Railroad Retirement and Paul Ryan Budget

[MNRFCCDCHI]

Reason for posting this is a few people at work were saying that congressmen Paul Ryan wants to make Railroad retirement "tier-1" be inline with social security.

Does anybody have anymore information on this and if it will pass?

at least for me with only a few years on the railroad it is something to look forward to year after year that one day I can do my time an collect it. Being the railroad industry isn't your 9-5 with weekends and holidays off.

thanks and be safe

Chris Moran
MNCRR

[mtuandrew]

Welcome, Chris! I'm moving this topic to the Employment forum - hopefully you'll find that your fellow employees have more information and opinion to share.

[COEN77]

Right now not sure what's going on with this issue. I was at a retiree's lunch this month a representative from the UTU Alumni Assoc was there handing out April 30th updates on the Ryan budget. According to the UTU, they along with other rail unions were successful in getting it omitted from the budget plan, according to the BLET their not sure. John Tolman BLET Legislative Director in DC said once an item is placed in a bill it's usually not taken out. Besides the tier 1 changes it also wants to increase the retirement age back up to 62. I do know besides the rail unions the American Association of Railroads the carriers representative are against this proposal. One of the core benefits making the job attractive for keeping long term employees in the rail industry is the retirement. Making changes could upset that balance. The arguement that was made to have it excluded was no taxpayer money is used RRB is solely funded by railroad workers and the railroads. Not worried about it now this was in the republican controlled house it most likely wouldn't pass in the democrat controlled senate. That could change if republicans win control of congress. To me it's just another attack on the middle class. If this goes through I'm personnally looking at up to a $400 monthly reduction in my retirement. This will affect everyone even retiree's. That did it for me this election it sealed my vote on which party to vote. Mess with my retirement that's hitting below the belt.

[matawanaberdeen]

This is a classic example of a guy, Paul Ryan that has no clue of what is talking about and doing. He said "Benefits are too generous" and should be more inline with SS. Now just who in the hell is he to say "Benefits are too generous"? This is yet another attack on the middle class, and more importantly organized labor. There is no reason for this rep from Wisconsin to even be thinking about railroad retirement. He claims it will save the Government 2 billion of 10 years, first of all I doubt that, second we are trillions in debt and this fool is worried about 2 billion of 10 years. That is insane. When ever you ask a republican how we can solve the budget problems they usually say "Amtrak", really Amtrak? Amtrak gets 1.8 billion dollars a year just to run the trains down the track. If we were to solve the budget problems with killing Amtrak it would take....NEVER to balance the budget. Amtrak is code for "attack unions" in my opinion. Anyway i hope this doesn't go through, I'm not in the industry but its still wrong. I will stand up with the RR workers to stop BS like this. I am a union man at heart, always was, always will be.

[MNRFCCDCHI]

I found this online petition from sign on.org here is the link:
http://signon.org/sign/stop-paul-ryans- ... by=4588931

I have already signed it and so has my girlfriend

be safe out there

Chris

[Gadfly]

Right now not sure what's going on with this issue. I was at a retiree's lunch this month a representative from the UTU Alumni Assoc was there handing out April 30th updates on the Ryan budget. According to the UTU, they along with other rail unions were successful in getting it omitted from the budget plan, according to the BLET their not sure. John Tolman BLET Legislative Director in DC said once an item is placed in a bill it's usually not taken out. Besides the tier 1 changes it also wants to increase the retirement age back up to 62. I do know besides the rail unions the American Association of Railroads the carriers representative are against this proposal. One of the core benefits making the job attractive for keeping long term employees in the rail industry is the retirement. Making changes could upset that balance. The arguement that was made to have it excluded was no taxpayer money is used RRB is solely funded by railroad workers and the railroads. Not worried about it now this was in the republican controlled house it most likely wouldn't pass in the democrat controlled senate. That could change if republicans win control of congress. To me it's just another attack on the middle class. If this goes through I'm personnally looking at up to a $400 monthly reduction in my retirement. This will affect everyone even retiree's. That did it for me this election it sealed my vote on which party to vote. Mess with my retirement that's hitting below the belt.

What do you expect from a politician? He has no clue as to what he is talking about and he is cow-towing to the public to whom such a proposal sounds good. It makes him sound like he's on their side without knowing the facts of the matter. Each of us PAID thru the a-- over and above what socialistic IN-security recipients paid in order to receive a decent retirement. RRB is solvent, too, because the politicians have not been able to get their filthy hands on it, or does it have the "earmarks" and political baggage attached to it that SS has. And they can't STAND it!!!!!! How would they like it if there was a nationwide STRIKE over this? Durn tootin' I'll be on that picket line!!!!

