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
Members of Local 396, I urge you to vote NO on this proposal!
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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1134703" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>You are correct. The agents in the west are just begining to deceminate this information as an attempt to "soften" the blowback from the membership. The ULTIMATE goal for the west was to give the "impression" that they were fighting for the membership, delaying dumping us into the central states, and then in november, come to us and say:</p><p></p><p> "well, we tried hard to find a workable plan, but we were unable to find an affordable plan, so we are going to transition you into the central states plan"...</p><p></p><p>If you read the segment I posted in the memorandum of understanding, it CLEARLY states what the west was to accomplish. This CONFLICTS with what the agents and local officers "initially" said when the TA was announced.</p><p></p><p>1) Locals said "your benefits will stay the same, nothing will change. ( <strong>truth</strong> ) we will lose our Blue Shield PPO coverage on december 31st 2013 and in its place, we will be covered by an inferior insurance plan to what we had. </p><p></p><p>(<strong>the reason?</strong>) The MOU states that the west "NEED ONLY" meet or exceed the coverage provided by the C6 schedule of the CSH&W and it DOES NOT STATE that they must MEET or MATCH our current Blue Shield PPO benefits. This is a FACT. It also states that the west CANNOT spend more money than is allocated to the central states, so, in other words, even if they could MATCH our current benefits, THEY CANT spend the money to do so if its more expensive.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, although the locals are telling everyone that they have it all figured out, its not true. Whatever they propose, it has to be submitted to the negotiating committee long before WE ever see or hear about it.</p><p></p><p>I urge a <strong>NO VOTE</strong> on this proposal on this aspect of the contract ALONE.</p><p></p><p>The real question is "WHAT CAUSED THE TEAMSTERS TO ATTEMPT THIS CHANGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?"</p><p></p><p>Peace</p><p></p><p>TOS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1134703, member: 17969"] You are correct. The agents in the west are just begining to deceminate this information as an attempt to "soften" the blowback from the membership. The ULTIMATE goal for the west was to give the "impression" that they were fighting for the membership, delaying dumping us into the central states, and then in november, come to us and say: "well, we tried hard to find a workable plan, but we were unable to find an affordable plan, so we are going to transition you into the central states plan"... If you read the segment I posted in the memorandum of understanding, it CLEARLY states what the west was to accomplish. This CONFLICTS with what the agents and local officers "initially" said when the TA was announced. 1) Locals said "your benefits will stay the same, nothing will change. ( [B]truth[/B] ) we will lose our Blue Shield PPO coverage on december 31st 2013 and in its place, we will be covered by an inferior insurance plan to what we had. ([B]the reason?[/B]) The MOU states that the west "NEED ONLY" meet or exceed the coverage provided by the C6 schedule of the CSH&W and it DOES NOT STATE that they must MEET or MATCH our current Blue Shield PPO benefits. This is a FACT. It also states that the west CANNOT spend more money than is allocated to the central states, so, in other words, even if they could MATCH our current benefits, THEY CANT spend the money to do so if its more expensive. Lastly, although the locals are telling everyone that they have it all figured out, its not true. Whatever they propose, it has to be submitted to the negotiating committee long before WE ever see or hear about it. I urge a [B]NO VOTE[/B] on this proposal on this aspect of the contract ALONE. The real question is "WHAT CAUSED THE TEAMSTERS TO ATTEMPT THIS CHANGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?" Peace TOS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Members of Local 396, I urge you to vote NO on this proposal!
Top