UPDATED October 4, 2013: Teamsters whose pensions are in danger due to a new proposed law are speaking out. Some will make their presence known at the October 10 Congressional hearing in Washington DC on the proposed law.

Read what Teamsters have to say about the proposal to let the Central States Fund – and other pension funds – cut pensions of retirees and cut the already-earned credits of active Teamsters.

Click here to receive updates and to join with Teamsters and retirees who are working together to protect our pensions.

“We’re organizing a pension meeting for the Twin Cities. Retired Teamsters and those still working at freight companies, grocery warehouses, ready-mix, carhaul, and UPS want to know what’s going on and what they can do to protect their retirement. We’re organizing to get them the answers. We need others doing the same in their local areas.”

Sam Karam, YRC
Local 120
Minneapolis, MN

I was going for 35 years and out. After 31 years, my union rep. said they are freezing the pension (Central States), and I might as well retire now and take what I can get.

So, in 2004 I started my retirement after working for 5 union companies that all shut down. (Inland/Rans Distributing, Churchill Freight Lines, Advance Transportation, Crouse Cartage Company and Parker Motor Freight) Long hours, hard work and 4 of those years were driving nights.

With all the restrictions the Central States Pension Fund has on it I never pursued any type of other work. My wife and I adjusted our income/lifestyle to her job and just my pension check, and made do with that.

Now 10 years later, being 64 and just getting by with my pension check and my wife's job, they want to cut it by at least half. You've got to be kidding! After 31 years of hard work, my age and my physical health not what it used to be, what can I do now?

It's time for companies, the union, the government, and everyone involved to take action to protect and support the pension funds for retirees like me and future retirees.

Where's our government that bailed out Wall St., the banks, and 2 car companies? I'm not necessarily looking for a bailout, but there are solutions! It's time to help the hard working middle class for a change! Let's find a solution, not "take away." I'm just asking for what I worked for and was promised!

John C. Landgraf
Teamster Retiree, Local 364
South Bend, Ind.

Greg Brown, Holland
Local 413, Columbus, Ohio

I've worked in Teamster Freight for nearly thirty five years. I planned on retiring after 30 years of back breaking work but they changed it just before I reached the goal. So I went to 57. 

Because of YRC's bad management & financial decisions, we were forced to take concessions on our wages and benefits, and I had to change plans, again. But I’m still counting on getting the FULL pension I earned. I know it's going to take organizing with my Teamster brothers and sisters to ensure we get it.
 
I had breakfast recently with former co-workers who have retired from Yellow Freight. My goal was to catch them up on what’s possibly coming down the pike with our pensions. Not one had heard or knew anything about the lobbying effort by the IBT and Central States, which proposes cutting pension benefits. Even for retirees!
 
At the breakfast, I passed out the petition to protect our pensions and got names and signatures.
 
We all need to get the info and the petition out to working and retired Teamsters. The NCCMP proposals (link here) should be called "No Solutions, Just a Cop Out." We need to remind Hoffa that he campaigned in 1996 on a "25-and-Out" and he needs to make sure we get our promised pension, not help to gut it.

Tim Pagel
Local 988
Houston

I went to work for Murphy Warehouse Company right after Labor Day 1976. I worked locally delivering freight of various kinds to distribution centers, mostly grocery warehouses in the St. Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area.

After 23 years at Murphy, I worked for a short time for a regional trucking company and then, for 11 years, a ready mix company. My wages (adjusted for inflation) remained essentially flat throughout my working career. But the health benefits and pension were the saving grace. Through it all, my employers were paying contributions to my pension.

I counted on the pension and social security as a savings plan for my retirement.

Then came the Great Recession of 2008 and construction took a nose dive. My income and work were cut by 80%. We lost our house and incurred additional tax liability because of the refinancing. For lack of work, I quit my union job. I went to work non-union in the oil fields of North Dakota. I worked 80-hour weeks to try to keep our heads above water.

I’m now 75, still working to pay off my debts, and collecting a pension of $2,300/month.

Now the Central States Pension Fund is part of a big lobbying effort to get Congress to change the law to allow them to cut my pension. Is that just and fair after all the years I sacrificed to earn a decent retirement? Congress needs to stand up for the little guy, those of us on Main Street America, and make sure that we get what we were promised.

Bob McNattin
Local 120
St. Paul, Minn.

To Members of Congress:

I am outraged by the effort to convince Congress to allow reductions in pension benefits. Please try to think of retirees who have planned our lives based on our pensions. 

