Memories From The '97' Strike........

[themidnightoil]

The BIG question, at least in my mind, is who is ready to walk next year????

I know that I will be on vacation the last 3 weeks of August if the contract is not settled by the time we pick vacations. it's nice having 6 weeks and an option.

played board games and poker in '97 and gained 10 pounds on burgers and beer!

 

[brownmonster]

Il take the weeks of vacation I usually take. Not too worried about a few weeks of pay. This thing wil be settled long before summer.

 

[JonFrum]

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

I'm never disingenuous.

Teamster sponsored plans are legally independent from the Union and Company. The Employer trustees are from various companies, (usually not UPS.) This makes the ongoing existence of the plan and its features something you can usually count on, more or less. (This is before all the Market downturns, remember.) The entire proposed UPS plan would be up for re-negotiation with every Contract renewal, like the Central States full-timers will now discover. This greatly complicates the negotiating process and will crowd-out many other matters.

Giving UPS full control of the administration of the plan, plus 50% of the trustee decision-making authority almost guarantees a perpetual stalement. Inflation "requires" that you increase wages and benefits year after year, or your stagnant dollars will fall behind in purchasing power. UPS trustees wouldn't have to actually cut benefits, or tighten eligibility for those benefits, they just have to vote "no" to preserve the status quo and let time take its toll. Like the way stagnant part-timer starting wages are worth less and less as the decades pass.

A pension plan, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link(s). What the glossy UPS pension brochure described was a sales job. It was the highlights of the plan as positively spun by the UPS Public Relations Department. It has no legal standing. Just talking points. We could only evaluate the plan if we had the entire Plan Document in writing to throughly examine. What may sound acceptable in the headline may well be unatainable, or difficult to attain, because of any number of plan details. Pension plans are know for rendering people ineligible for this or that benefit because Social Security kicks in, or because they aren't old enough, or haven't enough Pension Credits etc. The Devil is in the details.
- - - -
Labor Law requires both sides in a contract negotiation to actively bargain, engage in give-and-take, and earnestly try to find agreement. There are extensive rules governing the process. So yes, the Union would have had its proposals, as always, and would respond to management's proposals with counter proposals. For either side to not do so would be an Unfair Labor Practice, unless a legally defined "impass" had been reached.

But this was in the early days of the Internet, so the proposals may not have been put on-line.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Il take the weeks of vacation I usually take. Not too worried about a few weeks of pay. This thing wil be settled long before summer.

I am bidding a new route next year which has summer camps and I will bid the weeks that the kids move in and out. The remaining weeks will each have a holiday within for the extra pay. (Memorial Day/Labor Day/Thanksgiving)

 

[PobreCarlos]

It wasn't "the Market downturns" that were the undoing of the more insolvent of the Teamster trusts....rather, as "legally independent" as they were, they suffered because [1] the TEAMSTERS couldn't maintain in business the employers they had already organized (I'm trying to tread easily here!), and [2] the TEAMSTERS couldn't replace the employers they lost by organizing new ones. "Yes", there were "Market downturns"....but there are ALWAYS "Market downturns", and they affect ALL investing institutions equally. But, regardless of the market, you simply can't keep a trust plan like those of the Teamster multi-employer variety above water if, in the business sense, you "kill" those entities that sustain it. Who's to pay them? The "suckers" that are left? If so, that's something that potential employers who AREN'T yet "organized" readily see....and, because of it, they AVOID ORGANIZATION LIKE THE PLAGUE! The result, of course, is that the pensions slide even further into insolvency, as they find it impossible to replace contributors that have "gone south".

I'd assert that the "weakest link" in multi-employer trust concept was THE TEAMSTERS THEMSELVES! They apparently couldn't help but put their employers out of business....AND THERE WENT THE SAFETY FACTOR OF SO-CALLED "MULTI-EMPLOYERS"! Now employers who are no longer in business no longer make contributions as well....yet members who once worked at those firms keep expecting benefits.

