Ref pension (1 Viewer)

[Wadsworth]

I know someone is a lot more familiar with this issue than I am so I am hoping I can get some help with the math. From PFT:

"...the larger issue remains the pension plan. The officials want the NFL to contribute tens of thousands of dollars a year per official toward their pensions, and the owners are adamant that there’s no way they’re spending that kind of money on pensions for part-time workers."

How many officials are there? 16 crews of 7? 8?

How much is "tens of thousands"? 30k, 60k, 90k?

Just as a guess until someone chimes in with accurate data lets say 16 crews of 7 officials plus an alternate; 16 x 8 = 128

An I'll just throw out the number 60k per year the refs want going into their pension; 128 x $60k = $7.68m

$7.68m / 32 teams = $240k per team per year

Is that even close right?

 

[meyerj31]

I'm on the side of the NFL with this one ... pensions are no longer viable. They expose the corporate entity to massive risk if the economy tanks because the $ is guaranteed (with a set "guaranteed" rate of interest earned per year). But corporations don't put money in a vault; it's invested in the market in various ways. So if the entire economy takes a downturn during even a short 6-month span, the money isn't there to fund the pension plan and corporations have egregiously more unplanned liabilities than assets. I've been at several companies now that have transitioned from defined benefit to 401k's and I completely support what the NFL is doing on that particular point.

That said, the NFL should have offered a super beefy 401k during the transition (like I've seen at several companies) and ended this before the season. My last company offered an 11/9 ratio to get the union to agree to switch to defined contribution. That means if you put 11% of your salary into the 401k they will match up to 9%. That's a pretty insane number for most companies but it's definitely worth it for the entity as it exposes them to MUCH less risk over the long-haul, even if it costs them a bit more up-front.

 

[belljr]

Page 2

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/439412/col-refs-nflra-letter.pdf

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Negotiators for the NFL and the NFL Referees Assocation met until 2 a.m. ET Wednesday in an attempt to iron out their differences in a months-long lockout but did not reach a deal, a source said.

League owners are not willing to compromise further and differences remain on several issues, including pensions for the officials and the process by which the NFL evaluates referees, the source said.

The officials work about 36 hours a week -- nearly full time -- and pension benefits have become an important issue to them. It would probably cost each team about $100,000 to settle the pension issue.

 

[renesauz]

Sickening. Part time employees fighting over a PENSION PLAN? Many hard working Americans have no plan at all, let alone a GREAT one from their part time second job.

100% behind the NFL here.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Sickening. Part time employees fighting over a PENSION PLAN? Many hard working Americans have no plan at all, let alone a GREAT one from their part time second job.100% behind the NFL here.

I agree...they are part time and should NOT have a pension. I know we all want the real refs back but I'm glad the NFL is doing what is right. They are a buisness.

 

[fruity pebbles]

How do they work 36 hours a week?

 

[Woogie Lee]

I'm on the side of the NFL with this one ... pensions are no longer viable. They expose the corporate entity to massive risk if the economy tanks because the $ is guaranteed (with a set "guaranteed" rate of interest earned per year). But corporations don't put money in a vault; it's invested in the market in various ways. So if the entire economy takes a downturn during even a short 6-month span, the money isn't there to fund the pension plan and corporations have egregiously more unplanned liabilities than assets. I've been at several companies now that have transitioned from defined benefit to 401k's and I completely support what the NFL is doing on that particular point.

That said, the NFL should have offered a super beefy 401k during the transition (like I've seen at several companies) and ended this before the season. My last company offered an 11/9 ratio to get the union to agree to switch to defined contribution. That means if you put 11% of your salary into the 401k they will match up to 9%. That's a pretty insane number for most companies but it's definitely worth it for the entity as it exposes them to MUCH less risk over the long-haul, even if it costs them a bit more up-front.

Especially for part time and second jobs. I'm sure most of these guys are already loaded.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Sickening. Part time employees fighting over a PENSION PLAN? Many hard working Americans have no plan at all, let alone a GREAT one from their part time second job.100% behind the NFL here.

 

[Modog814]

I know someone is a lot more familiar with this issue than I am so I am hoping I can get some help with the math. From PFT:

"...the larger issue remains the pension plan. The officials want the NFL to contribute tens of thousands of dollars a year per official toward their pensions, and the owners are adamant that there’s no way they’re spending that kind of money on pensions for part-time workers."

