Well I am about to get screwed, another case of middle class getting the shaft.

[iamwhatiseem]

Stopping the plan is not the same as terminating the plan? Wow talk about legal double speak.

Stopping a pension plan is when a company stops offering a plan to new hires, as well as stops contributing to it. BUT - the plan still exist, and all funds in the plan are protected by law.
Terminating a plan is when a company seeks legal right to pay off members and get out of the responsibility and requirements.
They can only terminate a plan if they have all the funds necessary to
A) Transfer enough funds to continue to pay people already drawing without reducing the amount.
B) Here's the bad part - for people who have not yet received funds, they are only required to pay the full vested value - when the plan was stopped. Any increase in valuation, interest etc. - they are not required to pay.

That should be a fucking crime.

 

[westwall]

Welcome to Capitalism 101.
You are at the mercy of the owners...and the Govt. fully supports that.

That's fascism. Dummy

 

[MarathonMike]

Stopping a pension plan is when a company stops offering a plan to new hires, as well as stops contributing to it. BUT - the plan still exist, and all funds in the plan are protected by law.
Terminating a plan is when a company seeks legal right to pay off members and get out of the responsibility and requirements.
They can only terminate a plan if they have all the funds necessary to
A) Transfer enough funds to continue to pay people already drawing without reducing the amount.
B) Here's the bad part - for people who have not yet received funds, they are only required to pay the full vested value - when the plan was stopped. Any increase in valuation, interest etc. - they are not required to pay.

That should be a fucking crime.

Agreed. A pension plan is a major incentive for employees to stay loyal to a company and potentially bypass other jobs that pay more.

 

[BackAgain]

I was fortunate to work for a company that had REAL pensions. The old fashion kind. The real deal.
They stopped contributing to, and stopped offering it to new employees back in 2008.
But I was vested, and had built up funds for 22 years.
My last statement had the value at $2200/mo assuming I began taking the money at age 65. (I will be 59 next month)
I received a letter saying they are fully terminating the plan.
For those who have not started receiving funds - we will get 100% of the value given to us by law.
But... that value is only what the vested share was in 2008. Not the 16 years worth of interest. You see - our corrupt government allowed companies to terminate a plan, at any time, and are only required to pay out the value of the plan when they stopped contributing. They can keep the interest.
If I lived to 85, I would have received about $528,000 in payments to me.
In 2008, that value was barely $140,000. So, it looks like, and I know how to read, that is the amount they will pay out.
Mother Fuckers. There is no way I can turn $140k into a tax deferred vehicle and make that have gains to be $528k while also withdrawing funds.
The original family members that owned the company were great. They could have terminated the plan back in 2008 but stated very clearly that they will not do so because they appreciate all the years people worked for their company, and will not renegue on pension responsibilities.
But most of those folks are dead. Now it is their children. Most of which never spent a day working for the company. In fact, never spent a day working anywhere. They have lived off of the earnings of their parents.
They just said fuck you to all of us.

Sounds like the government is claimed to have authorized a breach of contract. I doubt that the government has any authority to do that.

A massive class action lawsuit against the company may have to include a complicated claim challenging the Constitutionality of the law that supposedly authorized it.

But that might be the way to go.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sounds like the government is claimed to have authorized a breach of contract. I doubt that the government has any authority to do that.

A massive class action lawsuit against the company may have to include a complicated claim challenging the Constitutionality of the law that supposedly authorized it.

But that might be the way to go.

This is not a small company, it was once the 5th largest media company in America.
$Billions in assets.
They likely have an army of 50 lawyers and accounting firms that worked on this to stay in compliance.
I really have no doubt what they are doing is legal. I am already, of course, speaking to other past employees. As well as I will talk to my CPA, but I am pretty sure it is legal, and I and others are about to get screwed.
I did Google the party about terminating companies only have to pay the value at the day the plan closed. And I read several articles stating that is indeed true.
Like I said, the plan was stopped in 2008.

