Railroad Retirement and Paul Ryan Budget

Cowford wrote: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.

I don't care what you said. It's not your choice of words that make my blood boil. It's this same sentiment - I've got mine, let everyone else fend for themselves - that fires me up. I expect that nonsense from someone who doesn't know any better. But from a fellow railroader?!

"...I've got mine, let everyone else fend for themselves..."

Yeah, that's right. I earned it as I pay into it... and I had/have no choice in the matter. And everyone else who paid into it and are vested should get theirs, as well. Oh, and by wanting to remain separate from what I imagine you are thinking as a sinking ship (that being Social Security), aren't you saying the same thing to your non-railroad brothers?

"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!"

So would you support the creation of a federally administered Hairdresser's Retirement Board, Truck Drivers Retirement Board, Professional Athelete's Retirement Board, etc, etc.? If yes, why would you advocate a separate supplemental security program for every flippin' industry. If no, why are railroads different? Just because it's always been that way?

Cowford wrote:"...I've got mine, let everyone else fend for themselves..."

Yeah, that's right. I earned it as I pay into it... and I had/have no choice in the matter. And everyone else who paid into it and are vested should get theirs, as well. Oh, and by wanting to remain separate from what I imagine you are thinking as a sinking ship (that being Social Security), aren't you saying the same thing to your non-railroad brothers?

"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!"

So would you support the creation of a federally administered Hairdresser's Retirement Board, Truck Drivers Retirement Board, Professional Athelete's Retirement Board, etc, etc.? If yes, why would you advocate a separate supplemental security program for every flippin' industry. If no, why are railroads different? Just because it's always been that way?

I'm a retired railroader. Darn right I want it separate from everything else. I haven't a clue where you're going with this nonsense. As a railroader I didn't pay into social security but I paid an equivelent plus some in my tier 1. I hope you're not suggesting linking railroad retirement to social security. The only thing so far you got correct is that social security is a supplement to retirement. What Ryan's plan would do is lower our pension for no reason. Even the railroads are against it. It doesn't do anything it doesn't save anything for the taxpayer. jz441 stated it correctly it should be an example of efficiency. What would of happened if Bush got his way by converting social security to individual Wall Street accounts? All that would of happened was Wall St would have had an enormous influx of cash making them money while the American people lost watching the market crash. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

"You need to stop drinking the kool-aid"

With all due respect COEN, you need to read my posts more carefully. I did not state that I supported Ryan's proposal, and I've stated in each post that I don't think that existing vested employees should have their benefits cut/rolled into FICA, etc. Rather I'm saying that, for all its pluses and minuses (e.g., how would you feel if you were one who paid into the system for nine years and eleven months back in the 10-year vesting days... and you see squat for Tier II benefits upon retirement?), the railroad industry has its own federally-sponsered supplemental security system by historical precedence... and to continue to run a separate system for an industry that has only 230,000 workers unnecessarily duplicative.

Oh, and could anyone please explain RRB "efficiency", with the understanding that efficiency and solvency are not the same thing? By the way, IIRC, RR was bailed out by the feds in the early 80s.

Cowford wrote:"You need to stop drinking the kool-aid"

With all due respect COEN, you need to read my posts more carefully. I did not state that I supported Ryan's proposal, and I've stated in each post that I don't think that existing vested employees should have their benefits cut/rolled into FICA, etc. Rather I'm saying that, for all its pluses and minuses (e.g., how would you feel if you were one who paid into the system for nine years and eleven months back in the 10-year vesting days... and you see squat for Tier II benefits upon retirement?), the railroad industry has its own federally-sponsered supplemental security system by historical precedence... and to continue to run a separate system for an industry that has only 230,000 workers unnecessarily duplicative.

Oh, and could anyone please explain RRB "efficiency", with the understanding that efficiency and solvency are not the same thing? By the way, IIRC, RR was bailed out by the feds in the early 80s.

Wow I'm stunned by this line of thinking. Are you in the RR industry, just curious because I would bet out of the 230,000 RR workers your 1 of about 5 people that agree on this.

So if we sunset RRT,

would there be enough money in the fund to fully pay out the retirements of everyone vested right now?



RRT is what keeps people working in the industry. Take that away, and you'll have turnover that rivals Walmart.

Cowford wrote:"You need to stop drinking the kool-aid"

With all due respect COEN, you need to read my posts more carefully. I did not state that I supported Ryan's proposal, and I've stated in each post that I don't think that existing vested employees should have their benefits cut/rolled into FICA, etc. Rather I'm saying that, for all its pluses and minuses (e.g., how would you feel if you were one who paid into the system for nine years and eleven months back in the 10-year vesting days... and you see squat for Tier II benefits upon retirement?), the railroad industry has its own federally-sponsered supplemental security system by historical precedence... and to continue to run a separate system for an industry that has only 230,000 workers unnecessarily duplicative.

Oh, and could anyone please explain RRB "efficiency", with the understanding that efficiency and solvency are not the same thing? By the way, IIRC, RR was bailed out by the feds in the early 80s.