I’ve been retired for 9 years after working for over 36 years moving freight across the country. In 1980, due to government deregulation, many companies went out of business in the freight industry. I worked for ten companies at one time (on call) to make sure I stayed active to receive monthly or weekly contributions to the pension.  I earned my pension the hard way as I have a clear memory of giving up many possible wage increases so that money could go towards benefits.

I am also a past President of Teamsters Local 407 and represented 7,500 members at that time. I fear that that proposed legislation to change pension law will be devastating to these members I served and so many more. I know any cut will harm my household. I am a cancer survivor and my wife has health issues as well. We count on my pension to keep us going.

I am currently a councilman in Maple Heights, Ohio and try to represent my constituents fairly. I expect the same from Congress. You bailed out the banks and their executives didn’t lose a dime. Unlike the bankers, we have done no wrong.

Don't be afraid to lend a hand to people who worked hard for their pensions.

Respectfully,

Alex Adams
Local 407 Retiree
Councilman, Maple Heights, Ohio

We have all earned our Pensions....

I worked for 32 years at Roadway Express/YRCW. I am now retired. As a young man when I hired in, I liked the wages, insurance and most of all, the pension. It was hard work, but the benefits made it worthwhile. The pension offered my wife and I security and a way to live comfortably into our old age. In 1980 deregulation of the trucking industry was put into place and the union truck lines began to fall like dominoes. We gave up raises and increased money to the pension fund. 

Many of the fellow Teamsters I have talked to are in disbelief that Congress might allow our pensions to be cut. Some were moved to tears, frightened, while others became fighting mad. The NCCMP proposal is a slap in the face to every Teamster. I have read the 3-page report from the Pension Rights Center and the 10-page report from the AARP. The AARP plan outlined many ways our pensions could be saved. I support the AARP approach. The NCCMP proposal only supports cutting our hard earned pensions as a fix. I hope you will join me in a fight with TDU for a fair solution for retirees and those who have not yet retired. We can win this with your help.

SO, JOIN THE FIGHT NOW......

Dave Scheidt
Retired Teamster
Local 41, Kansas City

I initiated into Teamsters Union Local 128 that later merged into Pittsburgh Local 249. I was a Roadway freight driver and moved to Harrisburg Local 776 with a change of operations. Later, another change took me to Youngstown Local 377. That terminal closed and had another change to Miami Local 769. Why all the moves? I needed to remain in a Teamster pension plan. The promise was $3,000/month after 30 hard years.

I will fight along with my union and TDU to preserve those benefits I earned. Congress better hear us loud and clear. Don't cut our pensions!

Solidarity, brothers and sisters,

Mike Schaffer
Local 249
Pittsburgh

After working 31 years, I thought I had a secure retirement. I wasn't planning on living it up but felt I could comfortably pay my bills on my monthly pension check.

I earned my pension as a Teamster. For ten years, I worked for a land survey company and was a member of Local 299 in Detroit. The following 21 years I worked as a UPS delivery driver in Teamsters Local 243.      

I probably racked up an extra 10 years of overtime hours put in over those years, wearing out toe joints, knees and shoulders. None of those hours counted towards my pension.
    
Over the years we watched our budget. We kept our cars 10 years or more, went on a few simple vacations now and again, and made our boys pay a good part of their own college expenses.
     
I viewed my pension as a savings plan, tucked away, where I could live off it in my old age. Now I'm hearing this may not be the case.

I'm told that the pension I earned over those long years will likely be cut without any say on my part. I earned my pension under the contract. Each and every time, we accepted a lower pay raise so more money could go to the pension. We were told we could count on that money when we retired. I trusted that the system was secure. I played by the rules and did nothing wrong.
    
In conclusion, I would hope that Congress would take every measure to protect the pensions of so many retired people like myself that are now left in great jeopardy by threats to our retirement security.  
                                                              
George W. Balog
Retiree
Auburn Hills, Michigan

I worked for over thirty years as a union truck driver, with the goal of being able to have a comfortable lifestyle once I retired. Take a look at my work history and you get a pretty good picture that I earned my pension.

