Just the facts as I know them

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Shadow999, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. Shadow999

    Shadow999 Member

    I just started posting on this site a short time ago. I was trying to find answers to questions that were not provided by the union and the company. Since my first post I have received most of the answers I was looking for. It took a number of phone calls and a lot of searching the net. I finally decided to vote yes on the contract. I think having UPS take over the pension is the only positive option we have at this time. There may be a chance that we could make a better deal, but I do not see as we can take that chance at this time.
    I have spent a lot of time reading the posts on this site. There are some very good thoughts, but I am afraid there is more negativity than is warrented. When I went to the Teamster site on "teamster.net" I found very few complaints on UPS pulling out of Central States. I can only take from this that they understand that at this time there is no other way that the Central States fund can survive.
    UPS is not abandoning the Central States fund. This is still our fund. UPS will be making payments to us, but we still have to have depend on the CS fund when we turn 65.
    NOTHING FOR SURE. At least this is a positive move, and not a wait and hope things get better.
     
  2. movelikemolasses

    movelikemolasses New Member

    im trying to read you post but all it seems to say is:

    "im worried about my pension and am willing to sell out the part timers and new highers who will end up working the next 5 years for minimum wage with crappy or no benifits, these new highers and part timers will have no loyaltee to the union or thier fellow members since we never showed any loyaltee to them but are happy to accept thier initiation fees and union dues... but then again thier situation will not effect my pension.. and when ups moves to dissolve the pension completly the part timers will most likely refuse to go on strike to save it... but then again i plan on being dead by then"
     
  3. TheVoice

    TheVoice United Prole. Socialist

    I think that voting yes, just because of the Central States pension issue is assuming that a no vote will delete that possibility of still happening…I don’t for a second believe that is true, I think the Union and the Company, equally, for two separate reasons, want this thing to happen in CS. So, even if you vote no on the current contract, its still going to happen.

    No one should make this issue their soul reason to vote one way or another.

    By the way, I voted NO.

    The Voice


     
  4. Shadow999

    Shadow999 Member

    You might be right about that. If that is what you believe then you should vote no. I hope that you are correct if the contract is voted down.
    I can live with the majority decision. Good luck and encourage everyone to get their ballots in before the deadline.
     
  5. Mystakilla

    Mystakilla New Member

    I would also think your correct TheVoice. I truely believe both sides wanted this with the CS and myself thinks that this is actually the decision maker for the union reps to bring this contract to vote.

    I also believe the buyout of the CS is an excellent deal for us UPS Teamsters, although it may not be a good deal for the CS guys but i think you know you were eventually going to take a hit on this someday.

    Even though i voted NO on this contract it was not because of the me not wanting the buyout.

    It is interesting though that the CS was pretty much a bargaining chip for the union and the company DID attain their main goal of acquiring the buyout but in turn our contract has to suffer from this? it just doesnt make sense. Yea i know the company is paying a enormous amount of money to get out of CS but we should still be getting something in turn for this.
     
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Mr. Voice are you in the central states pension plan? Do you actually know anything that might help those who are affected make an informed decision on this subject or are you telling us your beliefs simply because you are not affected and therefore really don't care.
     
  7. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    you did. Your CS brothers and sisters would have their pensions restored. Which clearly means nothing to you. Read through the new pension language starting in january. When that law kicks in CS will have to start slashing benifits. Thats what happens to your ups brothers and sisters in january if this offer gets turned down. But apparently our district managers are not allowed to tell you this because someone might get offended and think the company is trying to threaten a yes vote.

     
  8. Tie we were recently told to talk up the contract in out area (not by our center management, outsiders). I found that stupid. I know a lot about this contract as I'm friends with our steward and get all the literature in the mail (guess they forgot I withdrew?). Besides the fact that I don't think its any of our business to promote/endorse this contract, I don't think this contract is a good one at all with respect to the people who do and will work for/with me. I believe the part timers need to get something this time, not have it all taken away. They are the lifeblood of this company and are truly getting the shaft. Granted in MA the healthcare isn't an issue (UPS has to provide in this state, so nothing will change for us, a la what #1angelfan said). The general consensus around here is a no vote but you never know.
     
  9. Shadow999

    Shadow999 Member

    Withdrew?????? Does that mean you are no longer a union member?
     
  10. TheVoice

    TheVoice United Prole. Socialist

    Again, you are assuming that a no vote is implying we are saying no to the CS buyout. For some people this is an issue for voting NO, for some it isn’t. But to think that I am simply voting no, because you seem to think, that I think, it doesn’t affect me, is absurd. This will affect all of us in the long run. And I need not explain to you how or why, you are acutely aware of how this is a sign of things to come from the company. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a stipulation in the tentative contract to not solicit any more buyouts for the next ten years.

    As far as the pension legislation act laws, and their impending change as of next year. I don’t buy into the suggestion that this is going to do anything that will affect us as of the beginning of the year, to the agree that you are implying (as well as the union, for reasons I wont get into). I don’t doubt that something will happen, but its affects will not be implemented in time to get in the way of a vote. Quite frankly, I believe that it is an exaggeration in order to sell this contract.

    As for proving or disproving anything, you will have to do your own legwork to find out the answer, since it is you that is the only one that is questioning my interpretation.

    But if you have some absolute, unquestioning proof that the legislation reform will indeed affect people as of January 1st, please share, perhaps you will change my opinion (which really wont matter ‘cause my no vote is on the way, but perhaps I can help to make other people aware of my wrong interpretation of it). I am always open to reviewing all information, and if I am wrong, I don’t have a problem revising my view. Unlike you, which I assume is in your character to try by any means to stick to your original thesis at all times, regardless of the credibility of a antithesis.

    Otherwise, humbug.

    The Voice