The DOL files suit against the IAMPF and trustees

[Jester]

 
Oh that's a relief, instead of the wine being absurdly expensive it was just stupidly expensive.  For a minute there I was afraid a substantial part of my retirement was being mismanaged by parasites and hacks.  And I'm glad they're in civil and not criminal court, because that means they're not suspected of being criminals at all, just irresponsible a-holes.
 
I won't vote for any CBA that would put people in the IAMNPF against their will.

 
I completely agree.  If people who are close enough to retirement and want to take the chance of the pension honoring its (ever reducing) promise obligations, then they should do so.  However, in light of the new pension laws signed by Obama, I think those who are further from retirement should reconsider the pension and have this JCBA push for a higher matching employer 401K.
 
Personally, I think the IAMNPF might consider future cuts for retirees as the new law permits a great deal of latitude to institute action:
"Under the new law, benefits can be cut if a plan is projected to become insolvent during a current plan year or any of the next 14 years, or any of the next 19 years if the plan's ratio of inactive participants to active participants exceeds 2-to-1 or if the plan is less than 80% funded."
 
Furthermore,
 
"Certain participants will be shielded from benefit cuts, including retirees age 80 and older and those receiving disability benefits under the plan. Retirees between ages 75 and 79 will face smaller benefit cuts than retirees under age 75."
 
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20141217/NEWS03/141219859
 
Personally, I don't want to hold my breathe for 10-15 years after I retire hoping my pension isn't slashed, especially as I know that 2-to-1 ratio might easily be breached as people run from the plan in light of recent accusations.

 

[WeAAsles]

I completely agree.  If people who are close enough to retirement and want to take the chance of the pension honoring its (ever reducing) promise obligations, then they should do so.  However, in light of the new pension laws signed by Obama, I think those who are further from retirement should reconsider the pension and have this JCBA push for a higher matching employer 401K.
 
Personally, I think the IAMNPF might consider future cuts for retirees as the new law permits a great deal of latitude to institute action:
"Under the new law, benefits can be cut if a plan is projected to become insolvent during a current plan year or any of the next 14 years, or any of the next 19 years if the plan's ratio of inactive participants to active participants exceeds 2-to-1 or if the plan is less than 80% funded."[/size]
 
Furthermore,
 
"Certain participants will be shielded from benefit cuts, including retirees age 80 and older and those receiving disability benefits under the plan. Retirees between ages 75 and 79 will face smaller benefit cuts than retirees under age 75."[/size]
 
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20141217/NEWS03/141219859
 
Personally, I don't want to hold my breathe for 10-15 years after I retire hoping my pension isn't slashed, especially as I know that 2-to-1 ratio might easily be breached as people run from the plan in light of recent accusations.

Now THIS is information that has to make people think. Would the fund trustees want to cut benefits? I'd tend to doubt they would. But under this new law would they or would they be obliged to?

Nice job at informing Jester.

 

[Overspeed]

Good thing we found out before the IAMNPF was shoved down on our throats. When you have Chuck (AMFA) and TWU supporters (Me) saying the fund is sketchy there was reason for concern. Now that the DOL investigation has come out one has to think this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Overspeed]

700UW,
Credit Suisse says the IAMNPF is funded much lower than 102%. They say under FMV assessment it is more like around 60%. So you got numbers, I got numbers. Who do you believe? After reading the DOL letter, it appears the IAM has not been turthful about what's going on with the fund.

 

[Tim Nelson]

But, but, but, wait a minute. Someone keeps posting it's 105% funded.
Is it really? The truth will be exposed soon. Save the IAMPF, save the IAM dues, keep the money flowing into the afl-cio coffers. Hence the Association. Now what? The IAMPF playing defense and the UsAir guys in it are now wondering what if any amount of money will they get out of it. Say what you want but this was corrupt from the beginning when the association was formed. Record profits and no contract. Dues keep flowing into the IAM and the IAMPF. Mission accomplished. We as union members pay the cost every day.

its only funded now because it had to abolish schedule A. Myself and others were forced to be placed on an awful schedule, and that action is what subsidized the fund. If they whacked retirees benefits then maybe the fund would be funded by 120%. of course its funded, they slashed our future benefits to stay green. Its a ponzie scheme. Its unsustainable as there are now 90,000 receiving benefits and only 100,0000 putting in.

regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

Washington, D.C., February 8, 2016 – The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today raised serious questions over allegations contained in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Labor (DOL) against the IAM National Pension Fund.

The well-funded IAM National Pension Fund is among the nation’s most stable and best managed multi-employer plans, and is in full compliance with all DOL rules and regulations. The complaint makes no allegations that relate to the stability of the Fund or its assurance that its 90,000 beneficiaries will have a secure retirement because of the Plan.