1964-70: Air National Guard – Honorable Discharge

1968-69: Roethlisberger Transfer Steel Division – Teamsters Local 40

1972-74: Case Driveway Inc. – Teamsters Local 505

1974-75: Spector Freight System – Teamsters Local 92 and 142

1975-1984: General Highway Express – Teamsters Local 40

1992: ABF – Teamsters Local 40

1992-2009: USF Holland – Teamsters Locals 20, 24, and 40

Government deregulation of the trucking history had a big impact on my career. I followed the work, and had to move my family, to keep earning towards my Teamster pension. Please do not change the law to allow my pension to be cut.

Larry Kuhn
Retiree
Shelby, Ohio

I've been a Teamster in the trucking industry for 38 years. I retired with 36 ½ years of pension contributions. I had 30 years of contributions to Central States. In each contract, we gave up wage increases for the money to go to health insurance costs and our promised pension benefit. Now Central States is pushing for changes that would allow them to cut my benefit. That proposed change to pension law will have a terrible impact on me and thousands of other Teamster retirees. That's not what we earned or what we were promised.

Carl Hansen
Retiree
Waukesha, Wisconsin

To Members of Congress:

My tax dollars paid for 140 billion in bailout money just for bonuses to bankers who screwed up. Defined benefit plans were ruined by these same people. Our taxes funded bailouts for automakers and tax breaks for companies like Apple and GE.

Let's stop giving tax breaks to "Job Creators" who don't create any jobs. Let's stop breaking promises to the poor and middle class. Please stop this class war.

I can't keep delivering 300 pound treadmills until I'm 80 years old. This seems to be the new American dream. I paid into a pension for 23 years but there's no one to help me. It used to be you were a bum if you didn't work. Now you're a bum if you want to get what you paid into like a pension or social security. The talkers on the radio say that seniors are on the dole and firemen and teachers who want their pensions are greedy.

Even the inventor of the 401k says they were not meant for retirement. They were meant to be a way to delay tax payments for the super wealthy.  A secure retirement should not hinge on timing a stock market bubble in order to work. Forcing us to work longer also shrinks the pool of jobs for younger folks.

The NCCMP seems to be just another group of employers trying to get out of paying what was promised to their employees.

The PBGC should keep a promise and maintain benefit levels and create jobs by allowing us to retire. I'm not sure why destroying the middle class is the goal of today's government. I don't think it's a good idea. We spend the little money we have.

I've been funding tax breaks for the wealthy for decades now. Is it too much to ask for what I gave up in wages toward a truly modest retirement after 40+ years of work?

Paul Host
Teamsters Local 200 – ABF
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

UPDATED October 23, 2013: A Congressional hearing will be held to address pension issues Tuesday, October 29.

Click here to tell your Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote NO on any plan to allow earned pensions to be cut. This site, sponsored by the Machinists Union, will allow you to send an email message right away to your Senators and Reps.

Click here for a list of Congressional Reps on the Education and Workforce Committee who will take up the bill, and for how to send them a note urging a NO vote.

Members of Congress are going to introduce a bill to allow any "deeply troubled" pension plan to cut the pensions of those already retired and those with already-earned pension credits.

This bill, which is supported by employer groups, the Central States Pension Fund, and the Hoffa administration, would give a green light to corporate America to cut pensions that have already been earned. This is presently illegal under ERISA, which includes an "anti-cutback" provision.

We expect the Central States Fund to testify on October 10 in favor of the plan to cut pensions. Do they speak for you?

We oppose this plan to cut pensions. So do others, such as the Pension Rights Center and the AARP. You can read the AARP statement on this proposal for yourself.

If you want to oppose this bill, the time is now to take action.

Tell Congress to keep the ERISA anti-cutback rule to protect the pension you earned. Ask your representatives to support the AARP proposals. And pass on info from the TDU website to other active and retired Teamsters.

Click here to recieve updates and to join with Teamsters and retirees who are working together to protect our pensions.

September 25, 2013: You can easily find the postal and email addresses for your Congressional Rep and U.S. Senators here.

You can find the names of those on the Education and Workforce Committee here. Please send them copies of your letter.

September 12, 2013: The latest financial report (first quarter 2013) for the Central States Pension Fund is now available, and reflects assets of $18.3 billion as of March 31, 2013.

This represents a $517 million gain in the first quarter, due to the big run-up in the stock market during that period. Since that time, the stock market leveled off, and bonds have done poorly, so the current balance is certainly lower. The fund relies overwhelmingly on investment returns to pay benefits, since Hoffa allowed UPS to leave the fund in 2007.

Teamsters and retirees can access the first quarter reports: the Independent Special Counsel Report and the Financial and Analytical Report.