How many officials are there? 16 crews of 7? 8?

How much is "tens of thousands"? 30k, 60k, 90k?

Just as a guess until someone chimes in with accurate data lets say 16 crews of 7 officials plus an alternate; 16 x 8 = 128

An I'll just throw out the number 60k per year the refs want going into their pension; 128 x $60k = $7.68m

$7.68m / 32 teams = $240k per team per year

Is that even close right?

I'm not an expert on this specific situation, but I am an actuary who has had some experience with Defined Benefit Plans. As far as I can tell, The ref union has and wants to retain a Defined Benefit (DB) plan. The NFL wants to move them to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan. The movement from a DB to a DC plan is common place in most industries. In fact most plans that continue to be DB are union plans.

The difference:

DB is exactly what is says. A defined benefit. It generally refers to a x% of salary annually at retirement. The company (in this case the NFL) pays money into the fund annually to fund this obligation. The money is assumed to grow as a specific percentage. A fund is said to be fully funded when assuming that average return, there will be enough money to pay off all obligations.

A DC plan is also exactly what it says. A defined contribution. It generally says, the NFL will stll pay money into the fund annually. The difference is that they don't have a specific obligation to pay a specific amount of money at retirement.

There are several key differences between the 2:

1) Market risk is on the NFL in the DB plan. If the stock market doesn't meet it's expected return, the NFL has to make up for the difference. This of course works both ways, if the stock market over performs, it means the NFL can make less contributions in future years. In a DC plan, the market risk is on the Refs.

2) In a DB plan, the refs can not add any money to the pot. In a DC plan, the refs may add some tax deferred salary to their account (this is 401k feature).

3) In a DB plan, it's all one big pile of money. Not separate accounts. Meaning once the moneys gone, its gone. Of course, for this to happen, the NFL would have to file for some sort of bankruptcy (or face lawsuits), so it's unlikey to happen and even if it does, there are some governmental insurances similar to the FDIC. In a DC plan, it's separate accounts, so each ref would get statement showing exactly how much they have.

4) And because of #3, generally the referees in a DC plan will be allowed to choose their investments, while they won't be able to in a DB plan.

There are more differences, but I think this covers the important ones.

So it's hard to say how much the NFL has to contribute annually in a DB plan because it changes annually. As a quick example, say at the end of 10 years the NFL needs $12.58 in the fund to pay for obligations. It has 0 now. It can put $1 away a year and earn 5% annually to get to the $12.58, so the cost (ignoring devaluation of money over 10 years) is $10. Say it only realized 2% annually, at the end of 10 years it only has 10.95, so it's 1.63 short. So the cost is 11.63, or 16.3% higher. Not too bad.

But what happens if in year 9, the market crashes and they lose 50% of the fund. They now have 5.88, and still need to get to the $12.58. So another $6.70 into the pot, which is 67% increase in funding. On the flip side, if the market jumps up 50% in year 9, the nfl doesn't pocket the extra, they use it to offset future contributions.

They want to get rid of this uncertainty and put it on the referee's. Where they at least get the option to take conservative investments if they desire it. In a DB plan, the NFL has to keep a certain agressiveness to get the assumed 5% return.

From the referees perspective a DB plan is certainly better. From the NFL, a DC plan is certianly better. And by the way, switching plans doesn't mean that the NFL won't pay the same expected contributions in annually. It's really just about the transfer of the market risk from one party to another.

 

[Quibbler]

How do they work 36 hours a week?

I believe that figure includes their travel time. Seems a pretty reasonable estimate.Here's a article on what a typical week for a ref looks like:http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1248329.html

 

[humpback]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

 

[aruv]

How do they work 36 hours a week?

I believe that figure includes their travel time. Seems a pretty reasonable estimate.Here's a article on what a typical week for a ref looks like:http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1248329.html

I don't know why, but this article made me laugh. I started picturing Hochuli in front of mirror practicing his refereeing while flexing his sexy biceps. hahahaha

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Sickening. Part time employees fighting over a PENSION PLAN? Many hard working Americans have no plan at all, let alone a GREAT one from their part time second job.100% behind the NFL here.

and those are the americans currently ref'ing games.

