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="wkmac" data-source="post: 72778" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>OK2BC,</p><p>Disagree my friend on the apples and oranges. Healthcare cost for both are esculating higher and higher would you not agree? How is that different for one from the other and that is my point. Healthcare costs were a driving factor in the CS situation or at least the info and the long process of explaination we saw at the CS meeting at local 728 sure did point out this fact. Healthcare cost for retirees also carried over and impacted the whole situation. GM pointed specifically at Healthcare cost and everyone looks at the CS situation and only sees the retirement changes that happened 2 years ago but also look at the healthcare changes that happened as well. Co-pay went up and to honest should have much sooner but that's another issue, adminstrative changes took place along with a higher monthly healthcare insurance premiums for retirees and in some cases very significate. We now have in our area Blue Cross and Blue Shield as the primary provider of coverage instead of CS alone. GM and UPS are in different type of pension plans but both members go to the same doctors and hospitals for healthcare and both pay the same esculating costs. You could use GM to actually argue for multi employee plans and ask would GM be in the situation if they were in a multi-plan with say Ford and Chyrsler? I don't know the answer but would be a interesting discussion for sure.</p><p> </p><p>You are 100% correct that lack of membership involvement is at the core of the problem but then I would also respond what is a membership suppose to think when the leadership for years barred the general membership from even electing it's own national leadership and there is both pros and cons to this process and then to top it off all contract discussions are held and maintained in total secrecy and when D-Day comes for a strike vote you are told nothing other than to trust your union. Sorry Charlie but I vote No Strike last time and every time in conditions like that. The problem is the chicken or the egg argument. What comes first to make it better, membership active to force the change or leadership leads to get members active that bring about change? I'd tend to side with you on the membership taking the lead but reality sez it won't happen. </p><p> </p><p>Tie</p><p>The partition idea seems the most logical at this point because the simple fact is the current plan is not going anywhere. Congress will have to pass the law to make this happen but at this point I don't see that. To partition would likely place some retirees in the current plan straight over to gov't control and their agencies that back pensions are already stressed to the max as it is. I can't see them adding to the problem although they do some stupid things in Washington every day. The partition idea on the surface seems good but there are still some unanswered questions and that is who would provide oversite? If UPS contributions is segregated from the others and used for UPSers only then would you have a trustee from Yellow Freight, who is also a competitor, provide oversite for those UPS funds? Would you form a new trustee board of equal parts union and equal parts company? Hell those clowns can't agree on a good Tee time or bar to hit for 3 pm cocktails during contract talks so you could just imagine the lunacy in investment oversite meetings. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /> I do think the partition idea has merit for consideration but there is also many details to work out too. Keep talking about it because the more it's done the more likely we will find and learn more about it both good and bad.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 72778, member: 2189"] OK2BC, Disagree my friend on the apples and oranges. Healthcare cost for both are esculating higher and higher would you not agree? How is that different for one from the other and that is my point. Healthcare costs were a driving factor in the CS situation or at least the info and the long process of explaination we saw at the CS meeting at local 728 sure did point out this fact. Healthcare cost for retirees also carried over and impacted the whole situation. GM pointed specifically at Healthcare cost and everyone looks at the CS situation and only sees the retirement changes that happened 2 years ago but also look at the healthcare changes that happened as well. Co-pay went up and to honest should have much sooner but that's another issue, adminstrative changes took place along with a higher monthly healthcare insurance premiums for retirees and in some cases very significate. We now have in our area Blue Cross and Blue Shield as the primary provider of coverage instead of CS alone. GM and UPS are in different type of pension plans but both members go to the same doctors and hospitals for healthcare and both pay the same esculating costs. You could use GM to actually argue for multi employee plans and ask would GM be in the situation if they were in a multi-plan with say Ford and Chyrsler? I don't know the answer but would be a interesting discussion for sure. You are 100% correct that lack of membership involvement is at the core of the problem but then I would also respond what is a membership suppose to think when the leadership for years barred the general membership from even electing it's own national leadership and there is both pros and cons to this process and then to top it off all contract discussions are held and maintained in total secrecy and when D-Day comes for a strike vote you are told nothing other than to trust your union. Sorry Charlie but I vote No Strike last time and every time in conditions like that. The problem is the chicken or the egg argument. What comes first to make it better, membership active to force the change or leadership leads to get members active that bring about change? I'd tend to side with you on the membership taking the lead but reality sez it won't happen. Tie The partition idea seems the most logical at this point because the simple fact is the current plan is not going anywhere. Congress will have to pass the law to make this happen but at this point I don't see that. To partition would likely place some retirees in the current plan straight over to gov't control and their agencies that back pensions are already stressed to the max as it is. I can't see them adding to the problem although they do some stupid things in Washington every day. The partition idea on the surface seems good but there are still some unanswered questions and that is who would provide oversite? If UPS contributions is segregated from the others and used for UPSers only then would you have a trustee from Yellow Freight, who is also a competitor, provide oversite for those UPS funds? Would you form a new trustee board of equal parts union and equal parts company? Hell those clowns can't agree on a good Tee time or bar to hit for 3 pm cocktails during contract talks so you could just imagine the lunacy in investment oversite meetings. :D I do think the partition idea has merit for consideration but there is also many details to work out too. Keep talking about it because the more it's done the more likely we will find and learn more about it both good and bad. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top