Question for Central Staters

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by wily_old_vet, May 25, 2005.

  1. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet Guest

    My pension plan has recently begun making noises regarding changes to the plan. They mentioned the Central States cutbacks and as I'm 3 1/2 years out from 30 I'm naturally getting a little nervous. I could go out now on a 25 and out but want to get 30. My question is did Central States cut the pensions they were paying out to those who already had retired? Also did they change how much the already retired had to pay towards their healthcare? Your answers are greatly appreciated.
  2. speeddemon

    speeddemon Guest

    The ones who were already retired did not get cut, however, it is my understanding that the insurance goes up 100$ a year, Max cap of 1000$ a month, a couple. Yea, you heard me. So take your pension check and write it back to CS for you Health Insurance. Damn thieves.
  3. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet Guest

    And there is the dilemma for me. I have to try to figure out if I should leave now and hope they don't cut the payment to those already retired or to wait and see what changes they will make and possibly get caught with less of a pension. My plan is supposed to be one of the better ones but who really knows. It wasn't one of the ones in the charts someone posted in another thread. They are saying they lost money in 2000, 01 and 02(duh-who didn't) and that gains in 03 and 04 didn't make up for those losses. I hate this crap.[​IMG]
  4. ms.

    ms. Guest

    Wily Old Vet
    In Central States they froze what ppl had earned and been was FUTURE allocations that changed.(So your pension amt. up to 26yrs would stay the same). So roll with your original plan of a natural 30 yrs. unless you are really young. Central States now takes 7% I think for each year under 62.
  5. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    It's 6 percent per year using age 62 for those who had twenty plus years at the time this went into effect and age 65 for those who had less than twenty at that time.

    The current proposed legistlation that the group UPS heads up would open up what could be taken away from those not yet retired contractually, but legally not from those already retired except on things like increasing medical premiums such as already been done.

    Keep this in mind and watch what develops closely Wily.

    And yes, those of us in the Central States are still in a dilema and hate this crap too.

    The fact that the fund could actually go belly up and we would suddenly be faced with a 66% loss of what we were promised even AFTER we commit by retiring leaves a lot to be desired in planning the retirement. [​IMG]
  6. gman

    gman Guest

    If the teamsters plan goes "Belly Up", would that mean UPS could pull out and have an individual plan just for UPS employees??? Currently, we support everyone else. If haveing the plan fail would mean UPS could go solo, maybe that should be what we hope for. I feel for the guys who lose out, but right now, I have to worry about numero uno.
  7. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    No, it ain't that easy for UPS or you.

    UPS's liabilities are not over if the plan goes below the level that initiates the PBGC safety net take over.

    Also, what makes you think UPS would offer a pension if they "got out" of this one?

    You have obviously been listening to the "we are concerned with our employees welfare" speeches too much.

    Dream on.

    Check out what the company does beyond contractual requirements for any of their employees when they get hurt on the job or hurt off the job or suffer any sort of tragedy.

    Beyond perhaps flowers from a thoughtful individual manager and a few bucks from someone collecting from the drivers an individual is on their own when the chips are down.

    If the company won't spend a dime more than they are required to by contract and law for one lousy individual what makes you think they would put out serious money for the entire workforce.

    Like it or not your retirement and fortunes are linked to the union as well as UPS even if you are only interested in looking out for numero uno.
  8. gman

    gman Guest

    I believe they would. It would cost them a fraction of what they are paying now to provide equal or better benefits. Also, the devestation of the pension fund does not eliminate the collective bargaining agreement. As you said, they are still legally liable to support the plan. We will be in virgin territory should this happen. The government will not be able to support all the plans that are failing. There will be some compromises in the federal government made along the way to see that those companys that can provide benefits will continue to do so. I don't think UPS is going to walk away with billions and let the tax payer foot the bill. But how it will work out is another question. As with social security, too much was promised and somebody was using fuzzy math to figure out how to pay it back.
  9. speeddemon

    speeddemon Guest

    Hey! You used fuzzy and virgin in the same sentance.
  10. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest


    With all due respect, the fact that you believe or want to believe it would "cost them a fraction of what they are paying now to provide equal or better benefits." is easy to say, but the math and statistics disagree.

