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 Union Issues
The RISKS of Independent Health & Welfare Agreements
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="PiedmontSteward" data-source="post: 1201259" data-attributes="member: 42270"><p>From what little bit of reading I've done on locally-based plans, aren't these local union plans typically negotiated with the largest local hospital network? Basically meaning that the participants are in a relatively tiny "network" although all of their basic needs are met. Thus, they might be on the hook for an ER visit while out-of-town. Additionally, as you said, if the provider tries to raise rates after that 3 year window, UPS cannot be compelled to increase contributions within an already-negotiated CBA with a 5 year term. Smaller locals -- even, say, Local 89 with 9,000 UPS or even their 14,000 total member participants -- have nowhere near the same buying power on the market as does TeamCare with 150,000+ potential UPS participants alone. I'm also assuming the local unions are responsible for the overhead/administration of the plans, which requires additional office staff and resources that could be spent elsewhere. </p><p></p><p>Personally, I feel that TeamCare gives us more leverage going forward. In the event of a strike, TeamCare would continue our insurance coverage (that leverage is increased by the thousands of other participants from other companies) while we are on the street. Conversely, the UPS company plan would have required COBRA payments from the rank-and-file or the individual locals themselves. It didn't end up being an issue in 1997 because the strike was over within ~2 weeks, but it could be one in the future. I'm sure many strikers who contemplated crossing the picket line were compelled to do the right thing because they knew the local wouldn't pick up the tab for their COBRA payments if they were seen crossing. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, the 100,000+ (previously would have been 140,000 but I don't have any estimates on how many will be pulled into the locally negotiated plans/carve outs such as Local 177's) new participants will provide additional economic security to other Teamsters in different industries. That's one of the primary strengths of a Taft-Hartley plan: if the various participants span multiple diverse industries, the likelihood of an economic catastrophe seriously damaging the plan is greatly reduced. More contributing members equals greater buying power, something that the "carve out" locals don't seem willing to contemplate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PiedmontSteward, post: 1201259, member: 42270"] From what little bit of reading I've done on locally-based plans, aren't these local union plans typically negotiated with the largest local hospital network? Basically meaning that the participants are in a relatively tiny "network" although all of their basic needs are met. Thus, they might be on the hook for an ER visit while out-of-town. Additionally, as you said, if the provider tries to raise rates after that 3 year window, UPS cannot be compelled to increase contributions within an already-negotiated CBA with a 5 year term. Smaller locals -- even, say, Local 89 with 9,000 UPS or even their 14,000 total member participants -- have nowhere near the same buying power on the market as does TeamCare with 150,000+ potential UPS participants alone. I'm also assuming the local unions are responsible for the overhead/administration of the plans, which requires additional office staff and resources that could be spent elsewhere. Personally, I feel that TeamCare gives us more leverage going forward. In the event of a strike, TeamCare would continue our insurance coverage (that leverage is increased by the thousands of other participants from other companies) while we are on the street. Conversely, the UPS company plan would have required COBRA payments from the rank-and-file or the individual locals themselves. It didn't end up being an issue in 1997 because the strike was over within ~2 weeks, but it could be one in the future. I'm sure many strikers who contemplated crossing the picket line were compelled to do the right thing because they knew the local wouldn't pick up the tab for their COBRA payments if they were seen crossing. Additionally, the 100,000+ (previously would have been 140,000 but I don't have any estimates on how many will be pulled into the locally negotiated plans/carve outs such as Local 177's) new participants will provide additional economic security to other Teamsters in different industries. That's one of the primary strengths of a Taft-Hartley plan: if the various participants span multiple diverse industries, the likelihood of an economic catastrophe seriously damaging the plan is greatly reduced. More contributing members equals greater buying power, something that the "carve out" locals don't seem willing to contemplate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The RISKS of Independent Health & Welfare Agreements
Top