apwa : The unanswered questions

Discussion in 'UPS Freight' started by local776, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. local776

    local776 Member


    • [*]If UPS pension becomes a "single employer pension" it will not be covered by the Taft-Hartley Act which protects only multi-employer pensions. It would be eligible to make a "lump sum" payment of pension rather than a monthly annuity. The pension plan can make that decision without pensioners agreeing to the sum.

    • [*]The APWA cannot just takeover the $50 billion now in Teamster pension plans just because it may represent UPS workers. {The Big Brown}There would be a withdrawl fee that would likely be in the billions of dollars. Who could afford that amount? Certainly not the newly formed APWA. UPS was willing and able to pay the withdrawl fee in '97. What would stop the APWA from cutting a deal with UPS and the Teamsters that would be in the benefit of both of them and allow UPS to take over the pension?

    • [*]With the new rules instituted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 many Teamster pension are only 60% funded. How could the APWA suddenly have enough money to make a pension plan that would be able to increase pensions for more UPSers than are currently vested?

    • [*]Since the APWA does not have the structure of locals that the Teamsters has, how do they propose to have more than one collective bargaining agreement (contract)? A national contract without suppliments is something UPS has wanted.

    • [*][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]How do they intend to enforce a CBA without locals? Can you imaging the chaos of trying to appoint/elect an entire union structure across the United States?[/FONT]
      [*][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
      Im sure Nospin will have the answers for us
      [/FONT]
     
  2. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    Thanks for your vote of confidence. It warms my heart. :cool: Im working on a nice reply and will make sure your buddy Denver Brown and gets a copy. Any other questions you want to throw on so I can knock 'em all out at once??? Whatever works best for you.
     
  3. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    * If UPS pension becomes a "single employer pension" it will not be covered by the Taft-Hartley Act, which protects only multi-employer pensions. It would be eligible to make a "lump sum" payment of pension rather than a monthly annuity. The pension plan can make that decision without pensioners agreeing to the sum.
    The most convincible lie is the one that wrapped with a bit of truth, which we have a good example of here. It is true that an APWA pension would not be covered by the Taft-Hartley Act. Payment options would be defined within the charter/constitution. As the current APWA constitution by-laws read, pension benefits can be disbursed through two options to be chosen by the retiree:

    1. The entire balance is paid on a monthly annuity with the balance at death paid out to the retiree's designee
    2. At the discretion of the retiree, a partial lump payout can be made; the remainder of the balance would be paid in a recalculated monthly annuity to reflect the new principle balance

    Changes to these benefit payment options can only be made by amendments to the by-laws which requires approval of 60% of the membership. APWA’s primary role is to serve the interest of the membership, and changes to payout plans will only be made at the request of the membership. Thus, the argument that the fund can make a “lump sum payment without membership agreement” is false.

    An additional benefit of moving to a single employer plan is the improvement in insurance provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. As a participant in a multi-employer plan, if CS folds we would only get around $1200 per month at best. But if we move to a single employer plan, that security increases to $4,000 a month. SOURCE

    * The APWA cannot just takeover the $50 billion now in Teamster pension plans just because it may represent UPS workers. There would be a withdrawal fee that would likely be in the billions of dollars. Who could afford that amount? Certainly not the newly formed APWA. UPS was willing and able to pay the withdrawl fee in '97. What would stop the APWA from cutting a deal with UPS and the Teamsters that would be in the benefit of both of them and allow UPS to take over the pension?
    If the APWA were successful in executing a change in unions, there would be no withdrawal fee to be paid by anyone. Here is why. The purpose of the withdrawal fee is to cover pension liabilities that a party agreed to subsidize. If APWA were to be certified and were to assume its role as CBA on Jan 1, 2008, UPS would still be responsible for vested pensions promised to employees hired on or before Dec 31, 2007. This change in unions would not obviate or excuse UPS from those liabilities. All hires on or after Jan 1 would be handled by APWA and benefits for old hires would begin to accumulate after Jan 1 under the APWA as well. Bottom line here is UPS will still be responsible for pension benefits employees earned before the CBA change. If UPS would like to be excused from those liabilities, then a withdrawal fee would be imposed. And the way Judge Moran actually wrote his memorandum and order on November 17, 2003 to CS, there isn't even a voluntary exit available for UPS corporate to exercise, even if they did pay a withdrawal fee. The only legal exit from the plan is a change of unions executed by the membership.

    The APWA cannot just takeover the $50 billion now in Teamster pension plans just because it may represent UPS workers.
    UPS did not contribute 100% of the Teamsters fund nor do we stake claim to 100%. APWA could only stake claim to the portion of the funds attributable to contributions and accrued interest made on behalf of UPS members. This claim is described in the 1st Circuit US Court of Appeals decision in the NETTIPF argument in 1993 where the court said "The employees can automatically entitle themselves to a share of fund assets should the matter become so critically important to them that they take the drastic step of changing collective bargaining representatives (i.e., of leaving the Teamsters)." (pg23)


    * With the new rules instituted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 many Teamster pension are only 60% funded. How could the APWA suddenly have enough money to make a pension plan that would be able to increase pensions for more UPSers than are currently vested?
    When you go to the APWA’s website, read the print in ALL CAPS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. APWA has made it quite clear that any APWA benefits paid out to members with 20 or more years in a Teamster plan is in addition to the payout they would receive from the IBT plan. The earliest that APWA would begin cutting checks would be five years after being declared CBA. ONLY UPS employees who have worked under the APWA plan for at least 30 years will be eligible for the $7,000/month at any age.