    Our fund is not in trouble because money is being illegally, immorally or stupidly wasted by the fund, nor is it being squandered on raising retirees of lesser companies up to our level, despite such popular pablum that is being spewed by those who don't like the organization.

    Organizations such as TDU which absolutely abhors Hoffa and other union hating groups that would love nothing better than to expose union corruption and graft have investigated as deeply as they can (now for years since the sht hit the pension fan) and the best they can come up with is to denigrate the financial secrecy (not particularly fond of that myself) of the organization or spread unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.

    Again, it is straight math.

    Amount of money coming in, interest compounded on surplus held money, amount of money going out.

    The only thing UPS has going for it superior to most of the participating Teamster companies in the plan is it's demographics of a younger and growing (although that has slowed dramatically) workforce relative to the retiring baby boom generation.

    I agree that difference would be great for us if we had a comparable plan with UPS that we had been acruing benefits from all these years and we could trust UPS to not out think us with legal loopholes to keep the money from us, but that just ain't where we are at in reality.

    As a stewart who has watched UPS <u>use</u> seemingly solid innocent contract language to do exactly what they want, many times at the expense of the employee, I have many reservations about our ability to outwit their ability to write in invisible loopholes in any pension plan they create.
  11. brownmonster

    brownmonster Guest

    "pablum" You must have been a fan of Morten Downy Jr.
  12. gman

    gman Guest

    The fact are, we are depositing aver 50% of the funds income. We are pauing for all the companies that have gone backrupt and are no longer paying anything into the fund. There are as I recall, 2 working for every one retired drawing from it. I have never thought that corruption was the basis of the fund going south. The problem is the constant loss of union jobs along with the massive stock market losses. And if you think the teamsters are going to do any more for you than UPS management is, you are very naive.

    ""The only thing UPS has going for it superior to most of the participating Teamster companies in the plan is it's demographics of a younger and growing (although that has slowed dramatically) workforce relative to the retiring baby boom generation.""

    The thing that UPS has going for it is UPS is still in business. The rest are only a memory. They pay NOTHING!

    As for what UPS will or won't do. They will do what ever they please, contract or no contract. They hold all the money. The teamsters can't afford to lose them and we can't afford to strike.

    You may be a steward but I've been brown for 34 years and I've seen what they do too. And for the most part, they seem to do pretty well. We are the highest paid with the best benefits in the industry. The fourth largest employer in the country. While I don't like everything that comes down from Corporate, I can usually see why they are doing it. And the reason is to make sure we are still around for another 100 years. We need the Teamsters to represent us. But UPS is not the beast you want to portray. 90% of the people that need your union representation are their own worst enemy and brought it upon themselves.
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    <font color="ff0000">You have obviously been listening to the "we are concerned with our employees welfare" speeches too much.</font>

    There is good reason to question, I won't argue that point. However let me throw this out to consider. Let's say we managed somehow to follow the company lead and dump the many multi employer plans out there and we open the door for UPS. You are right and that there is no guarantee they will give us a retirement plan much less match what we had. But consider this scenario.

    A new Monday morning at UPS and the drivers gather around the center manager for the morning PCM. Excitement is high because a major announcement is expected concerning a new retirement fund to replace the union funds we voted to leave. The center manager steps up and begins.

