Service Employees Pension Fund Case Study I chose to write this about the organization I work for, the State of Service Employees Pension Fund. New York (SEPF/fund). I focused my article on the main office located in Syracuse, New York. I am employed at the Albany office. This gave me the opportunity to look at the office as an outsider since I only make a trip to Syracuse a couple of times a year. Talking to the fund manager also helped me get an idea of ​​what he thinks of the fund and how he believes others see it. The SEPF was founded in 1965; was created to provide a 6-year retirement benefit. Now provides a lifetime monthly benefit for members who meet eligibility requirements. The plan also offers disability benefits for eligible members. The plan is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union. The Board of Trustees is made up of three representatives of the trade unions and three of the employers. Members of this plan do not contribute their own money. Employers are responsible for contributing a negotiated dollar amount based on the hours worked by their employees enrolled in this plan. That money is held in a trust and invested; this money is what the fund uses to pay your monthly benefits. The plan serves just over 7,000 members in New York State. There are two offices, one located in Syracuse, NY which is the main office and a smaller office located in Albany, NY. The Syracuse office staff consists of the fund manager, accountant, IT technician, provident fund specialist and receptionist. The Albany office where I am located is staffed by two benefits coordinators. The staff is made up of men and women of different ages and races. I believe a diverse staff is important to our organization as we serve members of different ages, races, and genders; this I feel helps give members a level of comfort. The goal of the SEPF is to provide union members with a lifetime monthly pension benefit upon retirement. With the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, the fund suffered a loss on its investments, like many other plans. This loss led the fund to have to make changes, including not giving retirees annual increases in their monthly pension benefit and a 20% reduction in how the plan calculates future benefits.