RETIREE OPINION of the IBEW LOCAL 332 PENSION PLAN "A"

Another week closer to the appeals court decision on whether or not my case will be heard. I have been trying for a positive disposition of this argument since 2005. The trustees do not want a third party to decide who is right and who is wrong. I do because the state court found in my favor and I think the federal court will also. $40,000.00 is a lot to me personally, my worth is not even close to the plan’s $384,060,142 (2010). In 2010 the cost of seminars and meetings alone, went up to $25,937.

I recently replied to the board decision not to let me see minutes from the pre founding of the Plan. They sited the “policy” reason. Does that mean that they get such a great number of “minute” requests that it is a burden upon them? Or does that just mean something else? I’ve asked for the reason for the policy but this is a real good example of communication with the trustees. They meet once a month (I think) and we don’t know when, so who knows when an answer will appear. Try to solve a problem with them by exchanging letters monthly. Of course the administrator is always available but she never offered to step forward when I had a problem. They do not have the Wal-Mart “can I help you” greeter for directions. However they did send me to Kraw and Kraw who did not have answerers either.

By the way in my letter above I also asked them why the plan sample QDRO has not been changed since the 2007 court decision showed it to be incorrect. They were informed immediately of the court comments by my then lawyer, but no action seems to have been taken. Perhaps the Business Manager will explain this in a couple of months when he gets to the pension plan at the union meeting. I think next month he talks about our health care.

The Plan sample QDRO is an interesting document. First it is really a sample DRO. This is a little nit-picky but a QDRO has the Plan blessing and a DRO, which is only a proposal, is what the alternate payee gives to the Plan for qualification. A Domestic Relations Order presented by the alternate payee, if qualified by the Plan, is the document that becomes the QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) on which the presenter will receive benefits. Lets look a little closer. The DRO is presented to the plan by the ex-spouse. NOT THE ELECTRICIAN. The Plan can reject the DRO or qualify it. The Plan should at least find out if the electrician agreed to the DRO. And if not, why? If the plan does not qualify the DRO, it goes back to the alternate payee for revision. Plan approval is a big thing in court and tells the judge that the Plan experts have approved. And that is what happened to me. The Plan wrote a bad DRO for my ex, she took it to the court, and they knew it was written by the plan, so they approved it. Who does the plan work for? You or your spouse! Did the plan ask me my opinion? NO! Did I know the plan was writing a DRO? NO! Was the Plan supposed to write a DRO without my approval? NO! The DRO contains the rights of the spouse, not the participant, and only lowers the electrician benefit.

More about the sample DRO. The plan has included a disclaimer in the sample DRO instructions. That is how they try to slip the responsibility from themselves to the people wanting a DRO. However the DRO will always be wrong and therefore; the disclaimer, that says it “MIGHT” be wrong, is wrong. “Might be wrong” means once in a while and always means you should not be using the sample DRO. The sample DRO more than doubled my ex-spouse’s benefit. And because it uses averaging of benefits beyond the years of marriage it will be an accident if it is ever correct. The inclusion of the disclaimer in the plan sample DRO is itself deceiving; it gives the impression that the DRO is almost always correct when in fact it is almost always wrong. Let me throw in that the California Superior Court of Appeal did not accept the Plan QDRO that was a copy of our sample DRO.

I just received the 2010 IBEW Local 332 Pension Plan financial report thanks to the Plan. Yes, they do good things, but when they are bad they are not correctable. We lost $3,000.00 on our WALMART stock last year so think about shopping there more. NOT! Are you proud to be a Wal-Mart owner? The pension is not the union, and they only have a $59,677.00 piece of Wal-Mart. We also have money in Qatar, Poland, Korea and the USA.

The Federal Appeals court opinion should be made public sometime in January. I think it is 50/50 that we go back to court. And if not, I can complain about this months short pension check.

Do you wonder what the breakdown is between 2010 Plan pension seminars and meetings, total cost $26K? Those meetings could be luxurious. Could it have been $20,000 for meetings and $6,000 for seminars?

Remember the “golden rule”; those who have the gold make the rules. I mentioned previously that if you don’t catch a Plan hour reporting error within their defined time the error becomes unfixable. That means you eat it they don’t fix it. (One of the golden rules.)

“The country has come to feel the same when congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” Will Rogers

Happy Trails