CS pension language cleared up

[GuyinBrown]

I just watched the video and I THINK I understand why we think the union is telling us something different than what we're reading....

"The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age."

"If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."
​

This last part seems to say that if the benefit is reduced, UPS is not obligated to pay the difference, which is why we seem to think we're getting 2 different stories. However, after listening to the video, I think the problem is that we're reading this backwards. I know when I read it, I took "offset" to mean the portion that UPS pays to make up the difference. According to the video, that is INCORRECT. The video states that UPS is assuming 100% of your pension liability until age 65. That is why you would get one single check for your pension payment. At age 65, Central States begins to pay its portion of your pension liability. That is why at age 65, you would begin to get 2 checks - one from UPS, and a second from CS. This is known as an offset.

Now, knowing that we've been reading this backwards, and the offset is not UPS's portion but rather Central States, you can now take this language to mean that what the union is saying is not only correct, but also spelled out in black and white, right in the contract. If the offset is the CS portion, it actually means that if CS reduces it's payment, UPS is obligated to make up the difference because the reduction shall not be included in this offset.

It was a long day and it's pretty late for me, so I apologize if my explanation is getting more muddled as I ramble on. But I do recommend watching the video and really paying attention to what the pension expert is saying. Specifically, he starts talking about this "offset" stuff around the 30 minute mark. I wanted to get this out while it was fresh in my head, I'll try to get some sleep and clear my thoughts up tomorrow. Maybe one of you night owls that watched the video with a clearer head can pick up where I left off.

 

[my2cents]

In addition, if Central States were to go under and pay a reduced benefit, the UPS plan would step in and make up the difference. I would think this would be a better deal than if the PBGC were to take over Central States. In effect, the UPS plan is playing the role of the PBGC under this offset arrangement. This is my interpretation of it after listening closely to the video.

I don't believe anyone will see all the details of this plan in the collective bargaining agreement. The inner workings of these plans are documented in the Summary Plan Description or Rules and Regulations guide. There will also be an associated trust agreement, which is similar to what bylaws are. If this tentative agreement is ratified, I'm sure these documents will be made available to participants.

 

[scratch]

GuyinBrown, I think you are on to something. This is starting to sound better and better to me everyday. If you are ever thinking about retiring on any kind of Pension from UPS, this is a sweetheart deal, even if you are not in Central States. I think that in the future it will be possible that these improvements will be offered to the other Teamster Pension plans that aren't doing as well too. All pension plans are currently being hit with large numbers of baby boomers retiring, so they will need more cash coming in. Too many people are only focused on the raises, which are still twice of what our competition gets. It amazes me that so many people are so short sighted. My only question now is how my eight Part Time years credit in the UPS Pension plan under the Reciprocal Agreements will impact exactly when I can retire on a full pension. I am not sure if my 8 PT years will be added into my 23 years of credit under Central States, I am hoping to retire now long before I am 62.

 

[Bill]

In addition, if Central States were to go under and pay a reduced benefit, the UPS plan would step in and make up the difference. I would think this would be a better deal than if the PBGC were to take over Central States. In effect, the UPS plan is playing the role of the PBGC under this offset arrangement. This is my interpretation of it after listening closely to the video.

I don't believe anyone will see all the details of this plan in the collective bargaining agreement. The inner workings of these plans are documented in the Summary Plan Description or Rules and Regulations guide. There will also be an associated trust agreement, which is similar to what bylaws are. If this tentative agreement is ratified, I'm sure these documents will be made available to participants.

These documents need to be available before the contract is ratified, not after.

 

[Cezanne]

After watching the video several times. I give up, call me stupid, but is this new UPS/IBT pension provide for a real 25 or 30 year early out benefit at any age. And please can anybody out there tell me how much money will I get for my part time years and how would it be figured with my full time years. At what retirement age would you be eligible for medical benefits and just how much will it cost us. When does this 6 percent penalty come into play?

You really can tell this contract was worked on by attorneys from both sides, the average Joe can not make heads of tails out of it.

 

[Bustrbyte]

I just watched the video and I THINK I understand why we think the union is telling us something different than what we're reading....

"The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age."​

"If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."​

This last part seems to say that if the benefit is reduced, UPS is not obligated to pay the difference, which is why we seem to think we're getting 2 different stories. However, after listening to the video, I think the problem is that we're reading this backwards. I know when I read it, I took "offset" to mean the portion that UPS pays to make up the difference. According to the video, that is INCORRECT. The video states that UPS is assuming 100% of your pension liability until age 65. That is why you would get one single check for your pension payment. At age 65, Central States begins to pay its portion of your pension liability. That is why at age 65, you would begin to get 2 checks - one from UPS, and a second from CS. This is known as an offset.