Sorry, but there's no way you can put ANY blame on the employer side of the trust in situations like that of Central States; the Teamsters brought that deplorable situation on all by themselves. And AFTER they brought it on, they continued to expect the few remaining employers to bail them out. From my perspective (and that of many others as well), the pensions of UPSers would have had a lot better prospects *IF* they hadn't been weighed-down by the anchor of CSPF all those years. After all, money squandered is money squandered. Instead of trying to prop-up the pensions of the thousands upon thousands of once-upon-time Teamsters employees of other CLOSED employers, that money would have been far better spent if it had been dedicated to UPS Teamsters alone

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The NYS Teamsters Pension Plan lost roughly 30% of its market value during the 2008-09 downturn, which was a combination of market losses and the issues at YRC and PennTraffic.

I really wish the company would simply EFT the funds earmarked for my pension directly in to my 401k.

 

[JonFrum]

. . . there's no way you can put ANY blame on the employer side of the trust in situations like that of Central States; the Teamsters brought that deplorable situation on all by themselves. . .

I realize I'm wasteing my time responding to you. I've told you before. But . . .

NEWSFLASH: The Teamsters don't run Central States. The Court does. With a series of Judges, under a Consent Order, since 1978!!!

The Teamsters don't make (bad) investment decisions for Central States. A series of "Named Fiduciaries" do. They are big name Investment Firms staffed with professional money managers.

The Teamsters don't run corporations. Corporations are run, or run into the ground, by . . .(wait for it) . . . MANAGEMENT!!!

 

[pretzel_man]

I realize I'm wasteing my time responding to you. I've told you before. But . . .

NEWSFLASH: The Teamsters don't run Central States. The Court does. With a series of Judges, under a Consent Order, since 1978!!!

The Teamsters don't make (bad) investment decisions for Central States. A series of "Named Fiduciaries" do. They are big name Investment Firms staffed with professional money managers.

The Teamsters don't run corporations. Corporations are run, or run into the ground, by . . .(wait for it) . . . MANAGEMENT!!!

It seems to me that the multi-employer plan did EXACTY what it was designed to do. I am placing NO blame here, but it did what the Teamsters designed it to do.

A multi employer plan shares the risk among employees across many employers. As one employer goes under, or as fewer Teamsters are added into the mix, the employees share what is left. Employees of more fortunate companies (like UPS) share their gain with those Teamsters in less fortunate companies.

Isn't this the situation? Isn't this what it was designed to do? As I recall, the "pension grab" was UPS wanting to have its money go to UPS employees only. IMO this was good for UPS, good for UPS employees, but bad for Teamsters in general. You made the decision. I have no issue with that.... But I don't think this was due to management.

 

[JonFrum]

It seems to me that the multi-employer plan did EXACTY what it was designed to do. I am placing NO blame here, but it did what the Teamsters designed it to do.

A multi employer plan shares the risk among employees across many employers. As one employer goes under, or as fewer Teamsters are added into the mix, the employees share what is left. Employees of more fortunate companies (like UPS) share their gain with those Teamsters in less fortunate companies.

Isn't this the situation? Isn't this what it was designed to do? As I recall, the "pension grab" was UPS wanting to have its money go to UPS employees only. IMO this was good for UPS, good for UPS employees, but bad for Teamsters in general. You made the decision. I have no issue with that.... But I don't think this was due to management.

Correct!!!

Rightly or wrongly, this is how all insurance arangements work. The survivors end up paying, to some degree, for the dead and wounded.

This wouldn't be a big deal back when the funds were close to 100% funded. But with several major market downturns, fund assets have fallen considerably, and so the survivors, like UPS, have to make up the unfortunate shortfalls one way or another.

Fund assets fall in the UPS run funds as well. But there, the Law requires UPS to annually top off the funds, so it does so out of general revenues automatically, without fanfare.

But no law requires UPS, or the other surviving employers, to top off moderately underfunded multi-employer funds, unless they formally withdraw from the fund, or the fund becomes seriously underfunded.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum;

No, "the Teamsters don't run Central States"...but they *DID* (and *DO*) control the circumstances that put the plan in the position it's in!

Perhaps you ought to get it through that thick skull of yours that it WASN'T the "run[ning]" of Central States that caused the problem, nor was the primary issue one of "investment"; rather, it was THE TEAMSTERS INABILITY TO KEEP THE PLAN'S CONTRIBUTORS IN BUSINESS!!!! Remember the remarks that have been in various testimonies before Congress regarding the matter? If you don't, here's a link to one that might refresh your memory...a statement by an Assistant Secretary Labor (Phyllis Borzi) in front of the Senate. It can be found at....

