UPS has not dropped the 30/60/90 requirement for employees 3/28/13

[realbrown1]

Brothers, I just spotted someting that I think is important. On Thursday March 28th I saw on browncafe a link to a press release by the IBT saying that ups is proposing to move the health insurance to union run plans.
https://www.browncafe.com/community/attachments/ups_update_march_28-pdf.8783/

Fast forward today and I notice another link from the IBT with an update dated March 28th but this time it says ups is proposing to move the health insurance to union run plans and that ups has not dropped the requirment that empoyees pay 30/60/90 for thier plans. http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamst...rch_28_new.pdf
What's the deal?

 

[Anonymous 10]

I had one of my boys send me that schatt. I sent him a pic of a naked 90 year old lady that he said never send him again. That's not going to happen just like me not sending that pic again isn't going to happen. Ill bet u anything we don't pay anything. Let it go Hall has it covered. He always has.

 

[kingOFchester]

This bothers me. The exact quote "they have not withdrawn their proposal requiring that employees pay the premiums they originally proposed."

hall has stated many times we are not going to pay 90 dollars, 9 dollars or 9 cents. My question is why, at this point, being that everything else is pretty much hammered out.....why is he still scheduling more negotiations? I do not understand this tactic.

To me, he is not sending a clear message to UPS that he is not willing to allow premiums in the contract.

I tried to buy a rental house in 2000. It had a garage/loft connected to the house that was a hazard. My mortgage company would not lend the money until the garage was removed. Knowing a little about construction, electrical and plumbing, I knew that tearing it down was not as simple as a quick demo. I had zero interest in taking a gamble at guessing the exact demo cost, betting that there would be additional costs in the long run. My first bid was X amount with the garage being removed by current owner. They came back with a much lower purchase price but putting the demo on me. I made a simple call, stated that I would not consider purchasing the property unless they removed the garage. They walked. 3 weeks later, they came back and we started to negotiate without the demo liability on the table.

Fast forward 2 months, the garage was removed, but the house was now uninsurable do to a supporting wall that was connected to the garage that now had to be rebuilt with new footers. I was able to walk from the deal.

 

[saintrick]

The Teamsters reissued the release. The fact that the company had not withdrawn the premiums was not in the original package update. It did however appear in the Freight update.

 

[3 done 3 to go]

This will N O T happen. Ups knows it.

 

[saintrick]

I still hope we will not pay weekly but it does concern me that an issue that was Dead On Arrival is still on the table 2 month later.

 

[realbrown1]

Why wasn't the paragraph (new) in bold letters not put out on the first press release? They obviously had that infomation.
I also question why Hall is still negotiating with that language (30/60/90) is still on the table. He said March 31st if that language is still on the table that the teamsters will walk away from negotiations.
And also, what's it to UPS if the teamsters run healthcare can cover us with good Health Insurance at current rates why would they make this 30/60/90 demand?
Something doesn't smell right here.

 

[anonymous6]

"best allies are TIME and WALL STREET...."

plus 100.

 

[rudy5150]

Could always make NEW HIRE employees pay for their insurance if they want it for 2-3 yrs. Then after that they get it at no cost. This will allow teamster to provide a great insurance plan like the way we have now without raising co pays .......etc.

 

[ocnewguy]

Could always make NEW HIRE employees pay for their insurance if they want it for 2-3 yrs. Then after that they get it at no cost. This will allow teamster to provide a great insurance plan like the way we have now without raising co pays .......etc.

i didn't think there really was a way to screw new hires more....congrats though looks like you found a way

 

[rudy5150]

Somebody has to make up the difference. Whos gonna? So you think just cuz the union takes over the health care plan that all the sudden poof its paid for? do u have any suggestions?

 

[rudy5150]

It would be an option. You either pay for insurance or you opt out. Some of the new hires dont want insurance anyways.

