Company and teamsters have a tenative agreement taking over Central States ?

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by wildgoose, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    This is a post on Teamsters website !
  2. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    If you really think this ups-teamster pension is better than central states ask ups why their new york and new jersey pensions are as bad and even worse than cs!

    Deal to Weaken Pensions All But Official
    > Hoffa has all but made it official that he intends to let UPS rip
    > 42,000 Teamsters out of the Central States Pension Fund--a move that
    > would undermine the security of all Teamsters at UPS.
    > Our union entered early bargaining to win pension and benefit
    improvements. We
    > can and must do better than this.
    > In an Aug. 2 letter, James Hoffa and hall have made it official:
    "UPS has
    > reached an agreement with the Central States pension establishing
    conditions for
    > a potential UPS withdrawal from Central States."
    > They go on to claim that the deal is a long way from final, and they
    > "protect our members" in bargaining with UPS. But they wouldn't be
    going through
    > all this if they weren't trying to soften us up to accept the deal.
    > It's up to us to stop it.
    > In 1997, UPS tried to take control of our pension fund. Teamsters
    said "NO" and
    > united, we won record pension increases. We can do it again. UPS is
    > pressure from shippers and stockholders to settle our contract early.
    This gives
    > our union leverage and we need to use it to win retirement security
    and other
    > contract improvements.
    > Just three weeks ago, Hoffa and hall said the number one issue in
    > was "improving the stability of the benefit funds upon which our
    members rely
    > for health care coverage and retirement protection."
    > Now, Hoffa and hall apparent surrender on the pension issue--a year
    before our
    > contract expires--is a clear warning to every UPSer that we need to
    get involved
    > now to stop our negotiators from settling short like they did in
    > If Hoffa and hall are willing to give in to UPS on pensions without
    any fight,
    > then what does this mean for other key issues like excessive
    > supervisors working, full-time job creation, stronger rights for
    combo workers,
    > wage increases, raising the part-time starting rate, and other union
    > UPS Teamsters can't afford another "Best Contract Ever."
    > Pension Deal Would Hurt All UPSers
    > Under the law, UPS would be required to pay some $6 billion dollars
    > withdrawal liability to Central States. In return, UPS would get to
    walk away
    > from the fund forever and set up a joint UPS-Teamster pension plan
    for the
    > 42,000 Teamsters in the Central States.
    > Two funds just like this already exist covering New Jersey and New
    York City.
    > UPS recently demanded big pension cuts in both of these funds. They
    > pension accrual rates by 30 percent in New York. The New Jersey fund
    is only 52
    > percent funded--worse than Central States. The New York Fund's
    > returns are much worse than Central States--and have been for a
    > These are UPS-Teamster plans just like the company wants to set up in
    > Central States--and they are cutting benefits. This puts the lie to
    > company's claim that Central States Teamsters would be better off in
    a UPS plan.
    > The UPS pullout will not just hurt Teamsters in the Central States.
    UPS will
    > offer less in the contract, after shelling out billions to split our
    > fund.
    > Don't Let Our Union Settle Short
    > If you're happy with the "Best Contract Ever" and not worried that
    Hoffa and
    > hall will settle short again, then your job is easy: do nothing.
    > But if you want to protect your retirement security and win a better
    > contract, it's time to get involved. The right to vote on our
    contract gives us
    > power if we're organized to use it.
  3. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    Your chosen title for this thread makes two very common errors. First, the tentative agreement is not with the Teamsters, it's with Central States.

    Second, the agreement is not about "taking over Central States," it's about UPS paying the Withdrawal Liability that it owes to the Fund, should it cease making contributions some time in the future.

    Why didn't you just go with the two titles the TeamsterDotOrg website used:

    "UPS, Central States Reach Tentative Agreement"


    "Company and Central States Reach Tentative Agreement"

    The article itself makes clear the Teamsters were not a legal party to the agreement.
    - - - - -
    Incidently, the agreement should not be referred to as a "buyout." UPS would not be buying anything by paying its Withdrawal Liability. They would not be doing anything for the employees. The billions in payments would not get anyone any additional benefits. This is not part of contract negotiations. They would just be paying a debt that they have owed all along. It's like when you have a mortgage on your house. Part of you house is paid for, but the remainder is owed to the bank. If you decide to sell your house, the bank will want you to pay the remainder of the money you owe on your mortgage. You owed the money all along, but the bank didn't demand payment in full until you forced the issue by attempting to sell your house. Withdrawal Liability is a debt UPS owes to Central States that is triggered when UPS ceases to be a Contributing Employer.