The IAM, which is not named in the lawsuit, believes the DOL complaint should be withdrawn quickly to prevent further harm to the Fund’s reputation, and to prevent needless and costly litigation over issues previously addressed and properly resolved.

The civil complaint, filed by the DOL on Jan. 24, 2016, alleges that in the past, improper procedures were followed in the selection of certain service providers to the fund, and that the Fund incurred improper expenditures between 2008 to 2012 in connection with Fund-related activities.

The DOL complaint fails to note that all questionable expenditures were fully reimbursed and new policies put in place to ensure strict compliance with DOL rules.

The IAM believes it is a disservice to the Plan and its beneficiaries for the DOL to revive allegations over issues that have been previously addressed and resolved.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim. Why don't you wait til the federal investigation is completed before filing suit?

Thats a good question. Briefly, the attorney said there may be statutes of limitations. Also, nobody currently seems to have our interests regarding this suit. Im not an attorney so i really dont know the extent. Therefore it cant hurt to secure an attorney so we can find out if our interests were damaged.

 

[robbedagain]

Ok. I understand. Thx

 

[WeAAsles]

Thats a good question. Briefly, the attorney said there may be statutes of limitations. Also, nobody currently seems to have our interests regarding this suit. Im not an attorney so i really dont know the extent. Therefore it cant hurt to secure an attorney so we can find out if our interests were damaged.

Tim the DOL itself is the one who has your interest in this suit. Essentially they are working for you as your attorney. Personally I would wait to see what is their conclusion before "hiring" a Lawyer on your own dime.

If the complaint turns out to bear fruit that you suffered monetarily from bad investments, that's when I might seek further legal assistance. With 190000 participants including some very sharp cookies working at Boeing I'm sure they already have been seeking Legal advice just in case?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim the DOL itself is the one who has your interest in this suit. Essentially they are working for you as your attorney. Personally I would wait to see what is their conclusion before "hiring" a Lawyer on your own dime.
If the complaint turns out to bear fruit that you suffered monetarily from bad investments, that's when I might seek further legal assistance. With 190000 participants including some very sharp cookies working at Boeing I'm sure they already have been seeking Legal advice just in case?

im not sure if any other members are planning on initiating legal consultation. That said, the dol scope isnt to collect damages or have my interest at heart. The dol erisa scope is only to have them reimburse what they unlawfully spent. And after a phone call with a litigating attorney, it appears that there may be damages from fund investing after receiving favors and solicitations and gratuities. Im not sure but im uncomfortable not seeking legal consultation immediately to protect our interests.

Certainly it cant hurt.

regards,

 

[xUT]

im not sure if any other members are planning on initiating legal consultation. That said, the dol scope isnt to collect damages or have my interest at heart. The dol erisa scope is only to have them reimburse what they unlawfully spent. And after a phone call with a litigating attorney, it appears that there may be damages from fund investing after receiving favors and solicitations and gratuities. Im not sure but im uncomfortable not seeking legal consultation immediately to protect our interests.

Certainly it cant hurt.

regards,

Keep fighting the fight!
Don't let 'the union machine' get away with corruption.
Thanks!
B) xUT

 

[chilokie1]

Now THIS is information that has to make people think. Would the fund trustees want to cut benefits? I'd tend to doubt they would. But under this new law would they or would they be obliged to?
Nice job at informing Jester.

Really Weasles? The Kline-Miller Multi-Company Pesion Reform Act
has been law since Dec. 16, 2014 and this information has been posted
numerous times, and an example of the Teamsters using the law recently
in Ohio to slash its members pension payments by 75% in one case has also
been discussed on a thread here. I know you are not stupid so why are you
playing the fool? Who's orders are you following trying to polish this turd?
And it is clearly stated in the law that the fund is required to lower pay outs
to certain classifications to make the fund solvent before it can proceed with
any other action. FYI. to anyone retiring in the next ten years, 90 % of you
will fall into that classification.
I have worked too hard to plan my retirement to have it changed "IN ANY WAY"
by an organization that lied to me about getting a vote on the association formation, I beleive they thought it was going to fail so they just shoved it down our throats. So I
will be dammed if I'am going to sit quiet and let wanna-be's like you and never-beens
like 7000 fudge the truth or happen to conveniently forget pertinent information that
could harm any member IAM or TWU with possibly making a bad decision regarding
his or hers future.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Keep fighting the fight!
Don't let 'the union machine' get away with corruption.
Thanks!
B) xUT

You are welcome. Now it appears that the iam now admits this dol suit can harm the fund and the confidence. That may also mean that there could be more damages that members may be able to collect.

 

[jcw]

It's funny if the company did this every would want mgmt gone - the union did this and there seems to be a good bit of desire to stay the course - how do you prevent the current leadership from negotiating you into this situation.

 

[700UW]

They have the power to vote on their CBA, and there are procedures to in the IAM Constitution to charge officers and reps with conduct unbecoming a member.