 

[Matt Bitonti]

i see this huge silver lining for the NFL. every day the public talks about refs, they aren't talking about concussions or why Junior Seau killed himself. the league was given a gift with this labor dispute. it's a huge, conversation-changing distraction.

 

[belljr]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

 

[Khy]

Sickening. Part time employees fighting over a PENSION PLAN? Many hard working Americans have no plan at all, let alone a GREAT one from their part time second job.100% behind the NFL here.

I think calling it sickening is a little bit of overkill. First of all "part time" employees is a very loose term. These guys work anywhere from 30-36 hours a week for the NFL. It's not like they just catch a flight in an hour before the game, ref the game for 3 hours then catch a flight home with a paycheck in hand. They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks. The reason I'm not behind the NFL here is because most businesses are multi-billion dollar industries with hundreds of thousands of employees. That's why pensions don't work. For the NFL you are talking about 128 officials that are requesting like 8 million a year combined from every NFL team. That's roughly the equivalent to the NFL owners as you asking your boss for a 25 cent an hour raise, possibly even less than that.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I know someone is a lot more familiar with this issue than I am so I am hoping I can get some help with the math. From PFT:

"...the larger issue remains the pension plan. The officials want the NFL to contribute tens of thousands of dollars a year per official toward their pensions, and the owners are adamant that there’s no way they’re spending that kind of money on pensions for part-time workers."

How many officials are there? 16 crews of 7? 8?

How much is "tens of thousands"? 30k, 60k, 90k?

Just as a guess until someone chimes in with accurate data lets say 16 crews of 7 officials plus an alternate; 16 x 8 = 128

An I'll just throw out the number 60k per year the refs want going into their pension; 128 x $60k = $7.68m

$7.68m / 32 teams = $240k per team per year

Is that even close right?

I'm not an expert on this specific situation, but I am an actuary who has had some experience with Defined Benefit Plans. As far as I can tell, The ref union has and wants to retain a Defined Benefit (DB) plan. The NFL wants to move them to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan. The movement from a DB to a DC plan is common place in most industries. In fact most plans that continue to be DB are union plans.

The difference:

DB is exactly what is says. A defined benefit. It generally refers to a x% of salary annually at retirement. The company (in this case the NFL) pays money into the fund annually to fund this obligation. The money is assumed to grow as a specific percentage. A fund is said to be fully funded when assuming that average return, there will be enough money to pay off all obligations.

A DC plan is also exactly what it says. A defined contribution. It generally says, the NFL will stll pay money into the fund annually. The difference is that they don't have a specific obligation to pay a specific amount of money at retirement.

There are several key differences between the 2:

1) Market risk is on the NFL in the DB plan. If the stock market doesn't meet it's expected return, the NFL has to make up for the difference. This of course works both ways, if the stock market over performs, it means the NFL can make less contributions in future years. In a DC plan, the market risk is on the Refs.

2) In a DB plan, the refs can not add any money to the pot. In a DC plan, the refs may add some tax deferred salary to their account (this is 401k feature).

3) In a DB plan, it's all one big pile of money. Not separate accounts. Meaning once the moneys gone, its gone. Of course, for this to happen, the NFL would have to file for some sort of bankruptcy (or face lawsuits), so it's unlikey to happen and even if it does, there are some governmental insurances similar to the FDIC. In a DC plan, it's separate accounts, so each ref would get statement showing exactly how much they have.

4) And because of #3, generally the referees in a DC plan will be allowed to choose their investments, while they won't be able to in a DB plan.

There are more differences, but I think this covers the important ones.

So it's hard to say how much the NFL has to contribute annually in a DB plan because it changes annually. As a quick example, say at the end of 10 years the NFL needs $12.58 in the fund to pay for obligations. It has 0 now. It can put $1 away a year and earn 5% annually to get to the $12.58, so the cost (ignoring devaluation of money over 10 years) is $10. Say it only realized 2% annually, at the end of 10 years it only has 10.95, so it's 1.63 short. So the cost is 11.63, or 16.3% higher. Not too bad.