Now, knowing that we've been reading this backwards, and the offset is not UPS's portion but rather Central States, you can now take this language to mean that what the union is saying is not only correct, but also spelled out in black and white, right in the contract. If the offset is the CS portion, it actually means that if CS reduces it's payment, UPS is obligated to make up the difference because the reduction shall not be included in this offset.

It was a long day and it's pretty late for me, so I apologize if my explanation is getting more muddled as I ramble on. But I do recommend watching the video and really paying attention to what the pension expert is saying. Specifically, he starts talking about this "offset" stuff around the 30 minute mark. I wanted to get this out while it was fresh in my head, I'll try to get some sleep and clear my thoughts up tomorrow. Maybe one of you night owls that watched the video with a clearer head can pick up where I left off.

Cleared Up? By a post on a web site? It should have been clear in the contract. I hope U R right, but my vote is still NO. There is more than the pension language that stinks..

 

[Ohio UPSer]

As it was explained to me by my local BA. I would have 18 years p/t and 7 years friend/t
at my twenty-five and out (under 57 years old). I would receive $2000.00/month. If I were to go by years of credited service it would come out to $990.00/month from p/t and $700.00/month from friend/t for a total of $1690.00/month. Since the total of twenty-five and out is higher ($2000.00/month) then this is what I would receive the higher figure.

 

[scratch]

Cleared Up? By a post on a web site? It should have been clear in the contract. I hope U R right, but my vote is still NO. There is more than the pension language that stinks..

You would think that the language would be a lot more clearer after the debacle of 1997. I am still not clear of where I stand. I remember that at one time I was thinking of going to Law school, that knowledge would come in handy now!

 

[Cezanne]

Look again at the formula with this new pension plan. Now look at the Master lanuage for the UPS controlled part time pension plan, which will go up to 60 dollars per serivce year Aug "08". If I am right a part timer with 30 years in will get 1800 a month any age, from just skimming this UPS/IBT plan anybody who retires before age 57 with the same number of years in regardless of how many of them are full time will collect 2000 dollars, minus spousal deductions, taxes, and health insurance costs. They might say they have a 25, 30 and out at any age, but can anybody afford to leave and not be eligible for food stamps.

This new pension plan is fine and danny if you can physically last till your late 50's and early 60's, but for those who been here a while consider the attrition rate of medical retirees or permanent disabilities that come with most jobs at UPS. I am afraid most of us will not be able to last till 57 and end up settling for table scraps. The figures quoted with this new pension plan are and will be so inferior to our Western Confernce brothers and sisters that it would be almost criminal. Has everybody forgot how much the IAM Mechanics union pension plan pays, is it at still 300 dollars per service year.

I agree that the Central States buyout was needed to help everybody represented by the Teamsters, but all of us UPS Central States participants should expect a better deal with the pension benefit.

Also the concessions under master lanuage are primed for more eliminations of full time positions in favor of the low paying entry level part time ones. That three year feeder classification lay off clause and no improvements to protect your current hourly wage from classification transfer will be jammed right down our throats. Anybody who been here a while knows that score on what happens with bad lanuage.

For all those high seniority part timers under the company plan out there who are close to retirement you better get some facts on when you will be eligible for medical coverages after you retire. Is it at age 57 or am I wrong on this one, if I am right do you really have an early retirement option or not?

For those who were around during the "97" attempted take over, do you remember all the informational packets send to you trying to sell the pension and health and welfare packages. Compare it to the current data that you are getting with this new UPS/IBT pension plan, see anything different?

This pension deal was strictly done to get the Central States fund back in the black. Again I am afraid that the teamster's members at UPS will again be asked to bite the bullet and sacrifice for the good of all the members. Not against that, but we are sure sick of getting the table scraps from our negotiating committees contract after contract, that good old "let them eat cake" mentality.

 

[woodsplitter1]

This Thing Goes Back,return To Sender
Only Clear Direct Language Accepted.don/t Need More Gray Areas!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Damok]

Cleared Up? By a post on a web site? It should have been clear in the contract. I hope U R right, but my vote is still NO. There is more than the pension language that stinks..

Wow... a definite vote without a definite idea in your own mind. I would recommend calling your local directly if you still have issues figuring out the language rather than making up your mind while still being uncertain of details.

 

[Damok]

You would think that the language would be a lot more clearer after the debacle of 1997. I am still not clear of where I stand. I remember that at one time I was thinking of going to Law school, that knowledge would come in handy now!

Legalese will never be cleared up...ever... for anyone. it's not just our contract, you can find this crap everywhere. :/

 

[GuyinBrown]

My mistake, instead of "cleared up" I should have titled it "An attempt to explain it a little better"

 

[Cole]

With protection weakened substantially imo, it will be easier for them to fire you, and many may not see a pension. Has anyone got any details on your Supplements? I haven't and you know how that can take away anything positive in the National.

It's been a looong time since I have seen such a dark out on information from our elected officials, to the members. Basically they don't wont us informed.