Testimony of Phyllis C. Borzi Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

....and here's what she had to say about CSPF in it.

"The Central States Pension Fund, one of the nation’s largest multiemployer defined benefit plans, is facing some of the most difficult long-term challenges. According to information provided by the Fund, the plan covers over 433,000 participants and provides monthly benefits to over 200,000 retirees and beneficiaries; active participants who provide the plan’s contribution base have now dropped to 61,000. A large number of business failures in the last two years have drastically reduced the number of employers and active workers to support the retirees in the plan, severely compounding a downward trend caused, in part, by trucking deregulation in the 1980s. The obligation to pay benefits to employees and retirees of these defunct companies remains with the Central States Pension Fund. Like many other plans, Central States also recently suffered investment losses, which has contributed to its financial problems. Reductions in benefits and substantial increases in employer contributions during the past few years have not been able to fill in the gaps caused by the rapidly shrinking contribution base."

Did the Trustees have anything to do with the decrease in participants? Nope....THE TEAMSTERS DID!

If you want other examples, do a Google search on terms like "testimony central states teamsters" and see what you come up with....and then drop the pretence that it was anybody else's fault but the unions that the plan has "turned south". IT WASN'T! The trustees - whether union or employer - can't do a damn thing to preserve the finances of the plan IF THE TEAMSTERS KEEP DRIVING THE CONTRIBUTING EMPLOYERS INTO BANKRUPTCY! It's as simple as that.

Beyond that, given the current status of the plan, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the union to organize any new contributing company; such prospective employers realize from the get-go that it would be the "kiss of death" for their business to be involved with Central States...and that, if they're going to go out of business anyway, then they might as well go down fighting. The ONLY possibility of getting NEW contributors involved is following through on something like the plan NE trust is implementing, in which NEW contributors are liable for only THEIR deficiencies....and not those of other companies the union has put out of business.

Now I realize that guys like you will keep your head buried in the sand pretty much no matter what comes your way...but RESPONSIBILITY SIMPLY CAN'T BE DENIED FOREVER! And the union's continued denial of their responsibility in this area has had consequences that have led the union to where it's at today...a mere shadow of what it once was. And if members like you continue that denial, I'm afraid it can only get worse. That's life.

 

[brownIEman]

I'm never disingenuous.

Teamster sponsored plans are legally independent from the Union and Company. The Employer trustees are from various companies, (usually not UPS.) This makes the ongoing existence of the plan and its features something you can usually count on, more or less. (This is before all the Market downturns, remember.) The entire proposed UPS plan would be up for re-negotiation with every Contract renewal, like the Central States full-timers will now discover.

Giving UPS full control of the administration of the plan, plus 50% of the trustee decision-making authority almost guarantees a perpetual stalement. Inflation "requires" that you increase wages and benefits year after year, or your stagnant dollars will fall behind in purchasing power. UPS trustees wouldn't have to actually cut benefits, or tighten eligibility for those benefits, they just have to vote "no" to preserve the status quo and let time take its toll. Like the way stagnant part-timer starting wages are worth less and less as the decades pass.

A pension plan, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link(s). What the glossy UPS pension brochure described was a sales job. It was the highlights of the plan as positively spun by the UPS Public Relations Department. It has no legal standing. Just talking points. We could only evaluate the plan if we had the entire Plan Document in writing to throughly examine. What may sound acceptable in the headline may well be unatainable, or difficult to attain, because of any number of plan details. Pension plans are know for rendering people ineligible for this or that benefit because Social Security kicks in, or because they aren't old enough, or haven't enough Pension Credits etc. The Devil is in the details.

In your first argument, you tell how awful the details of UPS proposed pension were (that it would have to be renegotiated every contract, that UPS would have full control). Then you talk about how awful it is that there was no full pension plan, the details of it did not exist. Which is it?

There were some details UPS was committing itself to, as I mentioned before, in the LBF, such as minimum benefits levels for retirees, which has to be the biggest.

