Archives

U

ups

Guest
In California (East Bay District Oakland) we have what we call peer 80 which is just like golden 80. Age + years service = 80=full pension. We are in the western conference pension fund and it is supposedly very sound and secure! Sounds like nothing is sound and secure as we think. What is the history of the problem with Central States pension? Is it the pilfering to build Vegas in the 50's? Or is that a rumor that has grown legs?

I remember when the company made a play for the pension. At that time it was said it would be unfair to employees that were ready to retire at that time.

The company wanted to give 3k for 30 years and some retiree's were going to get 4k+. So the argument was we would ultimately get less going with the company?

But as I recall there wasn't good information and answers to the questions we had with the company offer.
 
W

wkmac

Guest
ok2bc,
Although I understand and in fact agree with brown39's comments there is no question that UPS does in fact have a sitting trustee on the CS board as you so correctly pointed out. Where this person's guilt lies is a fair question but as Traveler pointed out the UPS trustee could have voted one way but the others could have gone another and thus we are where we are.

It's also fair to point out that the union itself has 6 trustees and let me ask this question. Do you think the other employer trustees would work with the UPS trustee if that person tried to act solely in our best interest when that action could in turn force the union to turn around and raise the weekly amount they (the trucklines)themselves have to put in? I have always and still believe there is more buddy-buddy behind the scenes with the IBT and many of the traditional trucking companies when it comes to UPS. We are a threatening storm in their world so I just can't believe that at times the IBT stands as a roadblock not on behalf of our (UPS Teamster's) interests and benefit but rather to the benefit of the other trucklines. This may be the absolute wrong way to think but if UPS can take all the business (and let's face it, they won't and can't) and shut those trucklines down then I say go for it! It benefits us and this IMO is where we are at now and have to start thinking that way. I'm not worried about the folks at Yellow, or Joe's Trucks or whoever I'm only thinking of me and my fellow UPSers because I know at the end of the day the only reason those other folks want me and my fellow UPSers around is strictly for the UPS money.

Those words may come off as harsh and in no way are they directed at you as the points you made are valid. There's no question that a big economic gain for UPS could be achieved if they got control of the pension monies and you never know how all this effects actions and results. The plain fact is I have no proof just as I have no real proof about my IBT/Truckline conspiracy theory but my gut just tells me so. Or it could have been those Varsity chilli/slaw dogs I ate last night.

Keep posting because you do bring a balance this whole issue should have.
 
L

local804

Guest
Traveler,
I think if that was the reason UPS wanted to take over the pension plan, they would have thrown that on the table.OK2 have have some very valid points in his posts.In my UPS 401k, because of the decline in the market, I have lost about $18,000 which is about 30% of my long term savings.Who do I sit there and blame?? Bush? The NYSE? The towelheads who flew the planes into our trade center? NO. I have no one to blame.As he sais there are 6 UPS reps on the board NOT 1 like you have stated. Do you really think that the teamsters-UPS board planned for this to happen??????? I think before you guys point the blame and stick out fingers at who did what, maybe we all should look at the facts before we open our big mouths.
 
E

eeriana

Guest
It is western conference. It is in our Western Conference Supplement.


Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust (SW Area)
2601 Wilshire Blvd
LA CA 90057
213-386-3300
1-800-845-0571

Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust
PO BOX 12818
Seattle WA 98111
 
T

traveler

Guest
local804,

Don't want to get into a p*ing contest here but you should carefully read and get the facts. There is only one UPS person on the board!

See the post again by ok2bclever as follows:

"UPS has one of those company representatives and so is, was and will be fully informed..."

I don't believe there was a PLAN to make this happen but with other companies included in the plan going belly up, it certainly was inevitable. Believe it or not, there were discussions about that posibility when I was still with the company and I retired 14 years ago!
 
B

brownmonster

Guest
If the funds lost so much money in the down market why didn't they gain 25 or 30 percent in 2003?
 
L

local804

Guest
BM,
If I knew the answer to that question, do you think I will be delivering packages??? Why did AT&T`s stock which was one of fortune`s top picks in 2002 go belly up 1 year later? Why didnt any one stop the scandal at Enron? All I can say is dont keep all of your eggs in one basket.
 