    <font color="0000ff">"Folks, I know retirement is a major concern for all of you as is with myself also. Balanced with that is the needs of the company and what will secure it's future along with our futures as well since they are in many ways one and the same. We also have a responsibility to our customers and shareholders to provide the highest of value and return on investment. As a result of these issues UPS has decided to not have a retirement for it's non-management employees. After much study it was deemed not cost effective nor did it provide a solid return on investment. I know this news will effect many of you in the short term as you are nearing what you thought was retirement but you'll just have to find other options. You may need to work longer and take further advantage of the 401k or other vehicles such as IRA's which I would suggest you do. If you have any questions further on this matter you can see me upon completion of your work day and I would be happy to discuss this with you. We're extra heavy today with not only delivery but pickup volume as we've been able with out costs reductions to cut prices to our customers and almost overnight we've picked up tons of new accounts from our competition. It's important you go out and give these customers 110% and show them just how great this company really is for them. Now let's get out there and have a safe day!
    Oh and one last thing, Friday is my last day as I retire to my retirement home on the coast so we'll have donuts and coffee for you guys to help me celebrate with. Now go out there and push that cardboard!"

    I'm just not prepared to accept that scenario even from UPS. To send a 100,000 driver workforce out that is the lifeblood of your company after pulling that ploy or even something close to less than what we have is suicidial and even UPS ain't that stupid. Business savy and crafty yes but they won't put a gun to their heads. JMO.
  14. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    I agree wkmac, they will never make it that clear in a Monday morning PCM. [​IMG]

    It would be great if UPS came through for us and put their money where their mouth is on how much concern and respect they have for their employees, but in the meantime I will continue to save and invest as much of my money on my own.

    gman, 34 years here as well.

    I don't consider UPS a beast, just a very efficient corporation and all that that entails.

    It means they will make a profit (not a bad or evil thing, in fact it is necessary) and that they will continue to attempt to increase both the level and percentage of profit at all costs, ad nauseum, including at the employees expense (where does that stop, it doesn't and that is where the problems are in the real world).

    You don't really think that six second adjustment to every stop was truly an adjustment for something they overlooked a decade or so ago do you?!

    There is nothing "evil" in the principles of the corporate world regarding making a profit, it's just cold hard facts and if the facts say there is a way to take more out of the worker's hide, it's coming out.

    If they find holding the line on hiring more drivers will up the profit margin, you are going to work more hours.

    Same with halfing the workforce, if there is profit in it, it would be done tomorrow.

    Not evil, just not necessarily beneficial to you, your family or others.

    Of course, at 34 years your numero uno thing does make you and I pretty safe for most of the negative things that can happen.

    Actually, I am far safer than you.

    As a clerk I get not one minute of overtime as the corporate policy forbids overtime currently to clerks and porters where I am at.

    That is fine with me financially, I live within my means unlike most of the workforce.

    It grates on me a bit as far as my old fashion "service" philosophies when I have to walk away from a line of growing customers because "it's time".

    I question your 50% statement, sounds like a rabbit out of a hat figure like your ridiculous 90% one?

    Mind supplying a factual source for that?

    "We are pauing for all the companies that have gone backrupt and are no longer paying anything into the fund."

    Nope, that is an inaccurate statement, although a very popular one here.

    Any worker from another company that is actually getting any money from the fund had a company paying for every dime that was supposed to be contributed to get those benefits for every minute of credit he/she earned, period.

    UPS is incurring future shared liabilities with all other viable companyies for plans that has been underfunded, but they are not paying for all the retirees whose companies have gone out of business at this time.

    That two working for every one retired figure has nothing to do with "UPS versus the world", but is the current demographics of the USA and guess what, it's going to get worse with or without UPS.

    And that 90% of those that need union help are their own worse enemy, now who is really the naive one.
  15. gman

    gman Guest


    You have clever words and little to back yours either. All are your opinions. It's actually 53% of what is contributed is from UPS. Don't have the paperwork to back that up at the moment but can find it if need be. I'll stick with 90% becauses I know I have never had a problem and most haven't. The ones who do are multiple problem makers making up all the hearings. And where doyou think the money is coming from to finance the benefits and retirement if not from companys contributing. If what is in the plan, something like 13 billion I believe were all there was to pay out, it would be gone in a few years. That conversation has been talked out a few months ago. If you have no one contributing, i.e. bankrupt companies, the pot continues to shrink. The plan is based on continuing contributions by all the companies for eternity. If it doesn't matter if they go out of business, then UPS should be able to pull out today with no effect of the future payouts of all the teamsters combined.

