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
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 128037"><p>. . . Continued . . . </p><p></p><p>If your pension plan doesn't allow you to "self-contribute" then you can't make up any shortfall in your annual Pension Credit account. If say, you are one hour short of 1800 hours, then you only get 11 months credit. Tough. Remember, it's very hard to put in long years at UPS so anything that extends your career is a severe burden, and one that most people will deal with by retireing early and never get that full pension. To take an almost rediculous example to dramitize the point: A part-timer who works only the contractually guaranteed minimum 3.5 hours per day, (air drivers have only a 3 hour guarantee!), would get only 6 months Pension Credit per year and have to work 60 calender years to earn a 30 year full-time pension. Imagine if UPSers were allowed to double shift whenever work was available. Imagine if they were encouraged to air drive on Saturdays. Imagine if they were allowed all along to be driver's helpers during peak, as they have recently been only in recent years. Imagine if the entire contract was obeyed by UPS, and enforced by the Teamsters. Imagine if the rules were changed to allow additional Pension Credit accumulation beyond 40 hours per week or beyond 1800 hours per year. These and other rules could be changed if only UPS and the members insisted on it. Check the fine print of your plan. The New England Plan allows certain "special" workers to earn up to two-and-a-half years of Pension Credit per calender year!!! Yes, you read that correctly. (See Table 1B of the Rules & Regulations.) Isn't that exactly what UPSers need: the ability to earn credits as rapidly as possible to compensate for the excessive wear and tear on our bodies? </p><p><a href="http://www.nettipf.com/plandocs.htm" target="_blank">plan documents</a></p><p></p><p>UPS makes every effort to hire people in school knowing many will not spend their entire career in a UPS-Teamsters job, probably not even in Teamsters jobs. UPS hires mostly males, knowing that males have died about seven years earlier than females. This mortality gap is narrowing, but it accounts for a portion of UPS funds that are abandoned due to the death of the potential recipient. UPS makes every effort to hire the very young. These people have a very long way to go to reach Normal Retirement Age of 64 or 65. Alot can happen between now and then, to cause them to forfeit some or all of their pension contributions. UPS assigns work initially, and transfers work as well, to less senior workers in a variety of ways that insure that the employee less likely to stay a long time at UPS gets the hours towards the accumulation of Pension Credits. Assigning or transfering work to a Preload shift instead of a Local Sort shift, for example, will increase the likelyhood that the pension contributions will be abandoned in the fund as the Preload worker is more likely to quit, or quit sooner. UPS assigns work to supervisors that should be given to bargaining unit members who need the hours to build their Pension Credit account.</p><p></p><p>If UPS fires a vested member, or drives him to "quit voluntarily," they often could have decided to handle the case differently. When they force someone out, they often force him to "retire" as well. If he doesn't get another job in another company covered by the fund, his retirement is calculated based on the Pension Credits he has now, and his current age. He will have to settle for a reduced pension amount, and probably have to wait years to begin collecting it. The frozen amount will be eaten by inflation in the meantime. </p><p></p><p>UPS, the Teamsters, and the members could insist that the pension fund trustees change their many policies to better suit UPS employees (and other employees as well.) Plans could require fewer hours to qualify for the various benchmarks. Contracts could require longer pension contribution coverage during sickness and injury, and a less onerous working environment and workload that causes almost everyone, labor and management alike, to throw in the towel prematurely. Pension funds are back-end loaded: you earn a greater percentage of your benefit the further into your career at UPS you go. For every 10,000 new hires, how many are still working at five years (vested), at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and beyond? That's not just a retorical question. I really want to know. What percentage of New Hires actually make it to the finish line? How many even make seniority?