Healthcare confusion, which version is true?

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by undies, Sep 18, 2014.

  1. undies

    undies Active Member

    When the new contract initially came out, the transfer of our healthcare to the teamsters was portrayed as UPS wanting to dump it.

    Lately, it seems people are leaning towards the teamsters requesting to take it over from UPS.

    Which is true???
  2. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Both----the company wanted out of the healthcare business while the union wanted it. A properly administered healthcare plan can be a money maker.
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. Here we go again.
  4. upschuck

    upschuck Well-Known Member

    Depends on what fits their argument better.
  5. annie345

    annie345 Member

    Both sides wanted this. They just couldn't agree on a dollar amount til this contract. The company was more agreeable to pay into our healthcare what the union was asking when all the company requirements for the new healthcare law came out. And now the union has bigger buying power with more ppl to insure and it helped negotiate better pricing with the insurance companies... But ups is actually still paying your healthcare premiums.. Just thru the union.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. undies

    undies Active Member

    Then why did we lose benefits...I'll be sour about this till I die.
  7. BrownChoice

    BrownChoice Active Member

    Because the union most likely attempted to make the "properly administered" health plan a money making ordeal.
  8. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    We lost benefits because Teamcare said, based on the premium UPS is paying in, this is the best we can give you. Teamcare cannot pay out more in claims then it takes in. For those of us that were in the company plan, UPS did not "put money in" they just paid the claims. They assumed that the premiums they did not have to give the Teamsters would cover the cost of claims. If the claims exceeded the premium savings, it just came out of the bottom line. If this happened to Teamcare, they would go out of business.

    If you recall, in the negotiations, UPS wanted $30, $60, $90. They may have realized that they were paying more in claims than the premium saved. They eventually dropped it to $20, $40, $60, but still wanted us to "pay more" to keep our existing benefits.

    If you also recall, when hall was pushing Teamcare, he got alot of backlash because the original benefits, the C6 plan, were terrible. He backtracked when he found out we were not going to accept this crap and said that based on the contributions UPS is putting in, Teamcare came up with an Enhanced C6 plan.

    hall wanted us in Teamcare so bad, to bolster their bottom line, that he just told UPS that the Teamsters would take over the healthcare instead of pushing to keep what we had. So thanks to Hoffa/hall, we took a concession.

    If we stuck it out, UPS would have dropped the $20, $40, $60 and we would have kept what we had. Hoffa/hall wanted no part of that. They wanted the money. They sold us out.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Atomic_Smurf

    Atomic_Smurf Well-Known Member

    What's true is that the new healthcare law made providing health insurance to employees a liability with the acception of a few large employers that have figured out how to game the law to their advantage to put their competitors out of business.

    The union on the other hand... Hoffa & other union leaders were among the most vocal supporters of the ACA & when the failures of the lefts promises concerning price control & "keep your plan" began to surface Teamcare was the only alternative. It also gave the union the chance to be a middleman in the exchange of our healthcare dollars.

    Its only a temporary solution by the way. In the future our healthcare will be no better than anyone else's. Our families will no longer benefit from our long hours & mortgaged bodies. We will continue to earn the benefits, but the public will consume them collectively.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2014