What has ME so interested is WHY you are so keen on having RRB changed for ANYBODY! Its just plain wrong. ALL of us paid into this, some of us for 30 years and retired believing (hoping) it would be there. Why shouldn't the newer people have the same hope. LEAVE IT ALONE! What have you been smokin', boy?

J

"Are you in the RR industry, just curious..."

You know what stuns me? How poorly you guys read.

My father was a coal miner and fought Black Lung till the day he died and I don't think miners paid Social Security because they draw a United Mine Workers pension. From what I know they've
got a separate pension system and there sure as hell a lot less of them than there are railroaders. Surely some of you guys know some miners, to know whether or not this is true.

Cowford wrote:"Are you in the RR industry, just curious..."

You know what stuns me? How poorly you guys read.

Ok, I'm out of this discussion. If you feel the RR pension should sunset, god bless ya. I don't get it but its your opinion. I doubt its going anywhere.

Cowford wrote:"You need to stop drinking the kool-aid"

With all due respect COEN, you need to read my posts more carefully. I did not state that I supported Ryan's proposal, and I've stated in each post that I don't think that existing vested employees should have their benefits cut/rolled into FICA, etc. Rather I'm saying that, for all its pluses and minuses (e.g., how would you feel if you were one who paid into the system for nine years and eleven months back in the 10-year vesting days... and you see squat for Tier II benefits upon retirement?), the railroad industry has its own federally-sponsered supplemental security system by historical precedence... and to continue to run a separate system for an industry that has only 230,000 workers unnecessarily duplicative.

Oh, and could anyone please explain RRB "efficiency", with the understanding that efficiency and solvency are not the same thing? By the way, IIRC, RR was bailed out by the feds in the early 80s.

I read it and reread it. Not believing it was writen by someone who works for a railroad. Vesting is 5 years now not 10 years. New hires pay the same amount as a man whose work 30 years. Aren't they entitled to the same? Not according to your theory. You'ld be willing to sacrifice others but protect your own. RRB is efficiently run last audit it's solvent till 2043. People are being hoodwinked by the republican conservatives over social security it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know each generation funds the previous one that's the way it's run. The funds collected are invested in treasury notes collecting interest. Still what does that have to do with Railroad Retirement? Not the same. I sure hope there aren't others with your way of thinking.

"...Not believing it was writen by someone who works for a railroad."

Well, there were a lot of railroaders that fought against the sunset of two-man crews, cabooses, firemen, etc. I don't think you'd get too many supporters for bringing 'em back today.

Listen, I didn't think I'd stir up such a hornet's nest, and was hoping that some folks would (a) address some of the questions I laid out rather than throw barbs, and (b) have the openness of mind to even discuss options for a successor plan. That obviously ain't gonna happen.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

^ ^ ^

Anyone know the answer to my question above?

Cowford wrote:"...I've got mine, let everyone else fend for themselves..."

Yeah, that's right. I earned it as I pay into it... and I had/have no choice in the matter. And everyone else who paid into it and are vested should get theirs, as well. Oh, and by wanting to remain separate from what I imagine you are thinking as a sinking ship (that being Social Security), aren't you saying the same thing to your non-railroad brothers?

"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!"

So would you support the creation of a federally administered Hairdresser's Retirement Board, Truck Drivers Retirement Board, Professional Athelete's Retirement Board, etc, etc.? If yes, why would you advocate a separate supplemental security program for every flippin' industry. If no, why are railroads different? Just because it's always been that way?

You sound like you should have gone into politics instead of railroading. You would have done a good job screwing a good thing up. Why is there a need for a successor plan when this plan isn't flawed. The key to fixing social security isn't ruining RRB.

Cowford wrote:"...Not believing it was writen by someone who works for a railroad."

Well, there were a lot of railroaders that fought against the sunset of two-man crews, cabooses, firemen, etc. I don't think you'd get too many supporters for bringing 'em back today.

Listen, I didn't think I'd stir up such a hornet's nest, and was hoping that some folks would (a) address some of the questions I laid out rather than throw barbs, and (b) have the openness of mind to even discuss options for a successor plan. That obviously ain't gonna happen.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

There might of been some who were against the elimination of the brakemen. Greed won out in the end according to the UTU a majority voted in 1993 to eliminate the last brakemen. Trainmen on CSX (C&O) recieved signing bonuses totaling $43,000 plus productivity bonuses every year, short crew pay, or $6500 a year in retirement accounts. The locomotive firemen officially were eliminated but still remained on seniority rosters we got nothing. Funny I never met a trainmen who would admit voting for the eliminations to short crews. The caboose was just technology it would of been gone eventually it would of gave up one job the flagmen. Virginia the cabooses were gone on July 1st, 1991 I remember it well. As for bringing the brakemen back the UTU did try recently. One thing they didn't think of in 1993 was training programs for new hires. This last contract they tried to get a brakemen slot established for a period of one year for training. It failed.

You stirred up a hornets nest. What questions? Make change for those not vested as long as a vested employee is protected? That's not a question it's a statement. When I turned 50 social security started sending me letters every year notifying me I wasn't entitled to it for lack of credits. After the 3rd year I sent the letter back with a note saying "Thank You".