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
Contract rumor 2 tier and Grandfathering PTimers
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 1019859" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Inthegame;</p><p></p><p>Regarding your claim of....</p><p></p><p>"If a union trustee approached an employer trustee to make a "side deal" as you suggest, a very unpleasant future could result for both"</p><p></p><p>...is that the "unpleasant future" YRCW has encountered, especially vis-a'-vis ABF and it current controversy with the Teamsters and their multi-employer pension trusts? You sure about that, are ya'?</p><p></p><p>As for your claim that....</p><p></p><p>"The one entity that appoints "half" of the trustees, represents "all" of the participants. So with that math the union is getting shorted on trust fund boards."</p><p></p><p>...just where did you come up with THAT particular little formula? The fact is, the union represents only the side of BENEFICIARIES (past, present, and future)...and truthfully "represents" only those beneficiaries who are direct members of the union (non-union beneficiaries effectively don't have a vote or a say except through their EMPLOYERS representation). And, since those union representative don't represent any CONTRIBUTING entity whatsoever, I'm hard pressed to see how they're being "short-changed". In fact, from a logical viewpoint, I think one could make a good argument that they shouldn't be given any "change" at all. They're not representing any entity that's making a contribution. And, as has been seen with Central States and the active UPS participants, apparently they weren't really representing the plan beneficiaries either. In fact, it appears that they were intent on screwing them over; if they weren't, surely they would have gone along much earlier with a plan that worked to preserve those UPSers pensions to the extent of contribution deposited in THEIR name.</p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">Then there's your argument about....</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">"</span>this in theory keeps everyone honest as your scenario played out (where an employer trustee would side with the union) would increase the obligation of that trustees employer, which is completely counter intuitive even without the personal liability issue."</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">...perhaps it's supposed to work that way "in theory", but in actual practice, there's a HUGE incentive for the smaller contributing and less viable employers to try to put the brakes to the legitimate aspirations of larger and more viable ones. Look at the '97 situation, in which UPS wanted to withdraw and pay the then-current withdrawal fee...only to find that it was pocked-up by the union and a minority representation of employer trustees. Why? Because those employers didn't want to be left holding the bag, and couldn't make the existing withdrawal fee on their own. Meanwhile, how do you account for the interests of trustees originally appointed in the context of contributing employers, which subsequently went out of business? Finally - and again - HALF the trustees represent the interests of ONE entity, while the remaining half represent the DIVERGENT interests of MULTIPLE entities...many of which have NO representation on the board at all!</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">In truth, I don't know the current intentions of UPS trustees currently on the board, BEYOND WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD! And, saying that, it's a matter of public record that UPS did NOT (by way of example) have a trustee on the CSPF board for quite a number of years. Not one. And it was common knowledge (and widely spoken of) throughout the company at the time as to why they didn't as well. </p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">Granted, I'm not a big believer in their being CURRENT trust hokey-pokey (although the history of the Teamsters more than demonstrates that such wasn't always the case), and I'm well aware that the current pathetic situation of several of the trusts has more to do with the unions themselves, and their inability to neither (1) maintain the viability of existing contributing employers, and (2) organize new ones. Perhaps the restructuring of the trusts ala' what's going on with New England now will change things...but I'm not hopeful.<p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1019859, member: 16651"] Inthegame; Regarding your claim of.... "If a union trustee approached an employer trustee to make a "side deal" as you suggest, a very unpleasant future could result for both" ...is that the "unpleasant future" YRCW has encountered, especially vis-a'-vis ABF and it current controversy with the Teamsters and their multi-employer pension trusts? You sure about that, are ya'? As for your claim that.... "The one entity that appoints "half" of the trustees, represents "all" of the participants. So with that math the union is getting shorted on trust fund boards." ...just where did you come up with THAT particular little formula? The fact is, the union represents only the side of BENEFICIARIES (past, present, and future)...and truthfully "represents" only those beneficiaries who are direct members of the union (non-union beneficiaries effectively don't have a vote or a say except through their EMPLOYERS representation). And, since those union representative don't represent any CONTRIBUTING entity whatsoever, I'm hard pressed to see how they're being "short-changed". In fact, from a logical viewpoint, I think one could make a good argument that they shouldn't be given any "change" at all. They're not representing any entity that's making a contribution. And, as has been seen with Central States and the active UPS participants, apparently they weren't really representing the plan beneficiaries either. In fact, it appears that they were intent on screwing them over; if they weren't, surely they would have gone along much earlier with a plan that worked to preserve those UPSers pensions to the extent of contribution deposited in THEIR name. [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] Then there's your argument about.... "[/COLOR]this in theory keeps everyone honest as your scenario played out (where an employer trustee would side with the union) would increase the obligation of that trustees employer, which is completely counter intuitive even without the personal liability issue." ...perhaps it's supposed to work that way "in theory", but in actual practice, there's a HUGE incentive for the smaller contributing and less viable employers to try to put the brakes to the legitimate aspirations of larger and more viable ones. Look at the '97 situation, in which UPS wanted to withdraw and pay the then-current withdrawal fee...only to find that it was pocked-up by the union and a minority representation of employer trustees. Why? Because those employers didn't want to be left holding the bag, and couldn't make the existing withdrawal fee on their own. Meanwhile, how do you account for the interests of trustees originally appointed in the context of contributing employers, which subsequently went out of business? Finally - and again - HALF the trustees represent the interests of ONE entity, while the remaining half represent the DIVERGENT interests of MULTIPLE entities...many of which have NO representation on the board at all! In truth, I don't know the current intentions of UPS trustees currently on the board, BEYOND WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD! And, saying that, it's a matter of public record that UPS did NOT (by way of example) have a trustee on the CSPF board for quite a number of years. Not one. And it was common knowledge (and widely spoken of) throughout the company at the time as to why they didn't as well. Granted, I'm not a big believer in their being CURRENT trust hokey-pokey (although the history of the Teamsters more than demonstrates that such wasn't always the case), and I'm well aware that the current pathetic situation of several of the trusts has more to do with the unions themselves, and their inability to neither (1) maintain the viability of existing contributing employers, and (2) organize new ones. Perhaps the restructuring of the trusts ala' what's going on with New England now will change things...but I'm not hopeful.[LEFT][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/LEFT] [COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Contract rumor 2 tier and Grandfathering PTimers
Top