Giving UPS complete control of the plan would have to be negotiated with the Teamsters, the IBT would have had to agree with it. Letting UPS reduce benefits based on social security payments would also have to be agreed to by the IBT. So sure, UPS MIGHT have tried to get full control of the funds, and MIGHT have tried to take credit for SS payments in benefit amounts. They MIGHT have tried to invest the entire fund in white fluffy bunny slippers. But there is no evidence of any of that. You are making up what-ifs and arguing against those straw men. Who does that sound like?

Labor Law requires both sides in a contract negotiation to actively bargain, engage in give-and-take, and earnestly try to find agreement. There are extensive rules governing the process. So yes, the Union would have had its proposals, as always, and would respond to management's proposals with counter proposals. For either side to not do so would be an Unfair Labor Practice, unless a legally defined "impass" had been reached.

But this was in the early days of the Internet, so the proposals may not have been put on-line.

OK. We have had members say they kept every scrap of paper from that time from both UPS and IBT. One has typed in the UPS proposal. Where is the one from the IBT? You say they must have had a set of proposals. OK, I am willing to accept that. Pardon me however, if I am so impertinent as to want to see them.

 

[JonFrum]

My analysis is based on the booklet UPS sent us saying what the non-existant plan would look like, the good parts anyway. And their refusal to rule out a Social Security Offset. And their intention to not have us in the Management Plan. By ending the strike, we would be accepting that booklet, its troublesome features, and its omissions, as a working document to put the finishing touches on in further negotiations. Negotiations in which we would have almost no leverage remaining.

- - - -

You work for UPS as a "partner." Why don't you ask UPS for a copy of the Union Proposals they must surely have kept. I kept everything I got, but, unlike UPS negotiators, I wasn't in on the negotiating so I and the rest of the rank and file don't necessarily have day to day documents, personal notes, and specific memories of the closed-door proceedings.

 

[Catatonic]

My analysis is based on the booklet UPS sent us saying ... their intention to not have us in the Management Plan.

Thankfully.
I would not want to reduce my pension in half to match yours.

 

[brownIEman]

My analysis is based on the booklet UPS sent us saying what the non-existant plan would look like, the good parts anyway. And their refusal to rule out a Social Security Offset. And their intention to not have us in the Management Plan. By ending the strike, we would be accepting that booklet, its troublesome features, and its omissions, as a working document to put the finishing touches on in further negotiations. Negotiations in which we would have almost no leverage remaining.

You really are all over the place on this.

Here you make it sound like it was a deceptive or dishonest thing on UPS' part to not allow the Union employees into the management plan. Yet that is a plan that is completely controlled by UPS. Just a few posts ago you were arguing how bad it would be to be in a solely UPS controlled plan.

And speaking of omissions, you keep omitting the FACT that also part of the framework for those negotiations would be guaranteed minimum benefit levels. Is there any more important single attribute of a pension plan?

You work for UPS as a "partner." Why don't you ask UPS for a copy of the Union Proposals they must surely have kept. I kept everything I got, but, unlike UPS negotiators, I wasn't in on the negotiating so I and the rest of the rank and file don't necessarily have day to day documents, personal notes, and specific memories of the closed-door proceedings.

I have asked partners. I have been told no comprehensive plan existed from the IBT side, that they mostly made UPS negotiate against itself by saying no, not good enough to each UPS proposal, and making proposals on one or two issues but certainly not a comprehensive contract proposal.

In short, the partners' stance I have spoken with is the unions comprehensive proposal pre-strike, did not exist. I was looking for someone from the IBT's point of view to show some evidence to the contrary.

 

[JonFrum]

You really are all over the place on this.

Here you make it sound like it was a deceptive or dishonest thing on UPS' part to not allow the Union employees into the management plan. Yet that is a plan that is completely controlled by UPS. Just a few posts ago you were arguing how bad it would be to be in a solely UPS controlled plan.

I'm wasn't advocating joining the Management plan. My point was, UPS was advocating we join some plan of theirs, but not the one that actually exists! Not the one they, themselves are in! This tells me they have something else in store for us. We can look at the Management plan and wonder what is it about that plan's features that UPS doesn't want us to have so badly that they would go to the trouble and expense of creating a brand new plan and precipitate a strike over.