    With all the talk of Central States being so poorly funded, many fail to understand that UPS, all along, has had the legal obligation to guarantee full funding of every vested UPSer's pension. Just as all the other Contributing Employers have the same responsibility to pay Withdrawal Liability to cover their employees, should those companies withdraw. This is just one part of the way multi-employer pension funds are self-insured, in addition to the partial insurance provided by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. In a sense, your vested pension has been fully funded all along, although a portion of the money remained in UPS' coffers. If UPS should actually withdraw someday, they will have to pay that remainder to the Fund.

    "Withdrawal" does not mean the withdrawal of any funds. It means ceasing participation as a Contributing Employer.
  4. Bill

    Bill Member

    You are correct when you said that the agreement was between CS and UPS, not with the Teamsters. I doubt the Teamsters would be willing to allow UPS to withdraw from the CS pension fund as it would weaken the pensions of employees outside of UPS. However, I disagree with you on your statement that "withdrawing would not do anything for the employees. The billions in payments would not get any additional benefits". ON august 1, 2007, under the terms of the CBA, an additional $28 per week per employee was put into our pension fund, but as was the case in the previous three years, we don't receive a penny of this extra money. Does this make any sense to you? If we stay with CS, then we are doomed with a failing pension fund, and according to the Red Zone amendment signed into law starting in January, we can not get an increase until the fund is 100% funded, which it never will be. In all probability, we will see another cut just to maintain the present funding (49%). We will not see the 25 or 30 and out pension back unless we exit CS. Why should we have to work until the age of 62 or 65 and receive less money, because of the mismanagement of the Teamsters and CS. WE have no other choice but to exit CS. UPS has the money and wants the older drivers out, so they would be willing to give us the monthly pension of $3000 after 30 years of work at any age. If we don't want the company (UPS) to control the pension, then we would need an independent union (APWA), where all the pension money that UPS contributes goes to its employees. This is a no brainer and the best option.
  5. Bill

    Bill Member

    If Hoffa made it clear that he intends to rip 42000 Teamsters from CS and undermine the security of all Teamsters at UPS, then why do you keep supporting Hoffa and the Teamsters? In 1997, UPS tried to take control of the pension, but the Teamsters said NO, and we won record pension increases. WHAT A JOKE!!!! True, although much more money went into the pension fund, the UPS employees did not receive an increase or even one penny, but the sad part is that with all this EXTRA money, our pensions were cut. Once again I agree with you (I don't agree with you too often), that if you want another "best contract ever", do nothing. If you are happy giving away your pension and health benefits, then just sit idly by and let Hoffa and the TEamsters sell you out again. If you want to receive the benefits that you should be getting, then we need to exit CS and vote the Teamsters out. We will not be without a union for one day if you vote in the APWA ( a union for UPS employees only).
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Probably not the best example. In this case the bank ripped out two bedrooms, burned down the garage sold your back yard to someone else and then asked you to pay ten times the mortgage you had previously agreed to. Try to keep it real Jon. You have a lot of pensioners on this site who are trying to understand some pretty complicated issues. if you are going to present yourself as the self annointed pension expert then do so with consideration for those who are affected. This buyout amounts to a ballon payment in addition to the original mortagage that ups has always paid in good faith.
  7. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Red looks like more tired out old school rhetoric. The bogeyman scare tactic won't work this time because the bogeyman already showed up at the pension reviews and it was not ups. If you don't like whats going on then you have to give the affected recipients a better plan. Another rah rah speech ain't going to help you this time.
  8. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    Red and Johfrum

    Sorry for not clarifying the Ups and Central States but what i wanted to do is post the website from the teamster page - your more concerned about the error of my post then you are of who got us in this position in the first place ? Now the Doe Doe`s that gave us the best contract ever for two contracts. Like engineer79 said it times to take the business somewhere else ! Because for all the $ being contributed it`s not ending where its suppose to. Increases in contributions each year and a frozen and reducing plans seem to be under the representation of present.
  9. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Tie the point in my post was about the already controlled single-employer pension plan that ups and the teamsters belong to in new york and jersey.

    How can it be better to join one like that? New york is just as bad as cs and jersey is in worse shape!

    How is it a scare tatic? It is the truth that those funds are in bad condition.