But what happens if in year 9, the market crashes and they lose 50% of the fund. They now have 5.88, and still need to get to the $12.58. So another $6.70 into the pot, which is 67% increase in funding. On the flip side, if the market jumps up 50% in year 9, the nfl doesn't pocket the extra, they use it to offset future contributions.

They want to get rid of this uncertainty and put it on the referee's. Where they at least get the option to take conservative investments if they desire it. In a DB plan, the NFL has to keep a certain agressiveness to get the assumed 5% return.

From the referees perspective a DB plan is certainly better. From the NFL, a DC plan is certianly better. And by the way, switching plans doesn't mean that the NFL won't pay the same expected contributions in annually. It's really just about the transfer of the market risk from one party to another.

if this is what happened to the shark pool, I like it.I didn't follow the story, but isn't this what happened to united airline workers -- they were on a db plan that got wiped out when the market crashed?

 

[Furious Styles]

They are part-time in the sense that the NFL is a seasonal league.

 

[GregR]

How do they work 36 hours a week?

I believe that figure includes their travel time. Seems a pretty reasonable estimate.Here's a article on what a typical week for a ref looks like:http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1248329.html

Thanks for the post, hadn't seen that article before.You know, I find it even more worrisome that NFL refs are not full time after reading that article. For example:

A lawyer by trade, Hochuli says he spends maybe two hours in the morning and four hours at night doing things related to officiating from Monday to Friday.

If Hochuli is not embellishing and that is typical of the time a ref needs to put in, he says he's putting in 30 hours just from Monday to Friday, not even counting the actual events around the game on the weekend.Essentially he's saying he's already putting in a full time job as an NFL official. If it takes that much time for officials just to be at the level they are at today, I don't think I want them doing this in their spare time and spending another 8-10 hours a day being a lawyer or a doctor. Because not everyone is going to put that much time into it if it's not their primary occupation.

 

[Khy]

They are part-time in the sense that the NFL is a seasonal league.

Yea, and teaching is a seasonal job. You don't call teachers "part time" though. Sure there 'season' is a little bit wider than officials but at least officials have to do stuff during the offseason that pertains to their seasonal job.

 

[Ryan99]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

 

[humpback]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

I didn't say you should have sympathy for them, just that you'd be asking to keep your existing plan as well. I don't get the hate, it's a negotiation process by both sides. If the NFL plays hardball, as they have so far, the refs options will be to cave or quit as well- same as yours were.No, they aren't taking away all of the money, but they are taking away the plan and replacing it with one that isn't as favorable to the refs going forward, in terms of both structure and dollar amount. Again, I'm not saying the refs are totally getting hosed here or anything, just that it's a negotiation and anyone would do the same in their shoes.

 

[belljr]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

I didn't say you should have sympathy for them, just that you'd be asking to keep your existing plan as well. I don't get the hate, it's a negotiation process by both sides. If the NFL plays hardball, as they have so far, the refs options will be to cave or quit as well- same as yours were.No, they aren't taking away all of the money, but they are taking away the plan and replacing it with one that isn't as favorable to the refs going forward, in terms of both structure and dollar amount. Again, I'm not saying the refs are totally getting hosed here or anything, just that it's a negotiation and anyone would do the same in their shoes.

Gotcha, misunderstood.Can't wait for my 280 a month

 

[Thunderlips]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

I would figure that someone who lost 2 pension plans would be exactly the type of person who could sympathize with someone not wanting to lose one?

 

[StrikeS2k]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

Because unions in this day and age are a bastardization of what they were when they were needed, when people died from inhaling coal fumes. There's really no comparison between the two.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

"I consider my conditioning part of the job," Hochuli said. "I have to be fit and have to move around. I consider my appearance important. I should look like an athlete on the field, so I spend a couple hours a day on conditioning my guns."

 

[Bayhawks]

They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks.

[hijak]You're out of your mind. 35 hour work week? I work about 50-55 hours most weeks (obviously weeks with a holiday are less). I get to school at 615 each morning, and I usually don't leave until 4 pm, AT THE EARLIEST). And, while I agree that calling NFL refs part time is disingenuous, a big part of their "work week" is travel time, and there's NO WAY they do more work than a typical teacher.[/hijak]

 

[humpback]

I think people are getting too caught up in the details of part time/full time, pension/401k, trying to argue they're worth more/less, etc. and missing the main point- the market will decide what an NFL official should be paid, their benefits, etc. This is all a negotiation, it's up to both sides to either agree to a deal or move on to plan B.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks.