 

[Moonglow]

This is not a small company, it was once the 5th largest media company in America.
$Billions in assets.
They likely have an army of 50 lawyers and accounting firms that worked on this to stay in compliance.
I really have no doubt what they are doing is legal. I am already, of course, speaking to other past employees. As well as I will talk to my CPA, but I am pretty sure it is legal, and I and others are about to get screwed.
I did Google the party about terminating companies only have to pay the value at the day the plan closed. And I read several articles stating that is indeed true.
Like I said, the plan was stopped in 2008.

I have worked for a company for the past two years and six months ago they sold out and screwed us out of PTO accumulation. It depends on the state laws and Arkansass has none.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The only recourse we may have is that the company setup a website years ago for plan members.
I would say around 2010 or so.
And you could login and see what you will receive when you begin to draw.
I looked at mine several-several times over the years, and the amount increased every year.
Back when the site went up, I was only going to get I think it was $1400/mo.
It has went up a lot.
So - if by making that website does that imply a different guarantee? Right on the site it said "to help you plan your overall retirement" Well - terminating the plan ends that amount. So... that should be right.
(BTW - the site is still there, but it no longer works)

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have worked for a company for the past two years and six months ago they sold out and screwed us out of PTO accumulation. It depends on the state laws and Arkansass has none.

In Indiana a company is not required to pay PTO or past sick day accrual - UNLESS - they have said they would in a company handbook. In Indiana, a company handbook is legally binding.
Which, btw - is why a lot of companies no longer provide employee handbooks.

 

[BackAgain]

This is not a small company, it was once the 5th largest media company in America.
$Billions in assets.
They likely have an army of 50 lawyers and accounting firms that worked on this to stay in compliance.
I really have no doubt what they are doing is legal. I am already, of course, speaking to other past employees. As well as I will talk to my CPA, but I am pretty sure it is legal, and I and others are about to get screwed.
I did Google the party about terminating companies only have to pay the value at the day the plan closed. And I read several articles stating that is indeed true.
Like I said, the plan was stopped in 2008.

If the bill that authorized them to do it is Constitutional, then perhaps it is legal.

However, I have to say that I have serious doubts about the Constitutionality of any law that would “allow” a company to breach a contract.

The Constitution does prohibit the States from doing so, in general. See: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. But it doesn’t seem to explicitly deny the legislative branch of the Federal Government such alleged authority.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4859&context=mulr

So, the question becomes, “does the 5th Amendment” make the law unconstitutional?

 

[BackAgain]

I was fortunate to work for a company that had REAL pensions. The old fashion kind. The real deal.
They stopped contributing to, and stopped offering it to new employees back in 2008.
But I was vested, and had built up funds for 22 years.
My last statement had the value at $2200/mo assuming I began taking the money at age 65. (I will be 59 next month)
I received a letter saying they are fully terminating the plan.
For those who have not started receiving funds - we will get 100% of the value given to us by law.
But... that value is only what the vested share was in 2008. Not the 16 years worth of interest. You see - our corrupt government allowed companies to terminate a plan, at any time, and are only required to pay out the value of the plan when they stopped contributing. They can keep the interest.
If I lived to 85, I would have received about $528,000 in payments to me.
In 2008, that value was barely $140,000. So, it looks like, and I know how to read, that is the amount they will pay out.
Mother Fuckers. There is no way I can turn $140k into a tax deferred vehicle and make that have gains to be $528k while also withdrawing funds.
The original family members that owned the company were great. They could have terminated the plan back in 2008 but stated very clearly that they will not do so because they appreciate all the years people worked for their company, and will not renegue on pension responsibilities.
But most of those folks are dead. Now it is their children. Most of which never spent a day working for the company. In fact, never spent a day working anywhere. They have lived off of the earnings of their parents.
They just said fuck you to all of us.

“You see - our corrupt government allowed companies to terminate a plan, at any time, and are only required to pay out the value of the plan when they stopped contributing.”

I’d be curious to know what “law” or “laws” — specifically — “authorized” that?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

“You see - our corrupt government allowed companies to terminate a plan, at any time, and are only required to pay out the value of the plan when they stopped contributing.”

