The truth about the new UPS/IBT pension plan

Discussion in 'UPS Retirement Topics' started by Bill, Nov 3, 2007.

  1. Bill

    Bill Member

    UPS and the Teamsters both know that the Central States pension is in serious trouble of becoming insolvent. Under the new law (Red Zone Amendment), starting on January 1, 2008, pensions are required to meet minimum funding. Companies will be required to contribute additional funding to meet these standards. UPS knows this, but rather than pay additional money that its employees don't receive anyway, UPS is willing to spend $6.1 billion to withdraw from Central States. The Teamsters mismanagement of the pension fund has created a situation whereas the Teamsters have no choice but to allow UPS to control the pension. This would be a good thing, except for the details in the contract and its supplement.
    1. The following can be found in the Master contract (page 24) as well as the Central States supplement (page 14) : " If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset." The Teamsters and UPS are telling us that the money is guaranteed, but it doesn't say "guaranteed" once in the contract. UPS has the money, and will pay the pension up until a retiree reaches the age of 65. After that, he/she receives two checks; one from UPS and another from CS, and the combined checks will total $3000 for a 30 and out pension. However, if CS CAN NOT pay its obligation, and must reduce your pension check under the new law(see above), UPS will NOT make up the difference or offset. In all likelihood, this is going to be the case, as CS is still obligated to pay its current retirees, but no additional money is being contributed by UPS. The pension fund will drain faster than before, and become insolvent.

    2. In 1997, the pension in CS was increased to $3000 per month for 30 years of service. The following chart is the consumer price index taken from the U.S. government statistics

    .............cpi........... what $3000 is worth
    1997.....160.8...........$3000
    1998.....163.4.............2952.26
    1999.....167.1.............2886.89
    2000.....172.8.............2791.66
    2001.....177.5.............2717.75
    2002.....180.7.............2669.62
    2003.....184.6.............2613.22
    2004.....189.5.............2545.65
    2005.....196.4.............2456.21
    2006.....203.8.............2367.03
    2007.....207.9.............2320.35
    As you can clearly see, the $3000 that was negotiated back in 1997 is worth much less today after adjusting for inflation. What do you think your pension will be worth when you retire? It is worth less each year as the cost of inflation rises. The contract must have a cost of living built into the pension plan. This contract doesn't. UPS was contributing $238 per week per employee into the pension fund under CS, but with the new UPS/IBT plan, UPS starts out contributing only $132 per week and increases it each year. UPS will contribute less, so in actuality, UPS is getting their $6.1 billion back in a few years. If UPS contributes more each year starting in 2009, then why are we still receiving only $3000 per month? If more money goes in, shouldn't the monthly payment go up? UPS will benefit the most as they still will only pay out $3000 a month, but the money will be worth less each year, so the bottom line is that after this new fund is fully funded, UPS will never have to contribute another dime, as the interest alone will pay the pension for the retirees. This is exactly what the APWA proposed, only they included a cost of living increase each year.
    In conclusion, if this contract is to be acceptable, it needs a guarantee, and a cost of living increase to keep up with inflation.
     
  2. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    Very good info and very well said 79!!!!!
     
  3. Bill

    Bill Member

    Thanks. I don't know why everyone believes the propaganda behind the Teamsters and UPS. I give them facts and some of them still dispute it.
     
  4. gandydancer

    gandydancer New Member

    The "offset" is the amount that UPS' payment will be reduced by when you reach 65. If CS's payment is reduced the resultant offset is reduced as well, so UPS' payment at 65 is reduced by less. They could have said this more clearly, but their legal obligation to keep your total payment the same when you reach 65 seems clear. On the other hand, if you'd retired already under the CS plan you'd be SOL (and CS underfunding was reported by Boomberg as $18 billion, so $6.1b isn't going to keep it afloat).

    Can you provide the source of these numbers? I see a table of monthly benefits per year worked beginning at $132, but that's not obviously the same as a $132 weekly contribution. And where does the $238 number come from? Seriously asking here.
     
  5. JonFrum

    JonFrum Guest

    Huh?

    Huh?
     
  6. browned_out

    browned_out Member

    Huh?
     
  7. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I find it interesting that you folks keep comparing this offer to the one in 97 that you rejected. Why aren't you comparing this offer to what you're presently getting and what you can expect to get when the new pension rules kick in. You had your chance to take the 97 offer and you blew it.
     
