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
Surrending CS Pension?
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="tieguy" data-source="post: 72598" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails.</p><p>This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business."</p><p></p><p>Agreed. It's also good business to work to change these laws that are draining our peoples pension. I'm not sure how you can defend such a flawed pension system. </p><p></p><p>"Now where have I heard that from before? "</p><p>Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such."</p><p></p><p>I can't speak to what you're referring to since I don't have the details. I have seen many instances where this company does take care of it's people above and beyond contractual requirements. We have people working around the district in jobs that were created to allow those people to work until retirement when they were unable to do their regular jobs due to failing health. I have personally seen how UPS has tried to help displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina. Moving them around the country so that they can continue working and providing them with financial aid including interest free loans. Perhaps you have also seen such concern on UPS's part?</p><p></p><p>"a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected"</p><p>Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric.</p><p>Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently."</p><p></p><p>If you reread my quote which you responded to you will see that I said "pension system". You responded with pension. A typo or omission on your part? UPS has always been vehemently opposed to the multi-employer pension system. UPS is not opposed to your having a pension. I can't speak to why you are excluded from this type of information. Perhaps because you respond with sarcasm as you did in this post? Even if you are excluded from this type of information I would think that UPS's efforts to change the pension system in 97 and our present efforts to fix this mess through legislation should at least be a strong indication to you that we have serious concerns about the multi employer pension system?</p><p></p><p>I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension."</p><p></p><p>Sarcasm no response required.</p><p></p><p>"UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?"</p><p></p><p>Your question would appear to indicate that you feel this issue should be one in which one of us loses our pension. I think a good fix to this pension mess could probably help both of us. I have to warn you though defending this pension mess is not a fix for it. </p><p></p><p>"I feel your pain. "</p><p></p><p>You're a steward? Why not try feeling the pain of the people who's best interest you are supposed to represent. See if you can help them fix this pension mess so they don't have to feel any pain at all. </p><p></p><p>"What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS."</p><p></p><p>A pension is a benefit. If you don't take the blinders off and figure out this one needs fixing then you may end up losing that benefit. </p><p></p><p>"I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."</p><p></p><p>Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 70's. </p><p></p><p>"I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."</p><p></p><p>Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 80's.</p><p></p><p>"I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."</p><p></p><p>Definitely one you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's. The offer was there if they had chosen to present it to you. </p><p></p><p>"UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either."</p><p></p><p>Again an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's.</p><p></p><p>"I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."</p><p></p><p>Again an issue you should discuss with your teamster leaders. Though at this point the cost is prohibitive due to changes in the laws. </p><p></p><p>"It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist."</p><p></p><p>Another typo or omission? UPS does not reject our people having a pension they do reject the multi employer pension system. I can't speak to the fact that you feel you have not been privy to this information. UPS has clearly shown in its actions that it has strong feelings against the multi employer pension system. UPS actually presented an offer for a jointly administered single employer pension plan.in 97. If you were not aware of this then either your union local hid this information from you or you have not been paying attention. Its really up to you to determine which is the reason.</p><p></p><p>"Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects."</p><p></p><p>Perhaps. Perhaps its the fact our people are not getting what they paid for. Perhaps its the concern that 11 of 21 multi employer plans were at less than 70 percent funded that concerned them. CS and a couple more pension funds folding could easily put UPS into bankruptcy. Who will be liable then? </p><p></p><p>"Yep, I bet that's it.</p><p>That I can understand."</p><p></p><p>No I really don't think you do. Your pension plans have serious issues. They need legitimate fixes. Our people including you deserve the full benifit of what UPS pays for them. As long as continue to defend this system which is draining what our people have worked for you do your brothers and sisters in the union a disservice. They really are entitled to more from you as a steward. Playing the us against them card muddies the waters and fixes nothing. The same mindset you present here is what cost your brothers and sisters a permanent pension fix in 97. I don't mind your disagreeing with me on these issues. I do think you should perhaps change your tactics and propose whatever fixes you think are needed. Defending the present system and helping to deny your brothers and sisters a decent pension is intolerable. </p><p></p><p>"As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit."</p><p></p><p>And again it appears your playing the adversarial angle in this discussion. The fact is UPS has paid billions into these pensions so that you would have your "secure" pension. The fact is you should have your pension and UPS should be able to continue making billions and should be able to continue paying towards future UPSers getting their just rewards. But this pension system which your union struck to defend is now not only threatening your "secure" pension but also the future of UPS. Your issue is with your union and the pension trustees. Your blind defense of this pension system is inexcusable. You can do better. You should do more for your people then simply defend this burning wreck of a pension system. Stop making excuses and do your damn job steward.