And speaking of omissions, you keep omitting the FACT that also part of the framework for those negotiations would be guaranteed minimum benefit levels. Is there any more important single attribute of a pension plan?

Teamster sponsored plans had not issued higher benefit schedules in a while. They were due. Perhaps over due. The UPS proposal was to promise we would not get less than our present plan, with that level defined as the level in effect several months earlier. In other words, when the Teamster plans raised their benefit levels, as they soon did, (and have done since,) those increases weren't to be counted. UPS was locking us in at yesterday's rates, to a plan that would probably not see plan improvements since the two rival trustee factions would be constantly of opposite minds.

I have asked partners. I have been told no comprehensive plan existed from the IBT side, that they mostly made UPS negotiate against itself by saying no, not good enough to each UPS proposal, and making proposals on one or two issues but certainly not a comprehensive contract proposal.

In short, the partners' stance I have spoken with is the unions comprehensive proposal pre-strike, did not exist. I was looking for someone from the IBT's point of view to show some evidence to the contrary.

Read up on the legal rules of Collective Bargaining, the list of mandatory subjects, permissive subjects, unfair labor practices in bargaining, failing to bargain in good faith, surface bargaining, refusal to bargain, etc. Good Faith Bargaining is required by Law.

 

[brownIEman]

I'm wasn't advocating joining the Management plan. My point was, UPS was advocating we join some plan of theirs, but not the one that actually exists! Not the one they, themselves are in! This tells me they have something else in store for us. We can look at the Management plan and wonder what is it about that plan's features that UPS doesn't want us to have so badly that they would go to the trouble and expense of creating a brand new plan and precipitate a strike over.

Maybe what there was about the management plan that UPS didn't want you to have so badly was that it was management plans, and maybe they weren't stupid enough to believe for a second that the IBT would WANT their members in it since it was totally UPS controlled. Maybe they knew if they even suggested it, they would get Carey screaming how UPS wants to take over control of all UPS teamster pension funds so the greedy corporate fat cats could raid those funds. If that last was the case, then the joke is on Kelly and co., cause Carey did exactly that anyway. Maybe they didn't want you in that plan because even way back then they were planning on doing away with it. Who knows.

UPS did offer MINIMUM payments, and the opportunity for higher benefits. Your idea of "but we would have to negotiate after our leverage was gone" is incredibly weak. It amounts to an admission that the IBT were weak negotiators and would not have been able to get an equitable deal. I think you are wrong. UPS could have afforded to give UPS teamsters even more than they wound up with and still save money by getting rid of the huge and growing liabilities caused by non-upsers in the mufti-employer funds. Of course, the big losers would be those non-UPS pensioners. Those are, in part, the folks Carey struck UPS to protect.

Read up on the legal rules of Collective Bargaining, the list of mandatory subjects, permissive subjects, unfair labor practices in bargaining, failing to bargain in good faith, surface bargaining, refusal to bargain, etc. Good Faith Bargaining is required by Law.

If I get time I may do some research on this. I do have a problem with this line of argument though. You are basically saying that since it is illegal, the IBT could not have been doing it. I could make the same argument to suggest no one ever drives over the speed limit.

 

[104Feeder]

Some basic concepts that BrownIEman needs to grasp:

Guaranteed Minimum: look up our wage rates in the Contract. Those are also "guaranteed minimums". UPS would not raise pension payments under their proposed plan any more than they would raise wages inside a contract term. Hoping for a better deal later on is a pipe dream & a time killer. It's sort of like going to the car dealer for your new car, trade in, and financing: you are guaranteed to get screwed.

Contract proposals are gathered from locals via barn meetings, sometimes they are discussed & voted on at that time as to whether they are passed on to the negotiating committee. The committee then negotiates but has the power to reject whatever contract offer the Company sticks too if they feel it is substandard. We had barn meetings where what was being shoved down our throats as a LB&friend was discussed and a strike authorization vote given. There is no comprehensive list of proposals from all the locals passed around other than however they assembled them within the negotiating committee. When something is worthy of voting on then a copy of the proposed changes is mailed with the ballot to everyone and most barns have meetings where we discuss the impact of the changes. We're mostly old-school and prefer to hand things out to members only & in the hall where we can keep the rumors to a minimum. Every local does it their own way.

