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: 74503" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p><span style="color: blue">I really think you get a little thin skinned on these labeling issues. The labeling of the evil corperation does not always have to be an accusation against you. Its a phrase that I have coined ( I know I'm not the first) because in my time I have seen that many people will assign a set of evil or immoral values to a large entity such as a corperation. That does not mean there aren't some corperations that have not earned that reputation. But generally when you break it down a corperation is a group of individuals trying to do what is right for its stockholders and its people. With my slice of the pie I think its my job to assume the responsibility for my part of the corporation and to minimize the passing of the buck as much as possible. The "evil corporation" term is actually intended to be more tongue in cheek in referencing this concept of blaiming the faceless company for things we don't like. </span></p><p> </p><p>For some reason several here get upset when something is said about UPS that isn't wine and roses.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Well I would prefer champagne with my roses. Naa a beer is fine. </span></p><p> </p><p>I do also blame myself (we, the workers) for not investigating this thoroughly from the beginning and demanding more accountability of both our company and our union for their promises over the decades regarding the pension.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">part of the problem is u need a finance degree to understand the issues. Its very complicated. Lot of differences between multi-employer, single employer plans. How the plans are administered. How the investment decisions are made. etc. </span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As for the bush quote, I just thought it was nice that a very pro-business president was stating publicly that many companies were underfunding pensions.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">I always thought Bush might be too liberal. I'm sure there are corporations guilty of that charge. Many pension plans are single employer. its always been my understanding that the funding requirements for single employer plans are much stricter than mult-employer plans hence you would think employers would be required to maintain funding on those. As you look at the multi-employer plans you then have to determine what each companies fair share is which I know there are some guidelines for. And then the last question which did not sit well with you. If UPS is paying the amount mandated by the contract then are they guilty of underfunding?</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Personally I think the teamsters should have negotiated profit sharing as a means of rebuilding these pension plans. Have your hourly fees that go into the H&W and retirement. Then negotiate a percentage of UPS's yearly profits that get paid into these ailing pension plans. Help fix the pensions and build some teamwork between the teamsters and UPS. I'm sure we would get swamped with sales leads from our drivers if we had this type of teamwork. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">That mindset is sadly missing from current management / labor negotiations. You have the traditional mistrust of management. The suspicion by some that UPS would cook the numbers to minimize their obligation. The Enron fears of tying UPS profits in with the pension plans. The plan administrators would also have to have the discipline to allow these profits the time to restore the financial viability of these plans. If they spend it as they get it then this solution would not work. Part of the damage done from our poorly negotiated pension issue in 97 was that many plans raised their disbursment amounts before they were financially able to do so in response to the pension pressure on the teamsters at the time. And last but not least the internal political pressures within the union itself. Your union exists by telling the workers they cannot trust the company. If the teamsters came out each year and said they loved UPS management and trusted us 100 percent then the members would wonder why they even need a union. The fear might be that buidling a strategic relationship with the company that includes profit sharing incentives would get whatever teamster president was responsible shot and dismembered for being to company oriented. JMO</span></p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 74503, member: 1912"] [COLOR=blue]I really think you get a little thin skinned on these labeling issues. The labeling of the evil corperation does not always have to be an accusation against you. Its a phrase that I have coined ( I know I'm not the first) because in my time I have seen that many people will assign a set of evil or immoral values to a large entity such as a corperation. That does not mean there aren't some corperations that have not earned that reputation. But generally when you break it down a corperation is a group of individuals trying to do what is right for its stockholders and its people. With my slice of the pie I think its my job to assume the responsibility for my part of the corporation and to minimize the passing of the buck as much as possible. The "evil corporation" term is actually intended to be more tongue in cheek in referencing this concept of blaiming the faceless company for things we don't like. [/COLOR] For some reason several here get upset when something is said about UPS that isn't wine and roses. [COLOR=blue]Well I would prefer champagne with my roses. Naa a beer is fine. [/COLOR] I do also blame myself (we, the workers) for not investigating this thoroughly from the beginning and demanding more accountability of both our company and our union for their promises over the decades regarding the pension. [COLOR=blue]part of the problem is u need a finance degree to understand the issues. Its very complicated. Lot of differences between multi-employer, single employer plans. How the plans are administered. How the investment decisions are made. etc. [/COLOR] As for the bush quote, I just thought it was nice that a very pro-business president was stating publicly that many companies were underfunding pensions. [COLOR=blue]I always thought Bush might be too liberal. I'm sure there are corporations guilty of that charge. Many pension plans are single employer. its always been my understanding that the funding requirements for single employer plans are much stricter than mult-employer plans hence you would think employers would be required to maintain funding on those. As you look at the multi-employer plans you then have to determine what each companies fair share is which I know there are some guidelines for. And then the last question which did not sit well with you. If UPS is paying the amount mandated by the contract then are they guilty of underfunding?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Personally I think the teamsters should have negotiated profit sharing as a means of rebuilding these pension plans. Have your hourly fees that go into the H&W and retirement. Then negotiate a percentage of UPS's yearly profits that get paid into these ailing pension plans. Help fix the pensions and build some teamwork between the teamsters and UPS. I'm sure we would get swamped with sales leads from our drivers if we had this type of teamwork. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]That mindset is sadly missing from current management / labor negotiations. You have the traditional mistrust of management. The suspicion by some that UPS would cook the numbers to minimize their obligation. The Enron fears of tying UPS profits in with the pension plans. The plan administrators would also have to have the discipline to allow these profits the time to restore the financial viability of these plans. If they spend it as they get it then this solution would not work. Part of the damage done from our poorly negotiated pension issue in 97 was that many plans raised their disbursment amounts before they were financially able to do so in response to the pension pressure on the teamsters at the time. And last but not least the internal political pressures within the union itself. Your union exists by telling the workers they cannot trust the company. If the teamsters came out each year and said they loved UPS management and trusted us 100 percent then the members would wonder why they even need a union. The fear might be that buidling a strategic relationship with the company that includes profit sharing incentives would get whatever teamster president was responsible shot and dismembered for being to company oriented. JMO[/COLOR] [/quote] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top