O

ok2bclever

Guest
There is only one UPS representative, his name is Daniel J. Brutto and he has been on the board since June of '98.

I never stated it was UPS's fault.

I stated it is simplistic and false to lay all of the blame on the union. (I'll go farther and state it is false to lay most of the blame on the union).

Those that do just want another reason to denigrade the union.

There are straight factual reasons to do that as well as straight factual reasons to praise the union.

The pension issue, while a highly emotionally (as well as financial) one, is not a simple one of conspiracy nor incompetence.

Most of it was beyond the pension board's control.

You won't find me spewing "brotherly" loyalty teamster stuff about sticking together to help the freight industry guys as I had too many years of being laughed at and called "buster brown" while busting my rear as they goofed off and helped their inept management put many of their companies out of business which is a major part of the pension problem.

But for those who don't want to understand the actual complex problems involved that don't have simple or quick answers at least quit laying the blame inappropriately completely on the union. Company reps make up half of it. So the union is a maximum of fifty percent at fault.

The only reason there was a decent pension for UPS to try to take over in the first place was because of union negotiations over the years.

You fool yourselves if you think the wages you earn, the benefits you enjoy would be what they are if the company had never originally invited the Teamsters to organize the workforce.

Yup, you heard me. UPS invited the Teamster in. It is my opinion that the union was one of the major contributing factors of making UPS the great company it is. The union attracted family men who were after security and kept the company from overusing the whip (they've had some really powermad sadistic b*st*ds over the years) to the detriment of the long term viability of the company. That is a whole nother discussion.

As far as the "one" member thing. The vote was 6 to 6 on recommending/incorporating contribution increases. Yep, it wouldn't have been that simple as the pension board has no authority to dictate to the companies, but it would have been a powerful tokenism. So the "one" vote was critical.

Do I blame the UPS rep for not voting for voluntary contribution increases? Of course not.

The bottom line is if the pension board is to blame, then the company is just as at fault as the union.

That was my statement

UPS pays for and supplies UPS employees retirement medical.

They can financially afford to honor the benefit and premium standards that were in effect before the Central States Pension Fund changed them due to fund financial problems.

I know the union reps responsible for negotiating the Central Supplement and it is their position that UPS should honor it as it was. It is my understanding that talks on the subject were going on two weeks ago. I haven't heard anything since then.

The fact that Pete's letter didn't make mention of UPS "holding the line" is not a good sign.

That they might not will be solely their fault, not the union's.

The union is not perfect nor worthless.

The same statement holds true for UPS.
 
O

ok2bclever

Guest
BM,

Actually, they did. I believe it was in the low 20% range. Very good, above average.

However, the fund forecast a target of 8% average increase every year to be necessary to fund the current benefit payouts.

So three years of losing money means you would need a thirty two percent profit on the fourth year just for a break even point if they did not make any money for those last three years.

The fact that they lost money (even if they lost less than the averages as they state) puts the target that much farther away.

I believe they lost eleven percent in the last(worst) of the three bad years which bumps it up to forty three percent required in the fourth year etc.

You can see this requires many more very nice years in a row to come will/would be necessary to overcome three bad years.

Not a promising thought.

Especially as this is only one leg of the tripod involved.

The other two are company contributions and the ratio of contributing members versus retirees.

Over the next couple of decades the baby boom generation will make that leg an uphill battle even if the shrinking unionism trend is reversed.
 
O

ok2bclever

Guest
Thanks Amy.

Could you go a bit further and supply us with what your benefits are at this golden 80?

How much per month does your pension give you?

You mentioned $50 per spouse and children.

Yearly deductable, co-pays?

That's ok if you don't have the info handy.

Thanks for the contact numbers.

(Message edited by Ok2bclever on January 24, 2004)
 
O

ok2bclever

Guest
What I find amazing is you think UPS made a grab for the pension to keep us safe and that the pension problem is one of criminal intent.

Using facts would be nice instead of lame inuendo and uninformed rumors.