JonFrum is right that the plan as proposed sucked & the documents handed out had a disclaimer on the bottom basically saying everything you see above is make-believe. The "guaranteed minimum" you are stuck on too would have run roughshod over all better language negotiated in the supplements. As I pointed out before, our WCTPF was paying much better than the $3500 maximum then, even better now, and with much better PEER benefits.

We never, ever vote on a Contract and say "fill in the details later", no matter how glowing the promises are. I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Get off the CSPF. Sure it has it's issues and maybe it will never be 'fixed'. I won't pretend to be an expert on why but from what I've read there is plenty of blame to go around. As for multi-employers, we are Teamsters first, UPSers second. There were many, many years that Freight carried the UPSer so he or she could have a decent retirement and anyone who doesn't feel the same should be done for their fellow Teamster as a smaller outfit should be ashamed of themselves.

Jonfrum has laid it all out in a very easily understandable fashion that covered all the problems & pitfalls of accepting UPS's make-believe pension plan. It's a matter of your prejudices & warped perspective that you can't understand it. We don't have one word to say about your MIP or management pension so how about minding your own business? It's all moot anyway as we rejected it and won better language. My fund, the WCTPF even got a huge boost from the buyout of the CSPF so we didn't mind at all.

 

[brownIEman]

Some basic concepts that BrownIEman needs to grasp:

Guaranteed Minimum: look up our wage rates in the Contract. Those are also "guaranteed minimums". UPS would not raise pension payments under their proposed plan any more than they would raise wages inside a contract term. Hoping for a better deal later on is a pipe dream & a time killer. It's sort of like going to the car dealer for your new car, trade in, and financing: you are guaranteed to get screwed.

The minimum wages that wind up in a contract have already been negotiated. UPS was willing to set up pension that guaranteed, in the contract, at least as much as what the current plans were offereing. Was it likely UPS would be willing to give more? No, but they could not give less, and the rest was yet to be negotiated.
Sure, going to the dealership for all of those guarantees you are going to get screwed. If you are poor negotiator.

Contract proposals are gathered from locals via barn meetings, sometimes they are discussed & voted on at that time as to whether they are passed on to the negotiating committee. The committee then negotiates but has the power to reject whatever contract offer the Company sticks too if they feel it is substandard. We had barn meetings where what was being shoved down our throats as a LB&friend was discussed and a strike authorization vote given. There is no comprehensive list of proposals from all the locals passed around other than however they assembled them within the negotiating committee. When something is worthy of voting on then a copy of the proposed changes is mailed with the ballot to everyone and most barns have meetings where we discuss the impact of the changes. We're mostly old-school and prefer to hand things out to members only & in the hall where we can keep the rumors to a minimum. Every local does it their own way.

This is what I would like to see. Surely if such a comprehensive list existed someone talked about it?

In your discussion in the barns, Surely someone represnting the IBT said, "These offers such and we must reject them, but here is language we could live with..."? Where are those proposals?

Or was it all just "What the company is offering is crap, and we should stand firm and prepare to strike?"
The latter is all I remember, but I was not in local meetings.

JonFrum is right that the plan as proposed sucked & the documents handed out had a disclaimer on the bottom basically saying everything you see above is make-believe. The "guaranteed minimum" you are stuck on too would have run roughshod over all better language negotiated in the supplements. As I pointed out before, our WCTPF was paying much better than the $3500 maximum then, even better now, and with much better PEER benefits.

While I believe Kelly and Co negotiating for the company acted naively in many things, I in no way believe they put "everything about this pension proposal is make believe" in their literature about it. I would suggest your own prejudices & warped perspective allow you to believe that. Just as they allow you to believe that the company was offering less to Western Conference pensioners because your plan was already paying more than the benefit schedule listed in the contract proposal. Even though that same section of the proposal spelled out that anyone in a plan that was currently paying more than the proposed schedule would get their higher rate.

Jonfrum has laid it all out in a very easily understandable fashion that covered all the problems & pitfalls of accepting UPS's make-believe pension plan. It's a matter of your prejudices & warped perspective that you can't understand it. We don't have one word to say about your MIP or management pension so how about minding your own business? It's all moot anyway as we rejected it and won better language. My fund, the WCTPF even got a huge boost from the buyout of the CSPF so we didn't mind at all.

