A
anonymous6
Guest
"that's what she said"
is that ray charles or something? i saw him at Caesars at Lake Tahoe yrs ago. great great great.
back on track. one of the package drivers switched sides during the strike and has been a feeder on road since then. real popular guy..........choke choke cough cough.
is that ray charles or something? i saw him at Caesars at Lake Tahoe yrs ago. great great great.
back on track. one of the package drivers switched sides during the strike and has been a feeder on road since then. real popular guy..........choke choke cough cough.
Packmule
Well-Known Member
Some of the following, Orangeputeh:
1) That the new pension would be company controlled, and eventually be terminated. Bull! it was to be overseen by both UPS and IBT trustees.
2) That the sticking point--and the need for a strike--was about part time jobs. A mute issue that was easily resolved between the two.
3)That the simultaneously proposed health care plan was forced HMO and a bad deal. Why then, exactly one year later, did the IBT come out in force talking drivers into voting to accept the exact same plan as was offered in 97? Yes, check your history, they actually voted in the health care plan a year later!
4) That the company wasn't negotiating at all, and therefore, a strike authorization was necessary to bump them in the butt. Truth was they didn't want the pension language in the company's proposal included and they damn sure didn't want us to get a chance to vote on that.
It also was sickening the way our union reps called for that strike authorization vote on a Friday before a 4th of July weekend, when most people had plans and weren't going to cancel them to attend the meeting. Surprise, suprise, any absent member was automatically considered a yes vote. Crooked as it gets!
1) That the new pension would be company controlled, and eventually be terminated. Bull! it was to be overseen by both UPS and IBT trustees.
2) That the sticking point--and the need for a strike--was about part time jobs. A mute issue that was easily resolved between the two.
3)That the simultaneously proposed health care plan was forced HMO and a bad deal. Why then, exactly one year later, did the IBT come out in force talking drivers into voting to accept the exact same plan as was offered in 97? Yes, check your history, they actually voted in the health care plan a year later!
4) That the company wasn't negotiating at all, and therefore, a strike authorization was necessary to bump them in the butt. Truth was they didn't want the pension language in the company's proposal included and they damn sure didn't want us to get a chance to vote on that.
It also was sickening the way our union reps called for that strike authorization vote on a Friday before a 4th of July weekend, when most people had plans and weren't going to cancel them to attend the meeting. Surprise, suprise, any absent member was automatically considered a yes vote. Crooked as it gets!
Yes, the union votes for you on a strike vote if you are not at the meeting. So a majority of present members could vote "No" to a strike, and still the Teamsters could call for a strike due to the number of non-present members. Also, the buyout from Central States Pension Fund was 500 million dollars in 1997, instead of the six billion that UPS paid later if my memory serves me correctly. I still have two strike posters I carried on the picket line on my basement wall, I thought it was a stupid move due to the large amount of customers we lost.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
You are missing the point.
The pension offer would only apply to UNION employees.
The company's "final" offer included the language that would have granted them the UNLIMITED right to SUBCONTRACT our work out to non- union entities.
Had that offer been accepted...there wouldnt BE any union drivers left to collect the pension they were offering.
What good is a pension gurantee if the company is granted the right to lreplace its entire workforce with non-union subcontractors?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Re: UPS' Last Best and Final Offer July 22 1997
Article 3- Recognition, Union Shop and Checkoff
Section 4 Work Assignments
The Employer agrees to respect the jurisdictional rules of the Union and shall not, Except as otherwise provided in this Master Agreement or to more promptly, efficiently, or economically perform the work, direct or require ITS, employees or persons, other than the employees in the bargaining units here involved, to perform work which is recognized as the work of the employees in said units. This is not to interfere with bona fide agreements with bona fide Unions. This section shall supersede language on the same subject in the Supplements, riders or Addenda. (This line would override Local and Western Contracts)
.
Section 4 Work Assignments
The Employer agrees to respect the jurisdictional rules of the Union and shall not, Except as otherwise provided in this Master Agreement or to more promptly, efficiently, or economically perform the work, direct or require ITS, employees or persons, other than the employees in the bargaining units here involved, to perform work which is recognized as the work of the employees in said units. This is not to interfere with bona fide agreements with bona fide Unions. This section shall supersede language on the same subject in the Supplements, riders or Addenda. (This line would override Local and Western Contracts)
.
bluehdmc
Well-Known Member
To quote Don Henley, "Cross a Wall Street Lawyer with a Mafia Boss and he'll make you an offer you can't understand."
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
I agree we earn every every thing we get. We do not get enough for what we do. With that said, do you blame people for not supporting us if we strike?
Look at how much we earn compared to MOST Americans. Look at our bennies compared to MOST Americans. Look at our job security compared to MOST Americans. Look at the unemployment numbers.