    * Since the APWA does not have the structure of locals that the Teamsters has, how do they propose to have more than one collective bargaining agreement (contract)? A national contract without suppliments is something UPS has wanted.
    * How do they intend to enforce a CBA without locals? Can you imaging the chaos of trying to appoint/elect an entire union structure across the United States?

    Who’s to say that this infrastructure isn’t already in place? In fact the national organizational chart and voting rules are already in writing. People are preparing to serve as BA, stewards, and regional managers. But this is just a side note to your question. To answer your question, the APWA will be pushing UPS for a national contract that raises everyone’s working standards and removes the need for local supplements. If the guy in NJ is good enough to get 30mins of paid break time a day, why shouldn’t a guy on the other side of the country, in the same job, not get paid for that break time? The supplements will not be disregarded, but rather the national contract will provide these same perks to the rest of the membership. And if you have a solitary national contract, this makes it easier for everyone to play by the rules—both UPS and the union.

    One way to improve the uniformity of contract enforcement across the country is to archive precedent setting grievance resolutions on a server for other locals to review. By providing this database of information on how similar grievances were settled, APWA business agents will maintain a uniform enforcement of the contract across the entire country and can resolve local cases more quickly by relying on precedent already established elsewhere.
     
  4. ups79

    ups79 Active Member

    Nospin-You aren't the fancy lawyer hire by these two non-union members, are you?
     
  5. 3brownstars

    3brownstars Member


    Did he answer your questions? YES OR NO
    Nice work Nospin!
     
  6. Ironshot

    Ironshot Member

    Damn Nospin, impressive. I imagine the BA's on this site are thinking hard about how to shot holes in your last post...
    Nice work.
     
  7. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    Nahhhhww.... Just had 45mins this past weekend to talk with Danny on the phone. He gives me the basics and then I use google to supplement with sources. Its not that difficult to defend the truth.
     
  8. mittam

    mittam Member

    great job nospin
     
  9. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Gotta give it to ya, Nospin. Nice response!
     
  10. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    Just give me the pension contribution each week. Think of the money the APWA can save, resulting in more money for the members. No fees, no lawyers, no poterntial for skimming, no high mgmnt fees. Just have UPS make the deposit for me. Come on APWA do it for the members. Money in a fund can disappear or a fund can claim poverty. Money in my pocket stays in my pocket. Quit acting like a greedy union and give me the money.
     
  11. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe you should tell the teamsters to stop taking away your money.
     
  12. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Way to go, NOSPIN.
     
  13. RockyRogue

    RockyRogue Agent of Change

    Well said, sir. Unfortunately, you lack one thing from my perspective: credibility as an organization. It was said somewhere on here that APWA isn't even a legit union. I'd be more willing to listen to much of what you said if APWA was a genuine union. It would give you credibility where you need it most. -Rocky
     
  14. local776

    local776 Member

    UPS did not contribute 100% of the Teamsters fund nor do we stake claim to 100%. Who is WE Is this UPS talking or Skilman talking for UPS?
     
  15. Ironshot

    Ironshot Member

    Local, aren't you one of those former CF workers that came over to the NON UNION Overnite in Harrisburg? ABF had signs posted during that time frame. Why did you choose not to stay with your brothers? You did trash the very people you now claim to be saviors when you arrived on the HRS yard. What gives? Loyalty changes with the wind? I'll leave you your APWA card in road dispatch.
    Also, the dirty secret of the 50 billion we will remove from the IBT pensions is it can happen. 1) By court order, 2) by the willing transfer by the trustees due to the rightful owner's claim. Since the latter is the right thing one could reasonably
    figure the IBT would never do it. So there is option one.
    Ref. DOL/EBSA>publications>What you should know about your retirement plan. :devil:
     
  16. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Great sentence structure. You really know how to convince someone that your thoughts are correct and coherent.
    When you say," nor do we stake claim to 100%", you are correct. The "we" you represent only want to stake claim on 60% of the monies given by UPS for the benefits of UPSER'S.
    No Spin answered your questions point for point and this is your best response?
     
  17. local776

    local776 Member

    so to say they have plenty of attorneys----
     
  18. local776

    local776 Member

    you must mistake me for someone else. If you are so concerned about your retirement you need to look into the one you have. Everything looks good on paper.
     
  19. local776

    local776 Member

    No you posted a reply, nospin never did answer that question,get your facts straight
     
  20. local776

    local776 Member