Central States Health & Welfare Financial Report

You can read the First Quarter 2013 Financial Report on the Central States Health & Welfare Fund for a detailed look at the financial health and operation of the fund. 

This financial information was attached to a report on the separate Central States Pension Fund; that report was compiled by Independent Special Counsel David Coar, Esq, and was submitted to federal judge Milton I. Shadur.

The H&W Fund, which now uses the name TeamCare, reported 81,600 active participants, but plans to add some 144,000 UPS Teamsters when the UPS contract is finally acceptable to members and the regional supplements are ratified.

Unlike the pension fund, it is operating in the black and has strong financial reserves.

This financial report is only available from Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU).

The IAM cited “44 million reasons” to defend America’s pensions in a new full-page ad published in USA Today. The ad ran from Friday, August 30, 2013 to Labor Day, Monday, September 2, 2013.

To see a copy, click here.

“More than 44 million American workers faithfully contributed part of their paychecks every week into U.S. pension funds based on the promise that they would have a measure of financial security at the end of long, hard and often dangerous careers,” reads the ad. “Those pension funds are now being targeted by the same interest groups whose actions ravaged the nation’s economy and drained trillions from home equity and 401(k) savings accounts while using massive taxpayer bailout funds to pad executive bonuses.

“The latest attempt by bankers, bondholders and lawmakers to break into American workers’ pension funds represents an attempted robbery of epic proportions.”

“This nation’s pension system is not broken, busted or in need of a radical overhaul that shifts ever more wealth from the nation’s middle class to the top one percent,” continues the ad. “Responsible lawmakers and citizens must demand that America keep its pension promises to workers who expect and deserve nothing less.

“The IAM opposes any proposal that breaks America’s promise of a pension to those who have sacrificed wages in order to ensure a secure retirement for themselves and their families,” said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger.

“We want the American people to realize that the issue of pensions is not a union issue – it’s an American issue,” said IAM General Secretary-Treasurer Robert Roach, Jr. “There are 44 million pension holders in the U.S., not all of those are union members. The IAM will continue to lead the fight in shedding light on this important issue and in defending workers’ pensions.”

A copy of the full-page IAM ad is available here.

Partly blaming the health law, United Parcel Service is set to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere.

Many analysts downplay the Affordable Care Act's effect on companies such as UPS, noting that the move is part of a long-term trend of shrinking corporate medical benefits. But the shipping giant repeatedly cites the act to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether the law erodes traditional employer coverage.

Rising medical costs, "combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost," UPS said in a memo to employees.

The company told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage at their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014. The Fortune 100 firm expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, said company spokesman Andy McGowan.

UPS becomes one of the highest-profile employers yet to bar working spouses from the company plan. Many firms already require employees to pay a surcharge for working-spouse medical coverage, but some are taking the next step by declining to include them at all, consultants say.

"They are simply saying to the spouse outright, 'If you have coverage somewhere else you are not eligible here,'" said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker. "We don't see a lot of that out there, but more than we used to."

This year 4 percent of large employers surveyed by consultants Towers Watson excluded spouses if they had similar coverage where they work. Another 8 percent planned such a change for 2014, according to the survey.

"When health-care reform came on the scene a few years ago we definitely saw an uptick in companies wanting to explore a working-spouse provision," said Steve Noury, national sales director for HMS Employer Solutions, which monitors dependents' eligibility for corporate benefits. "We have seen [them] over the past two or three years putting those in place."

The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children but not spouses or domestic partners.

UPS spouses may have difficulty finding similar coverage at their own employers. The $500 in-network family deductible for UPS's basic plan, for example, is less than the nationwide average of $733, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Health coverage for spouses became standard in the 1950s when wives were less likely to work outside the home. The rise of two-income households led, in many cases, to two family health plans, but employers have been slow to address the overlap.

Companies have employed varying tactics to get spouses off their plans. The city of Anacortes, Wash., pays employees a bonus if spouses get coverage elsewhere, said human resources director Emily Schuh. This year Xerox went the opposite way, charging employees who enroll working spouses a $1,000 annual penalty, which rises to $1,500 next year.

Spouse and domestic partner coverage at Xerox "is intended primarily for those who do not have their own access to employer provided medical coverage," said company spokesman Bill McKee.

One large employer in five collects a surcharge on covered spouses who are eligible for insurance at their own workplace, according to the Towers Watson survey. Another 13 percent planned to add such a working spouse penalty next year.

