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 Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
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="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 54917"><p>teddyr, UPS pays in for their employees at the contribution level they negotiated and we get the appropriate benefit level from that.</p><p></p><p>UPS does not pay for any other working Teamsters.</p><p></p><p>Their employer does that part and contributes exactly at the contribution level that they negotiated and those employees get the appropriate benefit level for what their employer contributes at without any help or contributions from UPS.</p><p></p><p>IF a company goes out of business it's employees stop earning any more retirement credit, but what they have earned was payed for by their company, not one penny from UPS.</p><p></p><p>IF a company goes out of business it's employees don't suddenly go to the head of the class and get thirty years credit and retire with UPS paying the balance.</p><p></p><p>IF a company is paying a lower contribution level (bracket) the employee earns (and is paid upon retirement) a lower benefit level.</p><p></p><p>UPS does not pay a penny to raise those employees to a higher benefit level.</p><p></p><p>So no non-UPS employees are "leaching" off of UPS.</p><p></p><p>NONE.</p><p></p><p>Where UPS's increasing liability occurs is because the fund was set up with insufficient funding in relationship to the benefits paid out (UPS was involved in this decision both in making the "offer" that the Teamsters matched in '97 and by being a participating member of the board of trustees to the pension.</p><p></p><p>This does not make UPS the only one to screw up, but it also doesn't leave them innocent with clean hands either.</p><p></p><p>They were part of the development of the problem and they legally have to be part of the solution.</p><p></p><p>When a company involved goes bankrupt ALL the remaining companies (not just UPS) are held liable for the increasing financial liabilities the plan incurs.</p><p></p><p>The problem for UPS is it is by far the largest, richest, most likely to survive the longest company in the plan and if the dominoes continue to fall UPS's liabilities continue to rise, but that has nothing to do with the retirees or former workers of other companies.</p><p></p><p>It is simply a result of a plan with lousy financial infrastructure.</p><p></p><p>Would a retirement plan with strictly UPS employees be better for UPS?</p><p></p><p>Of course, UPS employees demographically are far younger as a group than Teamster workers in general and the plan would only get in trouble if UPS became financially insolvent and they wouldn't have any reason to care whether it was in trouble or not at that point anyway. </p><p></p><p>However, it doesn't mean it would necessarily be better for us for UPS to "take us out of the current plan".</p><p></p><p>Those of us who have any significant time in the Teamster pension funds will be negatively impacted by a UPS pull out because of the current insecure financial shape of the fund.</p><p></p><p>Take away the most financially secure contributor and of course it would be nothing but damning to the fund.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, there are no simple answers that will "fix" it for us so that we are guaranteed what we have been promised and also frees up UPS from their current liability obligations.</p><p></p><p>I certainly understand why UPS wants to get out from under the liability.</p><p></p><p>I believe UPS AND the Teamsters are likely to get legistlative relief at our expense.</p><p></p><p>When push comes to shove we are likely to come out on the short end between the "promised" workers and the corporation. </p><p></p><p>Also, I am not necessarily convinced of the sincerity of the UPS '97 offer or what loopholes would have been involved, especially after seeing what "credit" my part-time years of UPS pension will pay me compared to what they have "said" and led one to believe and what they still do to the part-timers between 25 and out and 30 and out who are under a UPS pension.</p><p></p><p>Nor do I give UPS the credit of being as clairvoyant as many here have espoused about the fund's financial future.</p><p></p><p>UPS is a very competent company I believe if they had been that fully aware of what was to come they would have made a far more concerted and effective effort to convert us over at that time.</p><p></p><p>Pman, that is true about the "insurance" angle when the situation ends up "calling in" the insurance as the current situation is beginning to.</p><p></p><p>Wkmac, we are in agreement that history shows the Teamsters have more "Cons" than "Pros". , but we still need a union.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 54917"] teddyr, UPS pays in for their employees at the contribution level they negotiated and we get the appropriate benefit level from that. UPS does not pay for any other working Teamsters. Their employer does that part and contributes exactly at the contribution level that they negotiated and those employees get the appropriate benefit level for what their employer contributes at without any help or contributions from UPS. IF a company goes out of business it's employees stop earning any more retirement credit, but what they have earned was payed for by their company, not one penny from UPS. IF a company goes out of business it's employees don't suddenly go to the head of the class and get thirty years credit and retire with UPS paying the balance. IF a company is paying a lower contribution level (bracket) the employee earns (and is paid upon retirement) a lower benefit level. UPS does not pay a penny to raise those employees to a higher benefit level. So no non-UPS employees are "leaching" off of UPS. NONE. Where UPS's increasing liability occurs is because the fund was set up with insufficient funding in relationship to the benefits paid out (UPS was involved in this decision both in making the "offer" that the Teamsters matched in '97 and by being a participating member of the board of trustees to the pension. This does not make UPS the only one to screw up, but it also doesn't leave them innocent with clean hands either. They were part of the development of the problem and they legally have to be part of the solution. When a company involved goes bankrupt ALL the remaining companies (not just UPS) are held liable for the increasing financial liabilities the plan incurs. The problem for UPS is it is by far the largest, richest, most likely to survive the longest company in the plan and if the dominoes continue to fall UPS's liabilities continue to rise, but that has nothing to do with the retirees or former workers of other companies. It is simply a result of a plan with lousy financial infrastructure. Would a retirement plan with strictly UPS employees be better for UPS? Of course, UPS employees demographically are far younger as a group than Teamster workers in general and the plan would only get in trouble if UPS became financially insolvent and they wouldn't have any reason to care whether it was in trouble or not at that point anyway. However, it doesn't mean it would necessarily be better for us for UPS to "take us out of the current plan". Those of us who have any significant time in the Teamster pension funds will be negatively impacted by a UPS pull out because of the current insecure financial shape of the fund. Take away the most financially secure contributor and of course it would be nothing but damning to the fund. Unfortunately, there are no simple answers that will "fix" it for us so that we are guaranteed what we have been promised and also frees up UPS from their current liability obligations. I certainly understand why UPS wants to get out from under the liability. I believe UPS AND the Teamsters are likely to get legistlative relief at our expense. When push comes to shove we are likely to come out on the short end between the "promised" workers and the corporation. Also, I am not necessarily convinced of the sincerity of the UPS '97 offer or what loopholes would have been involved, especially after seeing what "credit" my part-time years of UPS pension will pay me compared to what they have "said" and led one to believe and what they still do to the part-timers between 25 and out and 30 and out who are under a UPS pension. Nor do I give UPS the credit of being as clairvoyant as many here have espoused about the fund's financial future. UPS is a very competent company I believe if they had been that fully aware of what was to come they would have made a far more concerted and effective effort to convert us over at that time. Pman, that is true about the "insurance" angle when the situation ends up "calling in" the insurance as the current situation is beginning to. Wkmac, we are in agreement that history shows the Teamsters have more "Cons" than "Pros". , but we still need a union. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
Top