PDA

View Full Version : What EEEVILLL entity is ripping off US teachers?



LWW
11-26-2011, 08:04 AM
According to the reich wing New York Times, it's THEIR OWN UNION (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/business/17suit.html) doing it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Washington State contends that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the National Education Association breached its duty to members by accepting millions of dollars in payments from two financial firms whose high-cost investments it recommended to members in an association-sponsored retirement plan.</span>

The case was filed on behalf of two N.E.A. members who had invested in annuities sold by Nationwide Life Insurance Company and the Security Benefit Group. It contends that<span style='font-size: 11pt'> by actively endorsing these products, which carry high fees, the N.E.A., through its N.E.A. Member Benefits subsidiary, took on the role of a retirement plan sponsor, which must put its members’ interests ahead of its own.</span>

By taking fees from the two companies whose annuities N.E.A. Member Benefits recommended to its members, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the N.E.A. breached its duty to them</span>, the suit contends. The N.E.A. is the nation’s largest professional organization; its Web site says it serves 3.2 million workers in education, from preschool to university graduate programs. ...</div></div>

Soflasnapper
11-26-2011, 10:50 AM
According to the New York Times, that is an allegation in a lawsuit. Does the lawsuit have merit? Who knows. That will be decided either at trial or at settlement pre-trial.

What is novel about the claims here?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lawsuits on behalf of pensioners are usually brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as Erisa, which requires organizations overseeing retirement plans to put their beneficiaries’ interests first.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The type of 403(b) programs at issue in the complaint are typically exempt from Erisa. But the lawyers bringing the case argued that because the N.E.A. actively promoted the annuity products to its members, it essentially stepped in as a plan sponsor. That made it subject to Erisa’s fiduciary duty requirements, the lawsuit contended.</span>

“The Erisa exemption applies to situations where the employer does nothing more than arrange for salary deferral for its employees,” said Derek W. Loeser, a lawyer at Keller Rohrback in Seattle, which represents the plaintiffs in the case. “But in endorsed plans, the union together with the insurance company are taking over the role that the plan sponsor plays.”

From 1991 to 2000, Nationwide was the exclusive N.E.A. plan provider. The company sold its N.E.A. Valuebuilder accounts, with more than $860 million in assets, to Security Benefit Life Insurance Company for $72 million in 2000, the suit said. </div></div>

That is the question, and it is far from clear that the claim that their actions 'essentially' made them 'sponsors' subject to ERISA is correct.

In fact, the reporting apparently suggests that after 2000, there was not an exclusive NEA provider, and therefore, likely no colorable claim of sponsorship.

As for WHO RIPPED the teachers off, that would be this one annuity provider, on this one plan (10%+ is indeed outrageous). But there were other providers after 2000, and the provider also had different plans.

eg8r
11-26-2011, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the New York Times, that is an allegation in a lawsuit. Does the lawsuit have merit? Who knows. That will be decided either at trial or at settlement pre-trial.
</div></div>So when the lawsuit is against unions you want everyone to keep their cool and remember these are only "allegations" and we don't need to make any rash decisions about whether they have "merit". However, if these "allegations" were harrassment charges against Cain you don't really care at all if they have "merit" or not. You accept them as truth.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-26-2011, 02:21 PM
If the charges against Cain were justiciable, I would favor letting the process work its way through before making any final decision on the matter.

Since it is not justiciable, there is nothing that will prove it and people will have to make up their minds on incomplete and inconclusive evidence.

My particular opinion won't really come into play unless Cain can convince the GOP primary voters to give him the nomination nod. He is not doing so well now with that group, which should be most sympathetic to his side of the story, and had formerly not so very long ago had him in first place.

Why is that? Probably, because the allegations against him weren't left hanging in the wind, but instead led to a sizable mid-five figure settlement with his accuser, on the judgment of his employer, not once but twice, and then a couple other stories surfaced.

cushioncrawler
11-26-2011, 04:01 PM
Unions shood be banned. Union leaders shood by hung.
mac.

Qtec
11-27-2011, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As for WHO RIPPED the teachers off, that would be this one annuity provider,</div></div> LOL

So now you are suddenly worried about Teacher's welfare????????

Don't make me laugh.

When Walker was ripping off the Teachers by taking away their bargaining rights, hiking their HC contributions etc etc , YOU were all for it.

What a hypocrite.

Q

LWW
11-27-2011, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Walker was ripping off the Teachers by taking away their bargaining rights, hiking their HC contributions etc etc , YOU were all for it.

What a hypocrite.

Q </div></div>

Your only problem is that this isn't what happened.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 10:06 AM
One more thing-- these charges against Cain from the past come in the context of his applying for a job. The job of being the GOP nominee, and then, if successful, president of the United States.

That's the only thing going on. Nobody can deprive him of life, liberty, or property, there are no legal issues at stake for him, and he is a job seeker.

As an employer myself, were I to hire a man knowing he had these settled charges in his past, and he then repeated them, I would have more liability for any repeat offense than if I had no knowledge of his past. I would not hire such a person if he'd be in a situation to re-offend, which is no denial of rights to such a person, since nobody has any right to be hired.

I remember the joke, the American people elect people known as 'Tricky Dicky' and 'Slick Willie,' and then seem to be surprised when they do the things they do. Not a sound hiring theory!