Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
6 Locals in the Southwest, L-89 and L-177 Switching to NO 6 Years Later!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="959Nanook" data-source="post: 1153729" data-attributes="member: 14462"><p><strong>Re: browned out</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For clarity... <em>pension contributions</em> OR <u>pension contribution increases during the life of the Contract</u>?</p><p></p><p>If it is as you state, then there is no way in hell that anyone should be voting YES because the trustees of TeamCare could independently jeopardize the pensions of every participant in TeamCare. The only language that I find in the TA has to do with re-allocating "designated <u>increases</u> in Health & Welfare and/or pension contributions (HWPC) and/or general wage <u>increases</u> (GWI)". </p><p></p><p>BTW, this is NOT new language and this language has been used in the past to divert general wage increases in the past (at least in some jurisdictions). The change in the language is that the entire general wage increase can be diverted in the TA rather than up to the limits in past language.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="959Nanook, post: 1153729, member: 14462"] [b]Re: browned out[/b] For clarity... [I]pension contributions[/I] OR [U]pension contribution increases during the life of the Contract[/U]? If it is as you state, then there is no way in hell that anyone should be voting YES because the trustees of TeamCare could independently jeopardize the pensions of every participant in TeamCare. The only language that I find in the TA has to do with re-allocating "designated [U]increases[/U] in Health & Welfare and/or pension contributions (HWPC) and/or general wage [U]increases[/U] (GWI)". BTW, this is NOT new language and this language has been used in the past to divert general wage increases in the past (at least in some jurisdictions). The change in the language is that the entire general wage increase can be diverted in the TA rather than up to the limits in past language. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
6 Locals in the Southwest, L-89 and L-177 Switching to NO 6 Years Later!
Top