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 Discussions
In the end, who wins??? And at what cost?
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="brownIEman" data-source="post: 5649022" data-attributes="member: 14596"><p>Casey was not 'forced' to increase the other plans. He could have rejected UPS' offer and explained why the IBT cloud not in that moment match the UPS offer and explain the other downsides of UPS pitch. I've heard many, many times Carey referred to a sort of a victim having been 'forced' to raise the pension obligations and damage those funds because of dastardly attempt of UPS to pay their retirees a higher benefit (to your earlier point, admittedly to the ft retirees, not pt) . I find that line of argument unconvincing to say the least.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The insurance shenanigans was re- insurance of package values through overseas partners, that was a different deal. </p><p>The Thrift Plan as implemented by UPS was not really shenanigans. It was actual a win- win for the company and employees who participated. The Thrift Plan bought real estate. Specifically, UPS sort facilities and the land they were on. The company then leased those buildings from the plan. It essentially allowed UPS to expand operations without paying millions in interest to banks. Those millions instead went to the employee participants in the Thrift Plan. Other companies did exploit the rules that allowed that kind of thing for shenanigans, abs the IRS changed the rules.</p><p></p><p>Mike Eskew was after Kelly, then Scott. Then Abney I think. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Either way gauranteeing a certain level for UPS retirees under the plan was like writing then a blank check and was stupid of UPS to do. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm guessing you've never managed a preload, night sort, day sort or twilight. 'Chasing them off the clock' as you do breezely put it is not as easy as you imagine. Especially when the employees and stewards are working together to pay shenanigans of their own and avoid it or grieve out of order chasing they themselves orchestrated. Not saying management should not be held accountable for doing it, just pointing out it is not as easy in practice as you seem to believe. </p><p>Much like delivering is not nearly as easy in practice as IE pencil pushers think it is. </p><p></p><p>That said, UPS should create full time jobs where they can, but both sides should recognize most insider operations are part time operations. Part time wages should be raised, and part timers should hit OT after 25 hours double after 40, removing the financial incentive for the Company to use them as ft.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brownIEman, post: 5649022, member: 14596"] Casey was not 'forced' to increase the other plans. He could have rejected UPS' offer and explained why the IBT cloud not in that moment match the UPS offer and explain the other downsides of UPS pitch. I've heard many, many times Carey referred to a sort of a victim having been 'forced' to raise the pension obligations and damage those funds because of dastardly attempt of UPS to pay their retirees a higher benefit (to your earlier point, admittedly to the ft retirees, not pt) . I find that line of argument unconvincing to say the least. The insurance shenanigans was re- insurance of package values through overseas partners, that was a different deal. The Thrift Plan as implemented by UPS was not really shenanigans. It was actual a win- win for the company and employees who participated. The Thrift Plan bought real estate. Specifically, UPS sort facilities and the land they were on. The company then leased those buildings from the plan. It essentially allowed UPS to expand operations without paying millions in interest to banks. Those millions instead went to the employee participants in the Thrift Plan. Other companies did exploit the rules that allowed that kind of thing for shenanigans, abs the IRS changed the rules. Mike Eskew was after Kelly, then Scott. Then Abney I think. Either way gauranteeing a certain level for UPS retirees under the plan was like writing then a blank check and was stupid of UPS to do. I'm guessing you've never managed a preload, night sort, day sort or twilight. 'Chasing them off the clock' as you do breezely put it is not as easy as you imagine. Especially when the employees and stewards are working together to pay shenanigans of their own and avoid it or grieve out of order chasing they themselves orchestrated. Not saying management should not be held accountable for doing it, just pointing out it is not as easy in practice as you seem to believe. Much like delivering is not nearly as easy in practice as IE pencil pushers think it is. That said, UPS should create full time jobs where they can, but both sides should recognize most insider operations are part time operations. Part time wages should be raised, and part timers should hit OT after 25 hours double after 40, removing the financial incentive for the Company to use them as ft. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
In the end, who wins??? And at what cost?
Top