[RDGTRANSMUSEUM]

both parties have tried to attack railroad retirement, this is nothing new folks. first algore now ryan, look it up. they the government will not stop until they get it,including alot more monies you think are" safe "in this world. dont be stupid we now have 5 trillion in new debt to pay for. please,
think outside the box.
.

[supernova1972]

I signed and sent it to everyone I can to sign it.

[COEN77]

The idea that it'll save $2 billion in the budget over 10 years is a crock. Since no taxpayer dollars are involved it'll save nothing. Like what matawanaberdeen stated Paul Ryan is clueless. We've had other attacks the first one I remember was Raygun when he changed the federal employees retirement system in 1984 and was raiding social security funds he tried to include RRB. I look at it as more of an attack on organized labor which in this case even the railroads are against this idea. The other big issue included in it is the elimination of RRB "occupational disability". I hope the UTU is right in the last sentence of the April 30th update "We are all confident that when the dust settles, this unfortunate draft language will disappear from consideration in Congress". That tells me they're not sure wether it'll be omitted. I've signed a few petitions. I also wrote my House representative.

[matawanaberdeen]

The idea that it'll save $2 billion in the budget over 10 years is a crock. Since no taxpayer dollars are involved it'll save nothing. Like what matawanaberdeen stated Paul Ryan is clueless. We've had other attacks the first one I remember was Raygun when he changed the federal employees retirement system in 1984 and was raiding social security funds he tried to include RRB. I look at it as more of an attack on organized labor which in this case even the railroads are against this idea. The other big issue included in it is the elimination of RRB "occupational disability". I hope the UTU is right in the last sentence of the April 30th update "We are all confident that when the dust settles, this unfortunate draft language will disappear from consideration in Congress". That tells me they're not sure wether it'll be omitted. I've signed a few petitions. I also wrote my House representative.

I think you are correct, this language will disappear from the final draft. The President would NEVER sign off on this anyway. The bigger issues is a fool from Wisconsin who claims to be limited Government sticking his nose in something he has no business being anywhere near. I mean where did it even come to his attention that he needs to fix the railroad retirement? I am not in the industry as I said but I have a few friends who are, and they are concerned.

[Gadfly]

The idea that it'll save $2 billion in the budget over 10 years is a crock. Since no taxpayer dollars are involved it'll save nothing. Like what matawanaberdeen stated Paul Ryan is clueless. We've had other attacks the first one I remember was Raygun when he changed the federal employees retirement system in 1984 and was raiding social security funds he tried to include RRB. I look at it as more of an attack on organized labor which in this case even the railroads are against this idea. The other big issue included in it is the elimination of RRB "occupational disability". I hope the UTU is right in the last sentence of the April 30th update "We are all confident that when the dust settles, this unfortunate draft language will disappear from consideration in Congress". That tells me they're not sure wether it'll be omitted. I've signed a few petitions. I also wrote my House representative.

I think you are correct, this language will disappear from the final draft. The President would NEVER sign off on this anyway. The bigger issues is a fool from Wisconsin who claims to be limited Government sticking his nose in something he has no business being anywhere near. I mean where did it even come to his attention that he needs to fix the railroad retirement? I am not in the industry as I said but I have a few friends who are, and they are concerned.

Its because the Teflon politicians think they can use this to further themselves, that's why! If they can say that *I* saved this $$ or that program blah, blah,
they think they can look "good" in the public eye. We are a small part of the whole picture, but these air-headed politicians think they can get more votes with a public that is just as ignorant of THIS issue as HE is! It won't fly (I hope), but we must be vigilant over this!

GF

[SGAKING]

Signed and posted to Facebook

[Cowford]

What they really need to do is sunset RRB altogether. It makes no sense to maintain a separate goverment-sponsored retirement system for one specific industry (particularly one that has a small employee base). And if it does make sense to keep it, shouldn't we have a separate system for EVERY industry and employment market segment?

And I said "sunset": I am not suggesting RRB should be eliminated (like FELA should)... those that have paid in/are vested (like me!) would remain covered.

[matawanaberdeen]

What they really need to do is sunset RRB altogether. It makes no sense to maintain a separate goverment-sponsored retirement system for one specific industry (particularly one that has a small employee base). And if it does make sense to keep it, shouldn't we have a separate system for EVERY industry and employment market segment?

And I said "sunset": I am not suggesting RRB should be eliminated (like FELA should)... those that have paid in/are vested (like me!) would remain covered.

Um no, these workers in this specific industry fought a VERY long time ago for this retirement. It does make sense, they forgo SS, it all seems fair to me. You should rethink your position.

[jz441]

What they really need to do is sunset RRB altogether. It makes no sense to maintain a separate goverment-sponsored retirement system for one specific industry (particularly one that has a small employee base).

Are out of your mind? Have you done your homework? RR retirement system should be an example of efficiency for the rest of the country. We are completely self-sufficient!