    Your scenario says """We are pauing for all the companies that have gone backrupt and are no longer paying anything into the fund."

    Nope, that is an inaccurate statement, although a very popular one here.

    Any worker from another company that is actually getting any money from the fund had a company paying for every dime that was supposed to be contributed to get those benefits for every minute of credit he/she earned, period. """
    How is that statement inaccurate????? If nobody pays in, where does the money come from. And if you are a clerk, what union do you belong to? Not the Teamsters.
  16. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    gman, read slower.

    I am the one saying all currently viable companies contribute for their workers at their negotiated levels and all defunct companies contributed at their negotiated levels for every dime of retirement credit their workers earned as well.

    You are the one saying UPS is financing all those defunct company workers and that is inaccurate.

    I cannot find any breakdown of just UPS contributions., so I'd be interested in seeing the source of your 53% statement to verify the accuracy or not and understand how it was derived.

    Sure I have opinions, but primarily I am interested in the truth instead of just listening to you and such blathering unfounded statements about how UPS is paying for all those "nogoodnicks".

    If any of it is true point me to the actual statistics or admit you are just parroting the popular rumors what you have heard that sound good to us UPS guys and gals as I would love to be part of the UPS bandwagon if it's true.

    Your statement about because I am a clerk I am not a Teamster just shows even with thirty four years your parochialism.

    Perhaps in your corner of UPS where the company is fair and wonderful and wouldn't do anything wrong to a good little worker the clerks are not union or Teamsters, but where I am they are and have been since at least 1973.

    I am glad for you that you have worked in an area where the local management has been good and fair for three decades.

    Count yourself lucky and unusual.

    Yes, there are some here as well who could use a stamp for their grievances and that does get tiresome, but every month there are new faces as well and those are what it's all about for me.

    So your 90% is BS as is your 13 billion dollar guess.

    That figure is considerably low and out of date thank goodness.

    As of December 31, 2004 the CSPF had a asset balance of 18,720,781,000.
  17. gman

    gman Guest

    If you are not a teamster, then you are not representing teamsters in grievances so I doubt you know as much as you think you do.

    As for retirement benefits, those that have closed up are no longer paying in, right. So by what you are saying, they have already paid what they are committed to. Is this your view? So if all companies discontinue paying in (granted that will not happen) then by your view, the fund would be able to continue paying benefits indefintely without another penny paid in.

    """I am the one saying all currently viable companies contribute for their workers at their negotiated levels and all defunct companies contributed at their negotiated levels for every dime of retirement credit their workers earned as well."""

    Now with more of my inept numbers. The Teamsters currently have somthing like 13 billion in the fund to pay for retirement and benefits. You are saying that is all they need for eternity. If so, why are they cutting all the benefits. BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS PEOPLE PAYING IN. NO FANTASY. FACT.[​IMG]
  18. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    gman, you really need to read slower.

    I just finished stating I am a Teamster.

    I have probably been one longer than you.

    I became a Teamster in the oil industry in 1969.

    I became a UPS Teamster in 1973.

    I do believe most of your statements are simply misunderstanding me and the situation.

    For instance: "As for retirement benefits, those that have closed up are no longer paying in, right"

    You seem to think that proves something you are saying.

    It doesn't.

    That statement is correct, but not taken far enough.

    Those that have closed up, their workers no longer receive any further retirement credit.

    So by itself, that should be a zero sum game.

    It isn't though and that is what I have been trying to get across.

    The fault isn't in the other Teamster companies.

    Here is my point . . .

    The fact is <u>the contribution level does not sustain the benefit level promised.</u>


    While it is bandied about that part of the problem is companies have gone out of business and that is part of the problem it isn't actually really true by itself.