I would not expect a police officer working the beat in an inner city, drug laden, gun firing neighborhood making 30k a year, paying part of their bennies to have any sympathy for what we do or what we get paid. The average Joe is struggling and has no clue what we do. They don't have an understanding what we go through to get a shot at driving. They think we have AC. They think we have a cushy job. They say "you deliver card board, how hard can that be". Hell, my wife doesn't understand what I do and go through......
menotyou
bella amicizia
My therapist is a perfect example. She thinks UPS is a horrible employer, and she doesn't think I should go back there. When they talk on Fox(it's on one of the tv's there) about 'union jobs' and how outrageously we are paid and our outlandish benefits, she jumped right on the bandwagon. One day she was going on and on. I try not to get into the 'politics' of it with her, but it got to a point one day where I blew a gasket. I kindly explained she made a choice to a take a job that was non-union and that she made a choice to take a job the required her to pay $600 a month for benefits. I made a choice to take a job that didn't. I told her UPS was hiring and she was free to apply. She replied that she couldn't possibly do the same job that I do. It was too physical and to hard. I said exactly. I earn my wage and I earn my benefits. She realized what I was talking about, and changed her tune after that. But, I was sad that I had to explain it to her.
Another one. I had a realtor make a comment about 'union jobs'. We get paid to much. "Who deserves $30 an hour plus benefits?" I asked her if she was jealous. She said yes. I just shook my head and walked away. At least, she was honest. When she called for a follow up, I explained that I needed to find a union realtor. She didn't see the humor in my comment.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
You point here seems disingenuous since that language was no longer on the table when the strike was called.
A
anonymous6
Guest
i remember that Ron was saying that if the company got control of the pension funds it would be like the wolf watching over the chickens. And that would not be precedent setting. Other big companies has raided employee pension funds in the past.
examples: At&T, Bank of America, JP Morgan, IBM, Comcast, General Motors, NFL to to name a few. Just google it.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anonymous6
Guest
My therapist is a perfect example. She thinks UPS is a horrible employer, and she doesn't think I should go back there. When they talk on Fox(it's on one of the tv's there) about 'union jobs' and how outrageously we are paid and our outlandish benefits, she jumped right on the bandwagon. One day she was going on and on. I try not to get into the 'politics' of it with her, but it got to a point one day where I blew a gasket. I kindly explained she made a choice to a take a job that was non-union and that she made a choice to take a job the required her to pay $600 a month for benefits. I made a choice to take a job that didn't. I told her UPS was hiring and she was free to apply. She replied that she couldn't possibly do the same job that I do. It was too physical and to hard. I said exactly. I earn my wage and I earn my benefits. She realized what I was talking about, and changed her tune after that. But, I was sad that I had to explain it to her.
Another one. I had a realtor make a comment about 'union jobs'. We get paid to much. "Who deserves $30 an hour plus benefits?" I asked her if she was jealous. She said yes. I just shook my head and walked away. At least, she was honest. When she called for a follow up, I explained that I needed to find a union realtor. She didn't see the humor in my comment.
people like this are jealous. I use to hate union warehouse workers when I drove truck ( non union driver ) because we had to stop unloading while they were on break and lunch. in fact i hated union drivers too until i became one. it was pure jealousy.
oldupsman
Well-Known Member
I've always said you can never explain UPS to your family or friends. The only ones who understand are those of us who work there.
Union and management. It's a brotherhood. Like the army, just not as dangerous. At least not most days.
Coldworld
60 months and counting
I also think that the average American is sick and tired of these huge corporations making record profit in a recession but feel the need to let people go who now have no way to feed their children. How about large oil companies who get subsidies while being in the top 5% of multi billion dollar companies. How about wallmart making billions but in some cases can't give an employee making 9.00 an hour BASIC healthcare. I know people with advanced degrees making 15 bucks an hour ....that wouldn't be happening 5-10 years ago.If your one of the millions that had a good job but was let go I really don't think your going to be mad at a UPS driver making 30 an hour but your former employeer who profits just jumped 30% but still layed you off just "because"...
Nonsense.
Where are you guys getting this?
Read the IBT Constitution. Article 12 on Strikes spells out all the procedures in great detail.
- - - -
By the way, Packmule, there was no actual UPS pension plan for us to go into. It didn't exist. It had no features. UPS was not proposing to put us in the Management Plan, which tells you our plan would be something significantly inferior, like what was created in the new UPS/IBT Full-time Plan for Central Staters.
The proposal was for us to end the strike, go back to work, and then, after most of our solidarity, public support, and bargaining bargaining power evaporated, a new plan would be quietly negotiated.
It would be administered by UPS. The jointly trusteed feature seems fair until you realize that the plan can almost never be improved yearly because half the trustees are UPS executives and have no incentive to cost UPS any more money than they initially spent to get the plan approved. All votes would tend to result in a tie, and nothing would ever pass. The union trustees would propose higher contribution rates and benefit amounts, and the company trustees would vote "no" to produce a stalemate. And the status quo is a win for UPS.
UPS also refused to rule out a Social Security Offset, which tells you they planned to cut your benefit by the amount of your Social Security check when you start collecting from Social Security.
The pension proposal was a deal breaker. A non-starter. UPS, of course, knew this all along.
Packmule
Well-Known Member
And you all would prefer to be stuck in a dying multi-employer that is guaranteed to fail? And with everything going rail and in to surepost, the union had done what exactly to stop subcontracting?