[hijak]You're out of your mind. 35 hour work week? I work about 50-55 hours most weeks (obviously weeks with a holiday are less). I get to school at 615 each morning, and I usually don't leave until 4 pm, AT THE EARLIEST). And, while I agree that calling NFL refs part time is disingenuous, a big part of their "work week" is travel time, and there's NO WAY they do more work than a typical teacher.[/hijak]

yeah, and while they travel they're working.settle down and remain unappreciated, plz.

 

[lod01]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

I'll guarantee you that everyone in here would be singing that different tune if they were told they had a DB plan and then later on there was an attempt to take it from them.

 

[Bayhawks]

They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks.

[hijak]You're out of your mind. 35 hour work week? I work about 50-55 hours most weeks (obviously weeks with a holiday are less). I get to school at 615 each morning, and I usually don't leave until 4 pm, AT THE EARLIEST). And, while I agree that calling NFL refs part time is disingenuous, a big part of their "work week" is travel time, and there's NO WAY they do more work than a typical teacher.[/hijak]

yeah, and while they travel they're working.settle and remain unappreciated, plz.

Okay, well if that's the case, then my "work week" is actually between 60-65 hours/week, since I drive 30 minutes (each way) to/from work every day.

 

[fruity pebbles]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

I'll guarantee you that everyone in here would be singing that different tune if they were told they had a DB plan and then later on there was an attempt to take it from them.

And taken away by a group of billionaires

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks.

[hijak]You're out of your mind. 35 hour work week? I work about 50-55 hours most weeks (obviously weeks with a holiday are less). I get to school at 615 each morning, and I usually don't leave until 4 pm, AT THE EARLIEST). And, while I agree that calling NFL refs part time is disingenuous, a big part of their "work week" is travel time, and there's NO WAY they do more work than a typical teacher.[/hijak]

yeah, and while they travel they're working.settle and remain unappreciated, plz.

Okay, well if that's the case, then my "work week" is actually between 60-65 hours/week, since I drive 30 minutes (each way) to/from work every day.

and if you're grading papers while you're driving somebody should arrest your ###.

 

[fruity pebbles]

They probably do more work in their 36 hour work week than most teachers do in their 35 hour work weeks.

[hijak]You're out of your mind. 35 hour work week? I work about 50-55 hours most weeks (obviously weeks with a holiday are less). I get to school at 615 each morning, and I usually don't leave until 4 pm, AT THE EARLIEST). And, while I agree that calling NFL refs part time is disingenuous, a big part of their "work week" is travel time, and there's NO WAY they do more work than a typical teacher.[/hijak]

yeah, and while they travel they're working.settle and remain unappreciated, plz.

Okay, well if that's the case, then my "work week" is actually between 60-65 hours/week, since I drive 30 minutes (each way) to/from work every day.

Not really the same, travel is part of their job. You could live across the street from work if you so choose.

 

[Patroclus]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

They should get benefits in line with what they do. Not in line with who they work for. I never understood the argument about how much money the NFL makes. If anything the replacement refs have shown they aren't worth the sort of "Cadillac" package they have asked for. When you can bring high school refs in with almost 0 training and they perform at say 75-90% of the regular refs then maybe the regular refs are not worth what they are asking.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

They should get benefits in line with what they do. Not in line with who they work for. I never understood the argument about how much money the NFL makes. If anything the replacement refs have shown they aren't worth the sort of "Cadillac" package they have asked for. When you can bring high school refs in with almost 0 training and they perform at say 75-90% of the regular refs then maybe the regular refs are not worth what they are asking.

The question is, how much value is that extra 25% worth? As we saw this weekend it's not insignificant. What's a wrongly decided game worth? What's the damage to the brand going to cost?The Refs think the value they add is worth the money in dispute. The league said it wasn't. From the timing of the agreement I suspect the league may be the one that changed their mind.

