McCaskill and Manchin Want Taxpayers to Cover Miners’ Insolvent Pension Plans

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Senator Clair McCaskill is joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito to earn enough votes in the Senate to pay for union incompetencies in managing the coal miner’s pension.

A press release on Thursday, October 5, 2017, noted that McCaskill wants US taxpayers to cover coal miners’ insolvent pension plans:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is again joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito in a bipartisan effort to permanently protect the pensions promised to tens-of-thousands of miners and their widows, including more than 600 in Missouri.

“Hardworking folks across Missouri and this country were made a promise that if they worked hard and played by the rules, their decades of hard work would earn them a stable pension,” McCaskill said. “If Congress can’t uphold this promise for the hard working folks who helped power this county—putting their own health and safety on the line—then shame on Congress, because fixing this and keeping our word is the right thing to do.”

Currently, the 1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan is on the road to insolvency. The Senators’ American Miners Pension Act will shore up that pension plan to make sure that nearly 87,000 retired miners receiving pensions, as well as another 20,000 who are vested, won’t lose the pensions they have paid into for decades. There are 648 Missouri pensioners who are at risk.


After Helping Obama Kill Off Coal – Democrats McCaskill and Manchin Want Taxpayers to Cover Miners’ Insolvent Pension Plans
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Senator Clair McCaskill is joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito to earn enough votes in the Senate to pay for union incompetencies in managing the coal miner’s pension.

A press release on Thursday, October 5, 2017, noted that McCaskill wants US taxpayers to cover coal miners’ insolvent pension plans:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is again joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito in a bipartisan effort to permanently protect the pensions promised to tens-of-thousands of miners and their widows, including more than 600 in Missouri.

“Hardworking folks across Missouri and this country were made a promise that if they worked hard and played by the rules, their decades of hard work would earn them a stable pension,” McCaskill said. “If Congress can’t uphold this promise for the hard working folks who helped power this county—putting their own health and safety on the line—then shame on Congress, because fixing this and keeping our word is the right thing to do.”

Currently, the 1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan is on the road to insolvency. The Senators’ American Miners Pension Act will shore up that pension plan to make sure that nearly 87,000 retired miners receiving pensions, as well as another 20,000 who are vested, won’t lose the pensions they have paid into for decades. There are 648 Missouri pensioners who are at risk.


After Helping Obama Kill Off Coal – Democrats McCaskill and Manchin Want Taxpayers to Cover Miners’ Insolvent Pension Plans

Sounds like whoever was supposed to provide oversight of this failed in their duties. When do the investigations start into that?
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Senator Clair McCaskill is joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito to earn enough votes in the Senate to pay for union incompetencies in managing the coal miner’s pension.

A press release on Thursday, October 5, 2017, noted that McCaskill wants US taxpayers to cover coal miners’ insolvent pension plans:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is again joining West Virginia Senators Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito in a bipartisan effort to permanently protect the pensions promised to tens-of-thousands of miners and their widows, including more than 600 in Missouri.

“Hardworking folks across Missouri and this country were made a promise that if they worked hard and played by the rules, their decades of hard work would earn them a stable pension,” McCaskill said. “If Congress can’t uphold this promise for the hard working folks who helped power this county—putting their own health and safety on the line—then shame on Congress, because fixing this and keeping our word is the right thing to do.”

Currently, the 1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan is on the road to insolvency. The Senators’ American Miners Pension Act will shore up that pension plan to make sure that nearly 87,000 retired miners receiving pensions, as well as another 20,000 who are vested, won’t lose the pensions they have paid into for decades. There are 648 Missouri pensioners who are at risk.


After Helping Obama Kill Off Coal – Democrats McCaskill and Manchin Want Taxpayers to Cover Miners’ Insolvent Pension Plans
Union incompetency my ass, they spent all of the cash and got someone else to pick up the check. Brilliant I say.
 

black dog

Free America
Union incompetency my ass, they spent all of the cash and got someone else to pick up the check. Brilliant I say.

Not much different than the Feds allowing a few Unions to take deferred payments with union members retirement benefits and then going insolvent.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Not much different than the Feds allowing a few Unions to take deferred payments with union members retirement benefits and then going insolvent.

Super Shoes agrees with you. If we bail out the coal miners union, what's next? The California state employee pension fund, or the Chicago teacher pension fund? We still love Manchin. Too bad there are not more Dems like him.
 
Last edited:

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Kind of funny right after they just screwed over the federal workers retirement pension plans.

Enlighten me on that one I must have missed. I'm retired CSRS, but know many who are under FERS, or will be.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Union incompetency my ass, they spent all of the cash and got someone else to pick up the check. Brilliant I say.