I’d be curious to know what “law” or “laws” — specifically — “authorized” that?

I don't know... but if you Google around you will see plenty of folks talking about this.

On the IRS website :

IRC Section 411(d)(3) specifies that a plan will not be qualified unless it provides that, upon its partial termination, the rights of all "affected employees" to benefits accrued to the date of such partial termination, to the extent funded on that date, or the amounts credited to their accounts, are nonforfeitable.

That sounds pretty clear. They are only required to pay the full amount up to the date the plan was stopped.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't know... but if you Google around you will see plenty of folks talking about this.

On the IRS website :

IRC Section 411(d)(3) specifies that a plan will not be qualified unless it provides that, upon its partial termination, the rights of all "affected employees" to benefits accrued to the date of such partial termination, to the extent funded on that date, or the amounts credited to their accounts, are nonforfeitable.

That sounds pretty clear. They are only required to pay the full amount up to the date the plan was stopped.

That is a reference to how the Internal Revenue Service interprets the law (relative to tax issues). It isn’t the law itself.

The law appears to be:

26 U.S. Code § 411​

That’s part of the law concerning taxation.

I don’t see how it can be used to justify the impairment of a contract.

Unless the contract for the pension itself somehow provided for a subsequent unilateral amendment of its own terms (which I have no information on), I don’t see how a tax law can be used to allow a company to breach its own contract with its employees.

 

[August West]

Welcome to Capitalism 101.
You are at the mercy of the owners...and the Govt. fully supports that.

Exactly. This person`s company raked him over the coals and screwed him/her royally but it`s the government that`s being called corrupt.

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe you don't understand that the laws have changed significantly in the past 30 years pertaining to pensions.
The "fine print" is only good until it is changed again.

And why are you being an ass anyway?
Jesus Christ

Laws always change which is why you can't depend on things to always stay the same.

I just don't understand why you would trust a business with something as important as your financial well being in retirement.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Laws always change which is why you can't depend on things to always stay the same.

I just don't understand why you would trust a business with something as important as your financial well being in retirement.

Where did I say I trusted a business with my financial well being?
I didn't.
I clearly said our corrupt government has changed laws to gift the corporations that pay them for favors.
Does that sound like someone who trust corporations??
You expect to get fucked by corporations. You should not expect to get fucked by the very government you elect to protect you from them.

This post is about getting fucked. And the millions of others who have also, and we keep relecting the same people who keep doing it.

SO I guess you are being an ass because you are one, not being misunderstood as being one.

 

[Blues Man]

Where did I say I trusted a business with my financial well being?
I didn't.
I clearly said our corrupt government has changed laws to gift the corporations that pay them for favors.
Does that sound like someone who trust corporations??
You expect to get fucked by corporations. You should not expect to get fucked by the very government you elect to protect you from them.

This post is about getting fucked. And the millions of others who have also, and we keep relecting the same people who keep doing it.

SO I guess you are being an ass because you are one, not being misunderstood as being one.

Then you shouldn't be whining about the pension changing.

If you didn't depend on it then it wouldn't matter if the terms got changed on you.

This is the same reason I don't like Social Security. Your give control of your money away to a third party and when they decide to change the rules you can't do a damn thing

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Then you shouldn't be whining about the pension changing.

If you didn't depend on it then it wouldn't matter if the terms got changed on you.

This is the same reason I don't like Social Security. Your give control of your money away to a third party and when they decide to change the rules you can't do a damn thing

STFU
I make a post about getting screwed, and you want to put the negative on me.
GFY

 

[Blues Man]

STFU
I make a post about getting screwed, and you want to put the negative on me.
GFY

No you're pissed because I'm not saying Oh Poor baby.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No you're pissed because I'm not saying Oh Poor baby.

No, I just don't like someone being a dick for no reason.

 

[Blues Man]

No, I just don't like someone being a dick for no reason.

You made a bad decision trusting your employer it's not my fault.