Let's Bailout Union Pension Funds

[Hoss]

"What do you mean "you people"?"

Slight Drift:

I'm surprised that Downey didn't get an Oscar for that performance...brilliant.

OK, now back to our regularly scheduled GOP hand-wringing.

[guido911]

"What do you mean "you people"?"

Mega thread drift:

[Hoss]

Back on topic, one of Fox's own (read that as any Washington legislator with an (R) next to his or her name) gives FNC a bit of a tongue-lashing regarding this subject:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/05/rep_steve_latourette_has_choic.html

[nathanm]

You people. . . Before the market impact of the recession, most of these funds were failing (only 6% of them showed a profit). 

You got a citation for that, buddy, or is that straight out of ideology-land?

[Gaspar]

You got a citation for that, buddy, or is that straight out of ideology-land?

Please try to be polite. . .and if you are going to comment on a thread, read the article that the thread makes note of.

"these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well."

[Gaspar]

An example for you.  2002 - 2005 when most Non-union managed 401Ks were booming.




Who are the unions looking out for?

[nathanm]

The rank & file pensions are funded by the employers, not the union itself. If the fund is underfunded, you should be questioning the employers, not the union.

[Gaspar]

Mismanagement and failure, on the part of the union, to protect the retirement money of it's workers.  This is just for the SEIU, but many of the other unions look similar.  During a time when almost any moron with an eTrade account could make a minimum of 10%, union pensions were loosing up to 20% of their value.

IT WAS THE UNION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE AND OVERSEE FUNDING FOR THEIR PENSION PLAN.  THAT WAS THE PRIORITY OF THE PENSION MANAGERS.

[nathanm]

Mismanagement and failure, on the part of the union, to protect the retirement money of it's workers.  This is just for the SEIU, but many of the other unions look similar.  During a time when almost any moron with an eTrade account could make a minimum of 10%, union pensions were loosing up to 20% of their value.

IT WAS THE UNION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE AND OVERSEE FUNDING FOR THEIR PENSION PLAN.  THAT WAS THE PRIORITY OF THE PENSION MANAGERS.

So that chart there, the scale is what? How well funded it is? Or is it investment return? I ask, because without that clarification it is beyond useless.

[Gaspar]

I am not going to debate on the "scale" of a chart that clearly shows time-span in one year increments. 

Please feel free to stretch it or contract it in whatever way makes you feel better.   

[Gaspar]

Pension managers have the same responsibilities as fund managers, in that they are responsible for insuring that the end product (the pension) is funded to the return amount promised. The idea is to create a return with interest.

In the case of pensions, when a manager favors one group of employees over another with funding management and higher return investment strategies, this is not ethical.

[nathanm]

Pension managers have the same responsibilities as fund managers, in that they are responsible for insuring that the end product (the pension) is funded to the return amount promised. The idea is to create a return with interest.

In the case of pensions, when a manager favors one group of employees over another with funding management and higher return investment strategies, this is not ethical.

Um, the slide you posted previously specifically states that all funds are invested in the same way. My point about the chart was simply that barring some sort of miraculous returns, that apparent performance could be easily explained by employers underfunding their pension obligations. The same thing would explain why the SEIU management's pension is fully funded (they get paid out of dues, not by the employer) and the rank and file's is not.

You're trying to turn this into some argument against unions when the fault most likely lies at the feet of the companies that refuse to meet their pension funding obligations.

[we vs us]

Hilariously, the slides are cribbed from workerfreedom.org. I'll go ahead and tell you right now that it's not a site advocating communism.

[Hoss]

Hilariously, the slides are cribbed from workerfreedom.org. I'll go ahead and tell you right now that it's not a site advocating communism.

Say it isn't so!

GASP!

[Gaspar]

I give up.  You guys are right.  Unions are awesome!  They are of great benefit to our country and the workers they fiercely protect.  They can do no wrong, and should be revered and honored.