 

[Atomic_Smurf]

Could always make NEW HIRE employees pay for their insurance if they want it for 2-3 yrs. Then after that they get it at no cost. This will allow teamster to provide a great insurance plan like the way we have now without raising co pays .......etc.

Can't see that happening with the expansion of RTW states. Our union is looking to bring up pay & benefits for new employees now that they have a choice whether or not to join the union. Want to be able to show them what the union does for them instead of selling them out every contract. Bringing up wages & bennies for bottom-rung union employees is just one of the unintended consequences of RTW legislation.

 

[rudy5150]

If thats the case bend over boys and gals. Your insurance isnt going to be as good as it used to be unless your willing to pay for it. I hope everyone realizes this. X amount of $ can only go so far. So your telling me union employees who have been with UPS 10+ yrs should suffer so NEW HIRES get insurance right away when hired?

 

[Atomic_Smurf]

Supposedly after 90 days instead of a year. We'll see.

 

[kingOFchester]

If thats the case bend over boys and gals. Your insurance isnt going to be as good as it used to be unless your willing to pay for it. I hope everyone realizes this. X amount of $ can only go so far. So your telling me union employees who have been with UPS 10+ yrs should suffer so NEW HIRES get insurance right away when hired?

I say NO. New hires should be the first to give. Being that they are not even hired yet, they aren't giving. They would be agreeing to less if they were to get hired on. Take from the unborn before taking from the born. That said, I would like to see everyone come out rosy.

I got screwed as compared to those hired in the past. I had to wait 6 months for insurance. I had 3 years of making close to half or even less then half then other drivers. Progression for insurance was not 6 months in the past. Progression was not 3 years. So I took less then those before me. But I hired on because I agreed to what the union negotiated for new hires at the time I was hired. I had a choice not to work for UPS. Your benefits and compensation came at a price that I had to pay threw longer progression.

I do NOT think we should be talking concessions at all. But if we have to, and in order for me to keep what I have, I would say do not give NEW HIRE part timers healthcare. Give them a boost in pay for all current and future part time hires, but don't give the newbies healthcare until they go full time.

 

[soberups]

The fact that it is supposedly still "on the table" doesnt mean .

Either you trust hall, or you dont. If you trust him, then keep in mind that negotiations are still ongoing and there are 4 months left before the current agreement expires. A lot can happen in that amount of time. If Ken feels that analysis of the company's proposal and resumption of negotiations in 2 weeks is the right strategy to follow at this time, then I am good with that. If you dont trust hall....then it really doesnt matter what he does, you will spin the story to justify whatever bias you choose to have against him. Remember....regardless of how good his negotiating skills are, in the end he can only get us the contract that both he and the company know we will be willing to strike for.

 

[saintrick]

The fact that it is supposedly still "on the table" doesnt mean .

Either you trust hall, or you dont. If you trust him, then keep in mind that negotiations are still ongoing and there are 4 months left before the current agreement expires. A lot can happen in that amount of time. If Ken feels that analysis of the company's proposal and resumption of negotiations in 2 weeks is the right strategy to follow at this time, then I am good with that. If you dont trust hall....then it really doesnt matter what he does, you will spin the story to justify whatever bias you choose to have against him. Remember....regardless of how good his negotiating skills are, in the end he can only get us the contract that both he and the company know we will be willing to strike for.

The info is from hall.

 

[kingOFchester]

The info is from hall.

He is not questioning that.

What we have to wonder and or question whether they will give us a contract that is best for the rank and file, or what is best for the union. There is clearly a difference. JMHO

 

[ocnewguy]

If thats the case bend over boys and gals. Your insurance isnt going to be as good as it used to be unless your willing to pay for it. I hope everyone realizes this. X amount of $ can only go so far. So your telling me union employees who have been with UPS 10+ yrs should suffer so NEW HIRES get insurance right away when hired?

no ones saying give them insurance right away....just don't make it worse than it already is. 12/18 months is already a huge concession