    IF the businesses did not go out of business their workers would continue to accrue retirement benefits and would retire and the situation would actually be worse.

    The only way a company staying in business benefits the underfunding plan is if it grows the membership to move the ratio favorably from that 2:1 figure you mentioned earlier.

    Even UPS isn't really doing anything to speak of anymore as far as significant workforce growth to improve that ratio.

    With the baby boom generation just beginning to retire no company will be able to make much of a positive change in that ratio for the next couple of decades.

    That is just a straight demographic fact.

    Most companies still in business in this industry are not growing, not even holding their own, so they are actually losing ground for the plan by staying in business long enough to let their workers retire.

    Sounds ironic, but true.

    You used that lowball, outdated 13 million dollar figure again right after I gave you the most current one of almost 19 million, read slower.

    Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "that is all they need for eternity", quite the opposite.

    I have stated that what has been being put in from the beginning and even to this date, <u>even with interest</u> is not enough to support the benefits promised.

    My point is to correct erroneous statements that UPS is paying for the retirees from defunct companies.

    Not happening.

    UPS is contributing the amount they are supposed to for their own and incurring further liabilities from the plans underfunding along with each and every other company still viable in the fund due to the underfunding of the plan pure and simple.

    I also do not disagree that at this time a UPS only fund would be safer in theory for UPS workers.

    I just point out that the reality is UPS's trustworthiness regarding looking out for the shareholder/owner profit margin versus the worker would require far more than simple good faith and the fact that it would all hinge on UPS continuing to be a viable company (not a given if you listen to the company itself) and the more pertinent fact that switching would hasten, if not trigger the collapse of the underfunded Teamster plan that you and I have all our credit with.

    You stated earlier that you believe in the numero uno thing, well then you need to realize that if UPS could successfully walk away tomorrow, even if they established a replacement plan for us workers that does not save your or my numero uno butt.

    I am sure you are envisioning that when UPS switches out and if they then created a new UPS workers only retirement plan that you would have thirty plus years credit in it.


    You would be at "day one" in it when it was created and only have credit in it for every day you work into the future from the point of creation.

    At best UPS would agree to a receprocity agreement with the soon to be defunct (after the UPS pullout) CSPF.

    An example of what that would get you:

    Let's say UPS sets up a pension fund and promises us a top end $5000 a month after thirty five years of credit (not service).

    You worked another year and made it to thirty five years of service (not credit), you would get 1/35th (at best if UPS did not have some sort of must work a minimum of five years under the new plan loophole or whatever) from the "new" UPS plan which would equal $142.85 and 34/35ths from the former collapsed CSPF plan, which would be a maximum $1050 a month from the PBGC.

    Giving you a grand total absolute maximum best of $1192.50 a month and probably no medical.


    I agree that it would be great if we would get what we have been promised, but laying blame where it doesn't belong ain't the fix.

    Realize, I am not saying UPS is the fault.

    Heck, they didn't even have a representative on the CSPF until '98, but all the companies involved and the Teamster representatives had to have known they were underfunding the plan's promised benefits.

    They were either criminal or incompetent to do so, but we will be the ones that will live with the results.
  19. gman

    gman Guest

    We do agree in the fact that, as in my first post on this thread, we were promised more than we could ever recoup. Unfortunately, we are in the same sinking ship, as are many others including the auto workers. Underfunded pension funds are going to be the nightmare of the children of the "greatest generation", along with the tax bill the present administration is laying on our children. The rise and fall of the American empire.
  20. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Guest

    I guess I have been living in a fantasy world, especially when I thought that if the company assumed complete control of the pension everything would be roses and we would all live happily ever after.
    Your comment about how the company has treated those injured on the job, off the job or experienced a tragedy and now they are suddenly "...concerned about our welfare" woke me up suddenly.
    One of Winston Churchill's more memorable quotes was, to the effect, "those who forget the past are destined to repeat it".
    Thanks for the sudden jolt of reality.
    By the come we haven't heard from Sawman?