UPS made one official grab for the pension in 1997 and while it may have actually been better for us (may be, may be not), they certainly weren't doing it to save us. UPS is driven by economical profit (not a bad thing by itself regardless of what some think) and that was the primary reason for the offer.

They could "protect" us right now by maintaining the medical side of the pension benefits and premiums for which they administer and get the negotiated contributions for rather than follow the Central States Pension Fund degradations.

What part of "the pension is administered by six company and six union representatives" don't you understand? Half the board is company so how can you blame all of it on the union !?!

It is convenient to try to blame the pension financial problems on nefarious doings of the union, but half the participants are company reps and the fund was already under government scrutinization because of the consent degree, so it wasn't anything as simple as a bunch of bad guys taking the money.

It really comes down to the fund relying too heavily on "good times" in the stock market to make up the known shortfalls of the difference of what the companies contribute versus the amount the fund has to pay out to retirees.

Would we have been better if UPS had been successful in their bid to take over our pension in 1997? In the short run, yes, in the long run, who knows. I know I personally would have benefited from it. Oh well.

Did you hear anything about them trying again in 2002? I didn't.

In 2002 they already knew the fund was in a lot of trouble as one of the trustees is theirs.

I think they didn't make a move because they figured they could get it at a firesale somewhere between now and 2008 or own the Teamsters as a puppet union by then.

But that is just conjecture.

I do agree that if the majority of UPS members got involved in their union many of the problems could be fixed, but it won't happen.
 
L

local804

Guest
USA TODAY: Companies Consider Pension Freezes
January 8, 2004

A resurgent stock market has failed to reduce pension shortfalls, prompting more than a third of U.S. companies with a pension plan to say they'll freeze benefits.

If Congress and regulators do not provide relief, 21% of employers say they will freeze benefits at current levels, according to a survey of more than 200 large companies by consulting firm Hewitt Associates. And 17% say they will halt benefits to new employees.

The percentage of employers offering traditional pensions dropped to 45% in 2003from 83% in 1990as they switched to other pension types and 401(k) plans, Hewitt says. Between January 2001 and October 2003 alone, 13% of more than 1,000 plans reviewed by Aon Consulting had frozen benefits.

Companies are considering pension cutbacks despite big market gains last year, which boosted pension plan assets at companies in the S&P 500 by $112 billion, according to Standard & Poor's projections. That's because the amount of benefits they estimate they'll owe retirees has grown faster than assets, causing shortfalls to balloon.

As a result, the amount that pensions in the S&P 500 are underfunded grew to an estimated $259 billion last year, from $212 billion a year earlier, Standard & Poor's says.

Companies complain that benefit obligations are artificially high because they are required to base calculations on the 30-year Treasury bond, which is no longer issued. Though interest rates are generally low, the rate used for the 30-year Treasury bond is lower than corporate bond rates. Low rates cause estimates of future pension obligations to soar.

Lawmakers had been near an agreement on a temporary pension relief bill. It would have allowed companies to use a corporate bond rate for two years. But Congress adjourned for the year without passing it.

Even without legislation, the bond market has taken some pressure off pensions, says Howard Silverblatt at Standard & Poor's. Rates on the 30-year Treasury bond bottomed in June at 4.14%, vs. 5.18% now, he says.

The shortfalls are primarily a concern for investors because the money to fund pensions often cuts into capital expenditures, Silverblatt says. Most companies have sufficient funds to meet their pension obligations, he says.

Still, companies may be more inclined to consider freezes now because it can be hard to pass legislation in an election year, says Nevin Adams, editor of Plansponsor, an industry publication.

Many firms would like to convert their traditional pensions to so-called cash-balance plans, which are more portable, accumulate more evenly and can be less expensive. But regulators and Congress are at odds over rules on the conversions.



The article originally appeared in USA TODAY on January 7, 2004 written by Christine Dugas.
 
G

gman

Guest
OK, my take now. First, the pension has been paying out more than it has been taking in since 1986. How could they not see this coming?