Jonfrum has done exactly that. He is highly knowledgeable and very articulate. I believe I understand him clearly. Just because I understand, however, does not mean I agree.
As for minding ones own business, did you not butt your nose into what has been essentially a debate between Jonfrum and I? Could I not reasonably tell you also to mind your own business? I could, but that would be ridiculous of me. This is an internet forum and you are welcome here to mind any business you choose to in these threads. As am I.

In the final analysis, you are correct, the proposal was rejected. BTW, I am not at all suggesting that the LBF in its entirety was a good deal anyone should have taken. I just believe it was better, at least in parts, than you care to believe. This is certainly due in part to my own prejudices. And to yours. I am willing to admit mine, and question them (which is partly why I have been asking for the Unions proposal from the time). Are you?

 

[menotyou]

As for minding ones own business, did you not butt your nose into what has been essentially a debate between Jonfrum and I? Could I not reasonably tell you also to mind your own business? I could, but that would be ridiculous of me. This is an internet forum and you are welcome here to mind any business you choose to in these threads. As am I.

This is the best part of a post I've read in a long time.

 

[JonFrum]

Maybe what there was about the management plan that UPS didn't want you to have so badly was that it was management plans, and maybe they weren't stupid enough to believe for a second that the IBT would WANT their members in it since it was totally UPS controlled. Maybe they knew if they even suggested it, they would get Carey screaming how UPS wants to take over control of all UPS teamster pension funds so the greedy corporate fat cats could raid those funds. If that last was the case, then the joke is on Kelly and co., cause Carey did exactly that anyway. Maybe they didn't want you in that plan because even way back then they were planning on doing away with it. Who knows.

Going into a UPS-run plan that is not also for Management is letting the fox guard the chicken coop.

One good thing about being in the Management Plan would be that many of its features would apply equally to Management and us. For example, we wouldn't have to worry about the Plan being unexpectedly terminated, since Management presumably wouldn't do that to their own. (Though admitedly, they do seem to eat their young on occassion.)

UPS did offer MINIMUM payments, and the opportunity for higher benefits. Your idea of "but we would have to negotiate after our leverage was gone" is incredibly weak. It amounts to an admission that the IBT were weak negotiators and would not have been able to get an equitable deal.

If the strike was called off and we went back to work, all the pressure on UPS would evaporate. The daily multi-million dollar money loss would stop, the terrible publicity, the angry shippers with their packages trapped in the system because UPS didn't warn them, the government pressure to reach a deal, the union solidarity, the union momentum, the attention of the public and the media, all of it would evaporate. Even union members would feel the strike was over, except for tieing up some minor loose ends. It would be impossible to negotiate successfully under those conditions. There would no longer be a deadline to focus the mind.

I think you are wrong. UPS could have afforded to give UPS teamsters even more than they wound up with and still save money by getting rid of the huge and growing liabilities caused by non-upsers in the mufti-employer funds. Of course, the big losers would be those non-UPS pensioners. Those are, in part, the folks Carey struck UPS to protect.

Almost all of the subsidizing of non-UPSers is the result of UPS policies that make it hard for so many UPSers to earn enough pension credits to get their money's worth back in pension benefits. These hostile policies would presumably still be present in a UPSers-only plan. Just look at the pitiful plan UPS runs for its part-timers in Central States (and a few other places.) Very inexpensive plan to run because so few ever collect.

If I get time I may do some research on this. I do have a problem with this line of argument though. You are basically saying that since it is illegal, the IBT could not have been doing it. I could make the same argument to suggest no one ever drives over the speed limit.

Bad analogy. People drive over the speed limit because there are no police around, and no one will likely report them because it's too much trouble, hard to prove, and generally isn't worth it in the case of most speeders who aren't driving drunk or dangerously. But if a negotiating team committed an illegal bargaining act at the table, with a room full of agrieved people on the other side of the table looking at them face to face, that would be reported. There are witnesses, and the agrieved people need the misbehaveing side to stop so progress can be made. There might even be a government mediator present to facilitate good faith bargaining.