 

[Modog814]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

Many, many plans transfered from DB to DC. The money doesn't disappear, and the company is still responsible for the money accrued. It's a different economic world where have a DB plan could actually bankrupt a company. There is no need to take that risk if your the NFL. And a lot of cities/towns/states are in financial trouble because they can't afford to make the contributions to DB plans where unions have refused to switch.

I don't blame the union, or any, it's there purpose. But there is a risk that they get nothing, if there is no money.

 

[GroveDiesel]

1) This isn't a market negotiation. When you have a union and a collective bargaining agreement, you're actually throwing the market right out the window. Especially in this case when the refs illegally prevented the NFL from hiring more highly qualified replacements.

2) Hochuli pumping his guns doesn't count as job prep. I'm sure they all do some exercise, but from the looks of some of the guys, it aint 2-3 hours a day.

3) I'm really supposed to treat an NFL ref making $175k a year plus a $20-30k a year pension contribution for 5-7 hours a week of actual work plus travel time during 6 months a year, the same as a guy working 50 hours a week standing on his feet welding car parts for $50k a year? That's just silly talk.

 

[Modog814]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements?

This is way off base. No one is screwing anyone out of retirements. The moneys not going anywhere. The NFL just doesn't want to guarantee a stock market return in this economic environment. Many companies have made this choice. All they want to say is, "Here is the money we're giving you, we're not responsible for it if the market performs poorly."

the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

The market risk is prior to retirement. At retirement, an annuity is typically purchased to provide the annual payments. This same thing can be done with a defined contribution plan. The only difference, is that the size of the annuity to be purchased is not guaranteed (which could be a good thing too you know).

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

To let a company fail not because bad business but because of a poor economic market is idiotic and un-American. I have nothing against unions, other than they want a bigger piece of the pie when things are great (which is understandable), but typically refuse to give any pie back when things take a turn for the worse.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

They are using their market power, which in this instance flows from their demonstrated skill sets relative to the pool of other people who are available to do the job, to get what they can for their labor. When someone has market power by virtue of property, such as in a suddenly valuable piece of land, no one begrudges him the profit from auctioning it off to the highest bidder (unless I missed the posts where people complain because real property in one location sells for a higher amount than in other locations, and that the owner should have thought of all the people who don't have property like that and lowered the asking price). And if the owner of the property doesn't get the bid he wants, he just holds onto it. So why should the refs be held to a higher standard?

 

[ufshowboat]

So the top ref that has the most responsibility works 30 hours a week for half the year and in order to get his 30 hour figure he adds in all the little bull#### that nobody else in the world includes in their works. Yea, that sounds like a full time gig all right.

Sweet. I get to add in the time I spend in front of the mirror making sure my tie is on properly so I have a good appearance in the office. I also take at least TWO 15 minute dumps a day so that I can be comfortable, focused, and efficient while at work. I also should start charging for the time I spend reading the wall street journal so that I can stay up to date with my trade craft. A couple times a week I need to spend some time at the bar to relieve work induced stress so that #### counts too.

The talk about them getting a steady $1m a year added to compensation for the past 10 years and they want that to continue is hilarious. They need a reality check. The majority of americans went through a period of not getting a raise/bonus over the past 5 years due to the economy, or they lost their jobs, or their employers moved to a 401(k). BOO ####### HOO. Why do you deserve to be above the rest of society?

 

[Modog814]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

I'll guarantee you that everyone in here would be singing that different tune if they were told they had a DB plan and then later on there was an attempt to take it from them.

I'll also guarantee you that DC plans are relatively new and at one point DB plans ruled the roost. Now, DC plans are the norm, so most people have already gone through something like this.

 

[pantagrapher]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

Corporations and their allies have expended a lot of effort convincing the man on the street that we can't afford a financially secure middle class anymore. Someone else is always getting something they don't "deserve," until someday they tell you you're getting something you don't deserve. All the while funneling more and more money toward the top.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

1) This isn't a market negotiation. When you have a union and a collective bargaining agreement, you're actually throwing the market right out the window. Especially in this case when the refs illegally prevented the NFL from hiring more highly qualified replacements.2) Hochuli pumping his guns doesn't count as job prep. I'm sure they all do some exercise, but from the looks of some of the guys, it aint 2-3 hours a day.3) I'm really supposed to treat an NFL ref making $175k a year plus a $20-30k a year pension contribution for 5-7 hours a week of actual work plus travel time during 6 months a year, the same as a guy working 50 hours a week standing on his feet welding car parts for $50k a year? That's just silly talk.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be starting 10 threads about replacement car welders.