I spent an evening with the heads of the UMW back in the 70s, sleaziest bunch of guys I have ever run across from the prez Sam Church on down. The only thing surprising about this is that insolvency took so long.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Enlighten me on that one I must have missed. I'm retired CSRS, but know many who are under FERS, or will be.

Nothing is official yet, but I think some proposed changes passed a House resolution. Two main changes are that federal workers under FERS would have to contribute more money to their pension. This would result in a take home pay dropping around 4%. Other change is reduction in the return rate of the G fund. This would probably affect retirees more who want to keep their money in a safe fund that can slightly outperform inflation.
 

philibusters

Active Member
I am against this though I have sympathy for the miners. I mean it really sucks that they will not received what they paid for and were promised. I'd be outraged. But the problem is, it wasn't the federal gov't that promised them these benefits. It was the unions and the unions mismanaged their resources or over promised their members or both. Just a crappy situation.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Kind of funny right after they just screwed over the federal workers retirement pension plans.

My thoughts exactly. They are currently debating a bill that has the following changes to the federal retirement; paying an additional 6% of their income into the retirement plan, reducing the payout at retirement by calculating it on their top 5 years of pay vs top 3, and of course removing any COLA. So when you get to retire with that generous 33% pension for your 30 years of work you can look forward to it losing 3-5% of value a year leaving you with jack and #### if you happen to live into your 80s. Better hope the markets don't tank and your TSP is enough to live off of alone.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Nothing is official yet, but I think some proposed changes passed a House resolution. Two main changes are that federal workers under FERS would have to contribute more money to their pension. This would result in a take home pay dropping around 4%. Other change is reduction in the return rate of the G fund. This would probably affect retirees more who want to keep their money in a safe fund that can slightly outperform inflation.

Thanks. I had just searched around and saw an article on that just before you posted. Being retired CSRS myself, I paid 7.5% into the retirement fund since day one when I started. I think FERS pays less than that now and since they started, or is that included in their current obligations/govt matched funding? I know they also pay into SS.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Thanks. I had just searched around and saw an article on that just before you posted. Being retired CSRS myself, I paid 7.5% into the retirement fund since day one when I started. I think FERS pays less than that now and since they started, or is that included in their current obligations/govt matched funding? I know they also pay into SS.

There is different versions of FERS, but the one that most FERS employees are under which was in place until fiscal year 2013 only requires FERS employees to contribute .8% of the salary to the retirement fund. If you were hired after October 1, 2012, that is higher, I think somewhere between 2 and 3%.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I am against this though I have sympathy for the miners.
I mean it really sucks that they will not received what they paid for and were promised.
I'd be outraged.
But the problem is, it wasn't the federal gov't that promised them these benefits.
It was the unions and the unions mismanaged their resources or over promised their members or both. Just a crappy situation.

Indeed ... give them a small bump in SSI ...


some history for those that may no know ..........


The UMWA has failed its workers. It started paying out benefits to them only a year after its health and retirement fund was established. And over the decades since, it has consistently over-promised and underfunded those benefits. Rather than owning up to its failures, the UMWA is trying to foist responsibility on the federal government, demanding that taxpayers finance the UMWA’s shortfalls.

The UMWA’s website wrongly claims that “miners were promised lifetime retirement benefits by U.S. President Harry Truman in 1946.” The UMWA is referring to the 1946 Krug-Lewis agreement. Interior secretary Julian A. Krug and UMWA president John L. Lewis settled on the temporary terms of employment during the government’s brief control of the mines. Although Lewis attempted to terminate that contract, illegally, in 1946, the agreement officially ended in 1947 when the mines were returned to their original owners.


The 1946 agreement facilitated the establishment of a pension fund for the UMWA, but it unequivocally excluded the government from any role or liability in the plan. It states clearly that the plan’s “trustees shall have full authority with respect to questions of coverage and eligibility, priorities among classes of benefits, amounts of benefits, methods of providing or arranging for provisions of benefits and all related matters.”

Moreover, the original 1946 welfare and retirement plan was extremely short-lived. It was replaced by a new plan in 1947 and then reorganized into a separate pension-only plan in 1950. An additional pension plan was created in 1974, and in 2007 it was merged with the 1950 plan.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-workers-america-made-promises-they-cant-keep
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Thanks. I had just searched around and saw an article on that just before you posted. Being retired CSRS myself, I paid 7.5% into the retirement fund since day one when I started. I think FERS pays less than that now and since they started, or is that included in their current obligations/govt matched funding? I know they also pay into SS.

They are talking about taking our CSRS COLAs as well, so don't think this is only a FERS problem.

And under CSRS we didn't pay SS and we earned 2% base pay per year up to 40 years. We were also eligible to retire a couple years earlier (55 with 30 years, vice 57). So add all that up and it's a much better deal, even at 7.5% paid in.
 
Top