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: 72663" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p><span style="color: red">And here again another attempt on your part to provoke me rather than simply focusing on the discussion at hand</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">Another attempt to provoke. </span></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">how do you figure? The teamsters negotiate how much the company pays into the pension. I would think the teamsters do much more than simply allow underfunding. If your theory is correct then you would have no reason to support a UPS only pension since the company would continue underfunding a pension. Your theory is only correct in that the company is currently underfunding the CS pension because the drain from that bucket is greater than what is going in. That is not UPS fault by any means. That is the people who set that pension plan up and administer it. I wonder who that is?</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">I apologize I was not able to better explain my position. I have said the retirees draining this fund were a part of the problem. I also have said this plan was set up poorly and has been poorly managed throughout the years. My point has not been to necessarily cast blame but to say that one of the fixes has to be a process of holding those who manage this fund accountable for results. Seems fair to me. Underfunding by UPS is definitely not the issue.</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">I believe the pension administrators promise the amount? The said the distribution amount?only</span><span style="color: red"> in the sense that there are not enough companies currently paying into the fund. We are down to 5 now for CS one of them UPS. How many were there 25 years ago paying into CS. So you actually seem to make the point that there are not enough companies paying in. UPS has paid what it is required to pay contractually. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">above you state the companies going out of business did not affect this situation. If those retirees recieve reduced benifits as a result then you have no pension crisis. Clearly that did not happen. More was paid out then what they had earned resulting in the present mess. Your analogy is that since the fund was mismanaged in the past UPS should pay more to cover the difference. UPS has met thier obligations and should not be required to pay more. If they are going to get saddled with more than CS should be required to fix the drain on the fund first. Otherwise UPS would just be throwing good money after bad.</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: red">UPS doing the math? The teamsters administer the plan. UPS paid what they were required to pay. The teamsters administration is where you should look. You have not made your case for blaming UPS and you clearly have not made a case for doing nothing more than acknowledging the teamsters participated in this mess. The teamsters screwed this up and until you and your fellow members can learn to hold them accountable and get it fixed UPS should not be required to dump anymore money into that leaking bucket. I'm sorry I can't believe you are a steward and that you claim you have kept up on the pension issue. I really think you need to spend more time learning this issue so you can channel your energy in the right direction and get this thing fixed. </span></span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 72663, member: 1912"] [COLOR=red]And here again another attempt on your part to provoke me rather than simply focusing on the discussion at hand [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]Another attempt to provoke. [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]how do you figure? The teamsters negotiate how much the company pays into the pension. I would think the teamsters do much more than simply allow underfunding. If your theory is correct then you would have no reason to support a UPS only pension since the company would continue underfunding a pension. Your theory is only correct in that the company is currently underfunding the CS pension because the drain from that bucket is greater than what is going in. That is not UPS fault by any means. That is the people who set that pension plan up and administer it. I wonder who that is? [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]I apologize I was not able to better explain my position. I have said the retirees draining this fund were a part of the problem. I also have said this plan was set up poorly and has been poorly managed throughout the years. My point has not been to necessarily cast blame but to say that one of the fixes has to be a process of holding those who manage this fund accountable for results. Seems fair to me. Underfunding by UPS is definitely not the issue. [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]I believe the pension administrators promise the amount? The said the distribution amount?only[/COLOR][COLOR=red] in the sense that there are not enough companies currently paying into the fund. We are down to 5 now for CS one of them UPS. How many were there 25 years ago paying into CS. So you actually seem to make the point that there are not enough companies paying in. UPS has paid what it is required to pay contractually. [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]above you state the companies going out of business did not affect this situation. If those retirees recieve reduced benifits as a result then you have no pension crisis. Clearly that did not happen. More was paid out then what they had earned resulting in the present mess. Your analogy is that since the fund was mismanaged in the past UPS should pay more to cover the difference. UPS has met thier obligations and should not be required to pay more. If they are going to get saddled with more than CS should be required to fix the drain on the fund first. Otherwise UPS would just be throwing good money after bad.[/COLOR] [B][SIZE=2][COLOR=red]UPS doing the math? The teamsters administer the plan. UPS paid what they were required to pay. The teamsters administration is where you should look. You have not made your case for blaming UPS and you clearly have not made a case for doing nothing more than acknowledging the teamsters participated in this mess. The teamsters screwed this up and until you and your fellow members can learn to hold them accountable and get it fixed UPS should not be required to dump anymore money into that leaking bucket. I'm sorry I can't believe you are a steward and that you claim you have kept up on the pension issue. I really think you need to spend more time learning this issue so you can channel your energy in the right direction and get this thing fixed. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top