 

[Bad_Mo]

It's pretty funny to me to see people bashing the union here. This is how the market works, it's a negotiation, and you'd all be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes. It will work itself out one way or the other.

That being said, this isn't them asking for a new pension plan, this is them wanting to keep their existing plan in place, while agreeing to have new hires only have the 401K type plan. The NFL wants to end their existing pension plan entirely. There are also other differences, such as the amount contributed, but that's the gist of the pension/401k debate.

Something tells me most of you would be singing a different tune if this was your employer doing this, or if it was a public union like teachers, etc. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, and I think pension plans are very risky for the employer. However, I have no problem with what they are doing here.

Lost 2 pension plans, I have no sympathy for them with the pension Of course I didn't want to lose them but we are not union. So my option was to quit The pension doesn't go away, they still will have the money earned and frozen. Future contributions will be in the DC plan.

They can choose to leave the DB plan and cash that out upon retirement if they so choose, take cash equivalent now, or convert. SO they are not taking away all the money

Many, many plans transfered from DB to DC. The money doesn't disappear, and the company is still responsible for the money accrued. It's a different economic world where have a DB plan could actually bankrupt a company. There is no need to take that risk if your the NFL. And a lot of cities/towns/states are in financial trouble because they can't afford to make the contributions to DB plans where unions have refused to switch.

I don't blame the union, or any, it's there purpose. But there is a risk that they get nothing, if there is no money.

IMO, the main reasons for switching from a DB plan to a DC plan are: (i) investment risk shifted to participants, (ii) changes to the laws governing DB plans (pension "protection" act), (iv) current interest rate environment, and (iv) ease of understanding a DC plan versus a DB plan.Given the current market and interest rate environments, why would any employer want to take on a potentially huge liability when they have an opportunity to mitigate long-term volatility. At least with a DC plan, they can dictate what the participants will receive.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

That would depend upon an understanding of American history. Ever see man on the street interviews on that?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think people are getting too caught up in the details of part time/full time, pension/401k, trying to argue they're worth more/less, etc. and missing the main point- the market will decide what an NFL official should be paid, their benefits, etc. This is all a negotiation, it's up to both sides to either agree to a deal or move on to plan B.

 

[RCon]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

Screwing people out of their retirements? Didn't you just argue about collective bargaining and fair compensation in the previous paragraph? The NFL is making an offer, the refs are choosing not to take it. How is that screwing anyone?As far as defined benefits, the truth is that the math no longer works if everyone wants to continue retiring at the same age, earn the same percentage in retirement, and live longer. Companies, and governments, can no longer afford defined benefit plans at the same level they did for the past 50 years.

 

[jonessed]

"Other people lost their defined benefit plan, so the refs should as well" is not an argument, and not a good reasons to take the side of the NFL in this debate. What the hell happened to the ideals of collective bargaining and fair compensation that your parents and grandparents worked so hard for in the first half of last century?

How the hell can you side with the NFL, a 9 billion dollar organization, just because other industries and companies are screwing people out of their retirements? the whole point of a defined benefit retirement package is that it takes the considerable market risk off of the retiree, who has little income and limited ability to go back to work if need be, and puts it on a corporate entity that doesn't age, doesn't get sick, and has a much, much larger capacity to handle risk and absorb market fluctuations. Makes sense to me.

To besmirch unionized workers a defined benefit pension is idiotic and un-American. The middle class was built on organized labor and people are letting it slip away. It makes sense for a union to capitulate to lower compensation when their company isn't doing well, since ultimately the company and the union are working together. But the NFL is doing great; why shouldn't the refs get a piece of that?

Wake up. Stop bashing organized labor, and stop bashing defined benefit pensions. You're like the kid at the playground that breaks his toy and so gets mad and breaks some other kids toy. Unions are not the enemy.

Right. Our grandparents fought for the tried and true American right to get paid $200K/yr with a full pension for part-time work.

Ironically, most Americans wouldn't even consider these referees middle class anyway.