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 72598, member: 1912"] tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails. This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business." Agreed. It's also good business to work to change these laws that are draining our peoples pension. I'm not sure how you can defend such a flawed pension system. "Now where have I heard that from before? " Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such." I can't speak to what you're referring to since I don't have the details. I have seen many instances where this company does take care of it's people above and beyond contractual requirements. We have people working around the district in jobs that were created to allow those people to work until retirement when they were unable to do their regular jobs due to failing health. I have personally seen how UPS has tried to help displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina. Moving them around the country so that they can continue working and providing them with financial aid including interest free loans. Perhaps you have also seen such concern on UPS's part? "a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected" Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric. Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently." If you reread my quote which you responded to you will see that I said "pension system". You responded with pension. A typo or omission on your part? UPS has always been vehemently opposed to the multi-employer pension system. UPS is not opposed to your having a pension. I can't speak to why you are excluded from this type of information. Perhaps because you respond with sarcasm as you did in this post? Even if you are excluded from this type of information I would think that UPS's efforts to change the pension system in 97 and our present efforts to fix this mess through legislation should at least be a strong indication to you that we have serious concerns about the multi employer pension system? I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension." Sarcasm no response required. "UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?" Your question would appear to indicate that you feel this issue should be one in which one of us loses our pension. I think a good fix to this pension mess could probably help both of us. I have to warn you though defending this pension mess is not a fix for it. "I feel your pain. " You're a steward? Why not try feeling the pain of the people who's best interest you are supposed to represent. See if you can help them fix this pension mess so they don't have to feel any pain at all. "What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS." A pension is a benefit. If you don't take the blinders off and figure out this one needs fixing then you may end up losing that benefit. "I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization." Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 70's. "I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization." Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 80's. "I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization." Definitely one you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's. The offer was there if they had chosen to present it to you. "UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either." Again an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's. "I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization." Again an issue you should discuss with your teamster leaders. Though at this point the cost is prohibitive due to changes in the laws. "It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist." Another typo or omission? UPS does not reject our people having a pension they do reject the multi employer pension system. I can't speak to the fact that you feel you have not been privy to this information. UPS has clearly shown in its actions that it has strong feelings against the multi employer pension system. UPS actually presented an offer for a jointly administered single employer pension plan.in 97. If you were not aware of this then either your union local hid this information from you or you have not been paying attention. Its really up to you to determine which is the reason. "Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects." Perhaps. Perhaps its the fact our people are not getting what they paid for. Perhaps its the concern that 11 of 21 multi employer plans were at less than 70 percent funded that concerned them. CS and a couple more pension funds folding could easily put UPS into bankruptcy. Who will be liable then? "Yep, I bet that's it. That I can understand." No I really don't think you do. Your pension plans have serious issues. They need legitimate fixes. Our people including you deserve the full benifit of what UPS pays for them. As long as continue to defend this system which is draining what our people have worked for you do your brothers and sisters in the union a disservice. They really are entitled to more from you as a steward. Playing the us against them card muddies the waters and fixes nothing. The same mindset you present here is what cost your brothers and sisters a permanent pension fix in 97. I don't mind your disagreeing with me on these issues. I do think you should perhaps change your tactics and propose whatever fixes you think are needed. Defending the present system and helping to deny your brothers and sisters a decent pension is intolerable. "As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit." And again it appears your playing the adversarial angle in this discussion. The fact is UPS has paid billions into these pensions so that you would have your "secure" pension. The fact is you should have your pension and UPS should be able to continue making billions and should be able to continue paying towards future UPSers getting their just rewards. But this pension system which your union struck to defend is now not only threatening your "secure" pension but also the future of UPS. Your issue is with your union and the pension trustees. Your blind defense of this pension system is inexcusable. You can do better. You should do more for your people then simply defend this burning wreck of a pension system. Stop making excuses and do your damn job steward. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top