  8. team player

    team player New Member

    If anyone can read between the lines you can easily see UPS is getting the 6.1 billion back out of this contract. Pension, P/T drivers in the Central, reduced health care for the P/T, split wage increases. I find it very interesting that everything I recieve has the UPS Teamster logo's on it, usually they want nothing to do with each other, I remember a couple of contracts ago 1 of the teamster proposals was to have the teamster logo on our uniforms and UPS said no way, now they are together on everything we get about this contract!:sneaky2:
     
  9. Fredless

    Fredless APWA Hater

    So where's the APWA pension plan come into play?
     
  10. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    TIEGUY<
    I hate to keep saying this but, WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
    We did not reject any pension offer in 97'
    The union that you so oddly have aligned yourself with this time around, that would not bring the offer to a vote in 97'
    We did not turn anything down!
    We were not given the chance to vote on it.
     
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Sawdust good point however they are your leaders and they do represent you and you are them and they are you or so I thought?
     
  12. TheVoice

    TheVoice United Prole. Socialist

    I think it’s interesting as well that there is the number people voicing their concerns about the tentative contract. I to, even as a NO voter, ask the question, where the hell were you when the surveys were being sent to your house, where were you when the elections happened? A lot of you are right when you say we asked for it when the surveys came out, because that is what the majority of you wanted the focus on, health care and pensions…therefore don’t be critical of your representatives of doing just that.

    I think clearly any majority percentage of people that have a problem with this contract, will be equally comparable to the percentage that didn’t send their survey in, or didn’t vote for the General President election.

    I think it might have been a wake up call for a lot of those people that don’t get involved, or get involved to late. People that just sit back being social-loafers and letting things come as they may, letting everyone else govern the collective all with the limited turn out in votes and participation of surveys, or just general participation at all. Then once things don’t go the way you want them, you say, hey wait a minute, this isn’t cool.

    So in the end, I would have to agree with a lot of my counterparts when they say, that’s what you get.

    Also, I think that it is very unique time right now for the labor movement. Not enough has been done to educate the younger ranks on the importance of involvement. But the blame is not on the old guard alone; the younger guys need to be more autonomous in their commitment to the future of organized labor (and this is not just in the IBT, but in Labor across the board).

    With reference to the division between the old guard and the new guard…its almost as if we are on the Titanic and the old guard is leaving on life-rafts and we are left on the ship polishing the brass. Maybe that’s not the best metaphor. But, I think most of you might get my point.

    (and yes, of course, there are exceptions to the rules in everything I have said).
     
  13. gandydancer

    gandydancer New Member

    I didn't return the survey, which was purile. But I wouldn't have minded putting pensions/H&W above GWI. (And I voted against Hoffa.)

    This business of saying that we got what we asked for is nonsense, tho. Saying that H&W/Pensions was a higher priority than wage increases doesn't authorize the union to give away the store in every other area. The starting point for each contract ought to be that no one should do worse under the new contract than they would have done under the old one: every economic number should be adjusted for inflation, and the problems in the non-economic language that resulted in our not getting what we thought we'd negotiated should be fixed. Then, if the company's done well we can take the additional value we can extracrt from them and apply it according to our expressed priorities. But let's not leave anyone behind. I hope we'll vote NO on this contract and let the union know they weren't authorized to do that.
     
  14. gandydancer

    gandydancer New Member

    So, YOU are both Nancy Pelosi and George Bush. Schizophrenic, that is.
     
  15. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    It is ten years later now and things look as though they have change. It looks as if they (IBT) are you (Management) and you are them, and we the rank and file are one the other side of the fence.
     
  16. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    Ya, we asked for it. The only problem is that we asked for a real offer, not this crap. Anyone can throw dog crap in a bowl and tell you that it is icecream, but if it looks like crap and smells like crap, it probable is crap.
     
  17. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    maybe it's chocolate ice cream........:biggrin:
     
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    If both negotiated my earnings contract for the future then yes it would be so.
     
  19. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    Go ahead, be Hoffas guest, take a bite.:no:
     
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    then where is the disconnect?

    You voted them in.
    they asked you what you wanted before they left.
    they reviewed what they got when they came back.
    wheres the disconnect?