in the system and get through short-term difficulties.”

Norman Stein: “Existing employee benefit expectations should be respected. … [R]estrictions on employees’ access to certain types of benefits, or the immediate negation of certain benefit guarantees, or a mandatory freeze on new benefit accruals, should be avoided wherever possible.”

August 28, 2005: The recently announced pension cuts in New England went over like a Yankees victory in Fenway Park. The angry uproar by members and local officers has pressured the New England Pension Fund Trustees to reverse two of their most unfair pension cuts announced in July.

The new is not all good. The restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have enough years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for 25- or 30-and-out until age 57.

Unlike in the past, the changes did not include grandfathering provisions to protect Teamsters who were close to making their 25 or 30 years and were planning to retire soon. Members are calling for the fund trustees to grandfather existing negotiated promises. Teamsters who were close to qualifying under the old rules should have their contracts honored.


Change #1: No Punishment for Continuing to Work
Under the original changes, Teamsters with 25 years who continued working after July 31 would have their pension frozen until they reach age 57. Then, at 57, the pension would snap back to the full rate. A member who had to retire before 57 because of injury or the closure of their company would get no additional benefit for their extra time worked.

The Trustees have now eliminated this “Snap Back” provision. If, and only if, you had 25 years on July 31 and were eligible for a special service benefit, then you will continue to earn the additional $150 per year and be eligible to retire at any age.

Change #2: Honoring Promises in Existing Contracts
Under the original cuts, Teamsters would have suffered a reduction in their pension accrual if they were covered by contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions of 5 percent. This would have meant pension cuts for many New England Teamsters covered under multi-year contracts that were negotiated before the pension rules were changed.

The Pension Fund Trustees have backed off of this unreasonable rule. Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of 5 percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.

Pension Reform, Accountability Needed
Both of the reforms to the original cuts address problems that were first reported by TDU. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the Trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions that will protect Teamsters who were planning to retire under the old rules.

Teamster members and officers won these improvements by putting pressure on the Pension Fund Trustees. This is an example of how our union trustees on the pension fund are indirectly accountable if we apply enough heat. What is really needed is direct accountability.

The New England pension cuts show the need for us to elect delegates to the 2006 Teamster Convention who will back reforms to the Teamster Constitution to hold benefit fund trustees directly accountable to Teamster members–and to support candidates for International office who will defend our pensions from attacks by the employers and corporate politicians.

August 28, 2005: TDU member Frank Bryant wrote to tell us, “As you advised in your article ‘Taking Action to Protect Your Pension’ in the July/August issue of Convoy Dispatch, a group of my Rank and File brothers and sisters decided to do just that: to take action to protect our pensions.”

On Aug. 25 a delegation of Teamster members traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional aides about pending pension legislation. The delegation included Tommy Burke, Kevin Wright, Frank Bryant (all from Local 391, North Carolina), Randy Brown, President of Local 728, Atlanta and Sandy Pope, President of New York Local 805. They met with aides from Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Enzi and Burr—all of whom are on the Senate committee which introduced the legislation in the Senate.

August 5, 2005: On July 26, one day after James Hoffa pulled the Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO, the Teamster General Counsel sent a notice to all Teamster locals establishing a procedure to be followed if any local desires to raid an AFL-CIO affiliated union.

This statement appears to point in a dangerous direction. Instead of coming out squarely against raids, it provides a procedure to potentially initiate them, and even hints at a suggested reason: claim another union has a substandard contract.

We hope Teamsters, Teamster officers, and other Change to Win unions will urge Hoffa to adopt a solidarity policy. Every AFL-CIO union should do the same.

The directive to locals states that “…we did not disaffiliate for the purpose of raiding AFL-CIO affiliates at already organized job sites. In this regard, if you are planning any organizing activity in connection with a bargaining unit already represented by a AFL-CIO affiliated union, you must follow the following procedures prior to engaging in further activity:

1. Submit a letter to the General President which sets forth the name of the targeted employer; the location of the targeted employer; the current bargaining representative of the unit; and your reasons for targeting the unit (e.g. adversely affecting the area standards).

2. Courtesy copy the letter to the IBT Legal Department.”

The statement reads quite differently regarding Change to Win unions: it says there shall be no raiding or interfering with the organizing drives of those unions.

The new policy was sent out over the name of IBT General Counsel Patrick Szymanski.

What the Teamster raiding policy will be in practice remains to be seen. Hopefully, the IBT will quickly arrange no-raid agreements with all AFL-CIO unions. We need solidarity with other unions and other workers, regardless of where their leaders line up on the AFL-CIO split.