    What exactly is the better plan tie? Starting a new fund that ups has alot more control over and watch them mis-manage it like theose 2 other funds i have spoke of?

    You speak of the bogeyman not being ups but ups is a common denominator in every one of these falling plans, is it not tie?
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Your brand of truth is scary red. UPS and the teamsters are working on a pension fix for the 44,000 CS recipients. You claim to be sympathetic to their plight but yet continue to throw up the fear mongering tactics in defense of status quo. Status quo is those 44,000 people get screwed out of their retirement. If you have a better solution you should speak up and give it to them. If your only defense of status quo is to throw up the bogeyman defense then you really should get out of the discussion. My point again is stop muddying the waters and give them a better plan or get out of the debate.
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    do you have details on which plans you are referring to?
  12. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Im looking up for more info this is what i have dug up so far!
  13. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Your right tie it is pretty scary! Can you show me were im wrong or i am misleading leading anyone here? Can you show me why the cs pensioners would be better off going into the new york plan that just got slashed? How about the new jersey plan thats doing worse than the cs? Can you tell us why ups wants to slash pensions in the western conference where the fund is 100% funded?

    Tie we will not agree on everything obviously but you bleed brown more than the average manager and really believe in the good that ups could do but has yet to. Im a realist and if these other plans were not as bad as they are i would be the first one to applaud their efforts.
  14. 1980

    1980 Member

    NJ Local 177 pension is still 3700 a month with 25 @ 55 or 30 and out.Medical is either free or 50 a month depending on which plan you choose.Company did propose changing the 25 year option but so far they were not successful.Funding level is not 90% but not in any shape or form like the wreck in central states.The only problem is that "effing" pension reform bill that change the rules of the game to the benefit of corporate America.
  15. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    You're all snug as a bug right now, it is easy for you to knock others efforts when things are right in your world. What makes you think that they want go after you once they are threw with everyone else. Looks like you would be supporting the efforts of others rather than knocking them. Maybe some of us that are in the mix right now can get things straight before they go after your pension, if not, rest assured they will be coming for you next.
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I see you doing everything you can to convince CS pensioners to stay with CS. I see you put down every option discussed in one way or another. Look at how you're now throwing up these ny and nj plans. when I ask you for information on them you give me some half -assed tdu link. Yet you're selling this misinformation as gospel and asking me to disprove that information when you can't prove anything you've said about them. You clearly threw these plans into the mix without doing any of your own personal research simply because you think they help your own argument. What I see red is 44000 CS pensioners worried about pension death and you trying to tell them that death aint so bad.

    You guys love jonfrum because you think his long winded posts are informative. I too have found about 10 percent of what he posts is informative. But if you actually read through his posts with the same scrutiny you would look at mine you would find 90 percent of his posts are also misinformation. The CS folks need help here Red they don't need misinformation. Help them out for god sake.
  17. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Tie why are you so interested in the participants leaving cs to go into another plan similar to that of 804 and 177? The decision is not up to you or me its up to those involved in that fund. All im doing is pointing out flaws in similar plans, why is that so bad? As a manger dont you want your employees to know what they could be getting them selves into? You believe that the new plan will be better and i to pray that it will be better for those involved, but it hasnt been proven that it is.
  18. wildgoose

    wildgoose WILDGOOSE

    I don`t think CS has a chance in hell to stay afloat at its present status and if Ups pulls out the buyout money will afford the remaining receipients a better chance only if those companies will pony up and the Abf,Yellow and Roadway will probably follow suit once we (CS) have settled. I can`t read johnfrum if its after 9 pm it just puts me to sleep !
  19. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    Isn't this the plan where the Employer Trustees (UPS) have been trying to slash the benefits for months, but they have been temporarily blocked while the matter is before an Arbitrator?
  20. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    Engineer79, it's hard to believe you are still claiming the Central States Fund is only 49% funded and headed South. Your figure is several years old and represents the sorry state of the fund after the stock market losses and before the (admitedly painful) cost-saving benefit cuts took effect. The market has since recovered.

    Visit the Central States website and you can read quarterly reports on the status of the Fund. The First Quarter Report of 2007 is already posted. The Second Quarter Report (Apr. - June, 2007) should be posted any day now. These reports are public information. I didn't have to cut :censored2: in the electrified fence, or rip my pants on the barbed wire to access them. Though I did have to toss the guard dogs a couple of steaks to distract them.