Now employers are mimicking the city of Richmond, Ind., which excluded working spouses from its health plan starting in January, mainly because too many employees were taking them up on their offer.

"We have all these [employers] around us who are not covering working spouses," said Richmond human resources director Sue Roberson. "You almost have to do it out of self-defense."

The new plan at UPS, which earned $807 million last year on revenue of $54.1 billion, affects about a quarter of its U.S. workforce. The company is sharing part of the savings with employees, reducing premiums for workers whose spouses leave the plan.

Neither the company nor the Teamsters union would say whether a pending contract for blue-collar workers includes health-coverage changes for working spouses.

To explain the switch, UPS gave workers a memo, obtained by KHN, that repeatedly mentions the health act.

While acknowledging that overall health spending continues to rise, the company also blamed cost increases on the Affordable Care Act's research fee (initially $1 per health plan member, then rising to $2) and an a temporary fee of $63 per member to stabilize new online marketplaces for consumers buying directly from insurers.

Other factors are the act's ban on annual and lifetime coverage limits and its requirement to cover dependent children up to age 26, UPS said. The law's mandate for individuals to obtain coverage will nudge employees who previously opted out to enroll, also raising costs, the company said.

The health law is "one of the reasons that UPS is implementing the changes," McGowan said.

Advocates of the law argue that its costs are minimal compared with the burden of overall medical-insurance inflation, which the ACA was designed in part to control.

"The notion that those are going to be make-or-break when they are otherwise absorbing 7 to 10 percent a year [in broader health-cost increases] is kind of ridiculous," said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Obama administration on health policy. "Nobody expected the ACA to have a major effect on health costs for large firms."

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in 2009 that the law's effect on premiums for large employers would be negligible.

Consultants point to another health law effect, however, that could also give employers a reason to dump spouses. Excluding wives might help keep companies from paying the "Cadillac tax" on high-value plans that takes effect in 2018, analysts said.

Also, women in their childbearing years "are a cost driver," said Julie Stone, a senior benefits consultant at Towers Watson. "If you have female spouses and you decide not to cover them, you're going to bring costs down."

The Obama administration would not respond directly to UPS's statements but said that employer coverage increased when Massachusetts implemented its own version of the health overhaul.

"The health care law will make health insurance more affordable, strengthen small businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers," said Joanne Peters, spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Stone doesn't expect widespread exclusion of working spouses until the health act's public insurance exchanges, scheduled to open in October, mature. Once companies know there's an alternative for working spouses, they may accelerate the practice, she said.

But first "they're going to talk about it for a few years," she said.

It's a basic tenet of federal pension law: Plans can't slash the benefits of people who have already retired. But the financial struggles of multiemployer pension plans are igniting a debate over that rule—and threatening to weaken fundamental protections for retirees.

Multiemployer pension plans, created by collective bargaining agreements between unions and two or more employers, cover more than ten million workers and retirees in construction, trucking, retail, health care, hospitality and other industries. In recent years, the plans have been beset by a host of problems, including market downturns, a decline in unionization and employers withdrawing from the plans.

Nearly 40% of plans are struggling financially. About 80% of large plans say they don't expect the multiemployer pension system to survive the next decade without major changes, according to a recent survey by Pyramis Global Advisors.

A commission of more than 40 labor and management groups earlier this year released proposals to shore up the plans—including allowing the plans to cut benefits of current retirees. The National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, the advocacy group that organized the commission, is urging Congress to consider the changes as it addresses funding rules that are due to sunset at the end of 2014. "We believe this package of reforms will strengthen the plans and keep employers in the system," says Randy DeFrehn, the group's executive director.

Participant advocates see some of the proposals as a severe threat to retirees. Looking at U.S. pension law, "the fundamental pillar that it all rests on is when you've earned your pension benefit, it can't be taken away," says David Certner, legislative counsel at AARP.

Multiemployer plans' current problems spring partly from their unique structure. If one employer withdraws from a plan, especially during a bankruptcy, the remaining employers can be saddled with any unfunded benefits. Fearing that their own liabilities may climb higher, more employers may decide to leave the plan. If the plan ultimately runs out of money, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. provides a financial backstop. But the maximum benefit guaranteed by the PBGC is just $12,870 a year. (Most workers with traditional pensions are in single-employer plans, which have a far higher PBGC guarantee and aren't affected by the proposals.)