I'm in the new UPS/IBT plan, and I'll agree, I don't trust anyone involved in managing it. Still, I might be pleasantly surprised , provided we get rid of Obama before his debt raising causes the dollar to default completely. If the new plan defaults, I've lost nothing that I wasn't already getting letters on FROM THE UNION telling me Central States was going downhill fast.
Not saying don't work with the union. I"m saying: IF WE AREN'T CONTROLLING IT, IT IS CONTROLLING US--AND IT WILL SCREW YOU AS FAST AS ANY COMPANY.
I'm in the new UPS/IBT plan, and I'll agree, I don't trust anyone involved in managing it. Still, I might be pleasantly surprised , provided we get rid of Obama before his debt raising causes the dollar to default completely. If the new plan defaults, I've lost nothing that I wasn't already getting letters on FROM THE UNION telling me Central States was going downhill fast.
Not saying don't work with the union. I"m saying: IF WE AREN'T CONTROLLING IT, IT IS CONTROLLING US--AND IT WILL SCREW YOU AS FAST AS ANY COMPANY.
UPSTeamster Pragmatist
Well-Known Member
Hi everyone, been lurking on the site for a long time and enjoy the sense of humor a lot of you have on here as well as the wide variety of opinions. Thought I would start posting as it seems to be therapeutic for some of you to be able to express your opinion anonymously without fear of reprisal. As we all know anyone who works at UPS NEEDS therapy of some kind.
It does sadden me though when many of my fellow Teamsters at my center vilify the Union leadership as if its purely their fault that the pension is in trouble.
Yes the pension is in trouble, in our conference the pension is funded about 42% marked-to-market (don't pay attention the the accounting (marked-to-book) values that you receive in the mail).
The main reasons that I see the problems stem from are:
1. Consolidation of the shipping industry (all those now defunct shippers no longer pay into the system)
2. Demographics in this country (we need more young hard working immigrants in this country not less)
3. The fact that wall street gamed our economy from at least the early 90's through today, causing the funds returns to dry up.
4. The FED with their ZIRP policies (they are screwing all pensioners, not just us)
5. The fact that the baby boomers were allowed to retire at 52 with benefits back in the day (the fund could not realistically afford this over the long term, of course this wasn't apparent until it was too late).
6. Yes the fund wasn't perfectly well managed but I don't believe that such thing exists.
Also a few points.
-The Central states buyout really cost UPS $4 billion AFTER TAXES.
-Assuming that voting either republican or democrat will result in less borrow and spending is naive (I'm writing in Ralph Nader).
-Our union officials are elected just like gov. officials. OF COURSE they want to make us happy over the short term while ignoring the long-term consequences.
It does sadden me though when many of my fellow Teamsters at my center vilify the Union leadership as if its purely their fault that the pension is in trouble.
Yes the pension is in trouble, in our conference the pension is funded about 42% marked-to-market (don't pay attention the the accounting (marked-to-book) values that you receive in the mail).
The main reasons that I see the problems stem from are:
1. Consolidation of the shipping industry (all those now defunct shippers no longer pay into the system)
2. Demographics in this country (we need more young hard working immigrants in this country not less)
3. The fact that wall street gamed our economy from at least the early 90's through today, causing the funds returns to dry up.
4. The FED with their ZIRP policies (they are screwing all pensioners, not just us)
5. The fact that the baby boomers were allowed to retire at 52 with benefits back in the day (the fund could not realistically afford this over the long term, of course this wasn't apparent until it was too late).
6. Yes the fund wasn't perfectly well managed but I don't believe that such thing exists.
Also a few points.
-The Central states buyout really cost UPS $4 billion AFTER TAXES.
-Assuming that voting either republican or democrat will result in less borrow and spending is naive (I'm writing in Ralph Nader).
-Our union officials are elected just like gov. officials. OF COURSE they want to make us happy over the short term while ignoring the long-term consequences.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
This is a terribly disingenuous argument. For one, you seem to be saying making a jointly trusteed plan was some sort of subterfuge on UPS' part to ensure the trustees do not increase benefits. Yet are not most plans jointly trusteed between the union and representatives of the company or companies in the plans? Was not Central States? And why would Trustees be improving the plan yearly (by this I take it to mean increase benefits)? I was not aware trustees role was to increase benefits and therefore company liabilities between contracts? Are you saying it would be more fair for UPS to pay into a plan run solely by teamsters trustees who could increase UPS liability to the plan any time they wanted? Should not that sort of thing be handled in negotiations?
Also, you claim UPS had no pension plan, with no features, and that UPS wanted to quietly negotiate one after the strike ended and as you put it, your bargaining power had evaporated. This is not really true is it? if you look at the offered contract UPS had on the table as quoted in the Last, Best Final thread from 104feeder, you will see the pension UPS was committing itself too in that contract proposal had specific payout amounts, and held UPS liable to pay benefits at levels NOT LESS than what pensioners would have been entitled to had they stayed in their original plan. Sounds like features to me.
http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f39/ups-last-best-final-offer-july-22-1997-a-345917/#post1019893
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Not true.