Why aren't they making huge gains now that the market is up? Because they paid out much of the money on hand just to maintain current retirees benefits. Therefore there is much less to make gains and recover with. If you have 36 billion and lose 30% percent in the market and have to use the principal to pay benefits instead of interest, You actually lose even more. I beleive the presentaion they showed us said they were down to 18 billion. Thats a 50% loss.

And with de-regualtion and intense competition, there are so many companies no longer in existance there is no longer the needed funds to maintain the principle.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the companies say they don't want the government to keep them locked into the 30 year treasury bond because it makes them pay excessive contributions. If they already can't meet their commitments for pensions, why on earth would the government consider letting them pay less? I know I'm not too bright, but can one of you more intelligent folks enlighten me on this one???

Too many promises with too little cash to back it up. Thats what makes the union responsible. The companys didn't promise you 30 and out. IBT did. It sure sounded good, didn't it. And now the other shoe drops and reality hits you right smack in the wallet. All I can say is I've started maxing out my 401k. At least if I lose money it will be my own fault.

On a happy note, SPRING is only 56 days away. The low tonight here in NE Ohio -10'
 
L

local804

Guest
To be honest with you G-man, there have been alot of things talked about on this board before they even happened. Not too long ago, the moderator of this board removed posts pertaining to a service UPS was offering in the future. Two weeks later, the service was started.There are plenty of characters on this board, but there are some pretty cool ones too.
 
G

gman

Guest
Thats quite a character under your name. I watched most of the first and second episodes of "The Rings" this afternoon. Seems your guy was about to be some kind of a turn coat near the end of the second episode but i had to go shopping with the wife so I didn't see what happened.

Speaking of new services, did I read somewhere that we were increasing our size limits again. Not the weight but the size. Never heard a PCM on it.

Any way, I don't put any thing past UPS and you will never know anything for sure til it happens. Good or bad. Like when I found out from a customer that we started carrying 150 pounders.
UPS was considering an airport in my area before the air hub went to Kentucky. In their research, a local politician got wind of it and tried to make a name for himself with inside information. Once the secret was out, so was UPS. The rest is history. You never know what management knows. Maybe it's better that way. They do their job, I'll do mine.
 
O

old_school

Guest
"Those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know"

{content edited by moderator}

I'm referring to the fact that on Thursday, thousands of PCAs across the country were informed that they will be losing there jobs in 90 days. Thousands more administrative workers are facing job cuts over the next year. Maybe you should pay more attention.
 
W

wkmac

Guest
Brownmonster,
Last Saturday (01/17)I attended a meeting with CS rep's and they reported they have just closed the books for 2003' and realized a 25% gain on investments. They also reported that their normal breakdown of investments is 60% stocks 40% bonds and other income investments but in 03' they went 70%/30% I guess in the hopes of gaining during a rising market. CS also said the actually investment choices were made by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and not just in 03' but previous years as well. OK2BC made the statement about not blaming the union solely which he does have a point but I think we also need to throw Goldman and JP in this blame mix as I'm sure they sold their investment choices to the board and they went with it. In all fairness to CS their investments were only down 10% in 02' verses over 20% for the S&P 500 so in truth that part wasn't to bad. It was the other factors in this mix that accelerated our current problem.

Also last week, the CS rep. told the group something that didn't set well at all but he really was right. He told the crowd that the biggest mistake the CS board made was being "too generous in 97' when you take in all the other known factors." No, it didn't play well at the meeting either and folks aren't gonna like this but he was right. I know this doesn't sit or taste well but when you look at the financials you can only come to that conclusion. Don't know if UPS had someone on that board at the time but it would be interesting if so to see how they voted and their comments during debate!
 
M

my2cents

Guest
I also have a healthy dose of scepticism about what's "sound and secure." According to this New York Times article: "The government said most of the risk posed by union-led pension plans is concentrated in two sectors, trucking and construction. Three of the 10 union plans showing the biggest deficits at the end of 2002 were run by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, according to government data released yesterday. The government said no more-recent data on the Teamster plans were available."

I've been searching unsuccessfully for data on which funds these are. Obviously, one of them is Central States. Can't figure out the other two.
 
Top