Some employers say it makes sense to suspend benefits to rescue plans such as the Teamsters' Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas pension plan. After one employer, Hostess Brands, went bankrupt in 2011, the remaining employers' share of unfunded liabilities rose by almost $600 million, according to June Congressional testimony by Michele Murphy, executive vice-president at grocery chain Supervalu, which contributes to the plan. With other employers falling by the wayside, "retirees from these failed companies would be much better off in the long run if pension benefits were reduced now instead of waiting until the plan becomes insolvent," Murphy testified.

Watch for Changes to Your Plan

Under current law, plans in "critical" status can cut early retirement and disability benefits for people who have not yet retired. But plans can't cut back the basic benefits participants have already accrued—until the plans are insolvent and the benefits drop to the PBGC guaranteed level. The commission's proposal would allow some plans projected to be insolvent within 15 to 20 years to cut accrued benefits, as long as they stay above 110% of the PBGC guaranteed amount.

Workers and retirees should watch for their plan's annual funding notice, which states the plan's funding percentage. Plans must also notify participants if they enter "critical" or "endangered" status. The critical-status notices typically list the benefits that may be reduced. "The people who should be most concerned are those in critical status" plans, says Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center. But given the potential for further cuts, she says, all participants should "let their trustees and their unions and also their elected representatives in Congress know how important these benefits are to them."

Labor economist and pension reform advocate Teresa Ghilarducci got into pension issues by default. As a 19-year-old graduate student in economics, Ms. Ghilarducci started working at the University of California's Labor Research Center in Berkeley, where in the late 1970s pension issues were disdained by other students more interested in modeling inflation.

Click here to read more at Pensions & Investments.

August 27, 2013: Workers' pensions are under attack. Chicago's mayor says earned pensions must be cut. Detroit has declared bankruptcy, and Michigan's governor says 21,000 retirees should pay the bill for it.

One of the biggest attacks is aimed straight at Teamster retirees, especially the 211,000 in the Central States Pension Fund. And if corporate America gets away with cutting their pensions, it's going to spread like cancer.

And the worst part is, the Hoffa administration is not fighting back. In fact, they are part of the problem.

It's time for Teamsters to stand up and be counted. All Teamsters and retirees have a stake in this. If you think it's only going to affect the Central States Fund, think again. If our Teamster pensions are not guaranteed, but only a suggestion, then yours can be cut too.

The Poison Proposal

As soon as September, a bill will likely be introduced into the US Congress to allow "deeply troubled" pension plans to cut the benefits of all retirees and cut the already-earned credits of active workers.

The proposal from the National Coordinating Committee of Multi-Employer Plans (NCCMP) is to allow such plans, including Central States, to cut existing pensions in extreme cases to 10 percent over the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) limit of about $1,100 per month.

This would remove a basic protection of our federal pension law. And it is being supported by our Teamster leadership and the Central States Pension Fund, along with major employers like UPS, SuperValu and others.

The bill is based on a document called Solutions Not Bailouts. This document has a number of good elements, but the key part of it is a poisonous proposal to slash pensions as a "solution" to the problems of some pension funds.

TDU is joining with others in labor and consumer and retiree advocates who want to make sure our earned pensions are protected.

What Should be Done To Protect Pensions?

• Stop the move to allow the Central States Plan (and other "deeply troubled plans") from slashing retirees' pensions, possibly as low as 10 percent above the PBGC maximum of $1,100 per month for a 30-year pension.
   
• Propose enhanced protection from the PBGC. It is presently funded by tiny contributions from various pension plans: increase them to provide real insurance for benefits.
   
• End the discrimination in benefit protection against multiemployer (union) plans by the PBGC: raise the covered benefit level, which is now only about $1,100 per month for a 30-year Teamster.
   
• Put forward a version of the bill proposed by Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in 2010, to protect the pensions of workers whose companies have gone bankrupt or moved production offshore. This protection would be a boon to our Teamster pension funds and retirees.

Will You Join the Fight To Protect Pensions?

We are forming a Teamster Pension Defense Committee of interested retirees and active Teamsters. If you are willing to be part of the solution, contact us at 313-842-2600 or click here.

We need people willing to write or visit Congressional Representatives, and people who will travel to Washington D.C. when hearings are held, to be present and demand that Teamster retirees be heard.

"Corporate America has their sights set on pensions, and right now the cross hairs are on Teamsters. It's high time for us to band together, join with other unionists and concerned retirees, and fight back."

Michael Savwoir, TDU Steering Committee
Retiree, Local 41, Kansas City