</p><p></p><p> The inability of UPS to hire and keep people means a revolving door policy that, in effect, keeps the lower ranks of the employment roster non-union and temporary. Many people are hired just during free periods to cover vacations or during Peak. Some are hired knowing they are just here until they graduate. The rediculously low part-time starting wages and subsequent slow five year wage progression almost guarantees few will stay on as part-timers. Even transfering to management is a form of "quiting" the Teamsters-sponsored pension plan, although I don't know how the management plan may handle this. </p><p></p><p>It's bad enough that UPS knowingly contributes on our behalf to plans with such mismatched features that are just not attuned to our situation at UPS, but it is unseemly when they complain that their voluntarily abandoned money is subsidizing others. If you abandon money, you forfeit not only the money, but also any say in it's future use. It's strange to see UPS try so hard in puting competitors out of business then complain that they (UPS) have to subsidize the defunct company's retirees. So why did UPS spend all those years in the same plan as it's competitors and not say a word until 1997? Most of the so called subsidy is to one degree or another money deliberately, knowingly, consciously, premeditately (are you getting my drift?) abandoned in the fund by UPS. It's like divorcing your spouse but still wanting to control who she dates. Understandable but not allowable. What hutspa for UPS to know so much about the detailed workings of these plans and yet to arrange its affairs and ours so as to forfeit so much of what has been contributed on our behalf. (The definitive example of hutspa is the child who kills his parents, then demands mercy from the court because he is an orphan.) </p><p></p><p>Why hasn't UPS informed UPSers of all aspects of the pension situation in a through way all along? Not just during the strike of '97, with a poorly crafted campaign of misinformation that was bound to fail. UPS is not restricted by labor law from commenting on pension matters, they just can't negotiate with us behind the Teamsters' back. Indeed, why aren't UPS people in the UPS-run plans, reaping the benefits of high rates of returns on investments, liberal retirement rules, no cuts, and dramatically higher benefit amounts right now and for all these past years? This includes non-bargaining unit employees, as well as some part-timers. What is UPS waiting for. They control these funds to a much greater degree than the multi-employer funds. They could have unilaterally implimented improvements years ago if it was so easy, if they really wanted to. Why did John McDevitt of UPS resort to an apples-to-oranges comparison of Teamsters-sponsored plans to UPS-only plans? He used actual historical data for his 30-year Teamsters plan example, so the Teamsters numbers were low because the UPS contribution rates were historically low. But his UPS plan example wasn't based on actual historical data from 30 years of the UPS-only plans. Instead he switches to a hypothetical future 30 years that is not held down by all those years of small UPS yearly contributions. Even at that, the higher UPS plan benefit is not that much higher, and its purchasing power would be reduced during the intervening 30 years of waiting. There is no way of knowing how difficult it would be to actually achieve the goal of a comfortable retirement because to evaluate a pension plan one must see the entire plan and understand how each and every one of its features will effect you. Remember the non-existant UPS Plan that the company tried to sell us during the '97 strike. No actual details were provided because the plan would only be created and negotiated after the contract was ratified, when most of the Union's bargaining power had evaporated. You would also have to survive at UPS until retirement, and the company would have to survive until then, and beyond. </p><p></p><p>And now the bad news: moving to a single-employer plan won't solve any of these problems because you will still be dealing with the same employer and its same retirement-hostile policies. In addition, any "excess" money in a UPS-only fund can be legally skimmed off by UPS, something not permitted in a multi-employer fund.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 128037"] . . . Continued . . . If your pension plan doesn't allow you to "self-contribute" then you can't make up any shortfall in your annual Pension Credit account. If say, you are one hour short of 1800 hours, then you only get 11 months credit. Tough. Remember, it's very hard to put in long years at UPS so anything that extends your career is a severe burden, and one that most people will deal with by retireing early and never get that full pension. To take an almost rediculous example to dramitize the point: A part-timer who works only the contractually guaranteed minimum 3.5 hours per day, (air drivers have only a 3 hour guarantee!), would get only 6 months Pension Credit per year and have to work 60 calender years to earn a 30 year full-time pension. Imagine if UPSers were allowed to double shift whenever work was available. Imagine if they were encouraged to air drive on Saturdays. Imagine if they were allowed all along to be driver's helpers during peak, as they have recently been only in recent years. Imagine if the entire contract was obeyed by UPS, and enforced by the Teamsters. Imagine if the rules were changed to allow additional Pension Credit accumulation beyond 40 hours per week or beyond 1800 hours per year. These and other rules could be changed if only UPS and the members insisted on it. Check the fine print of your plan. The New England Plan allows certain "special" workers to earn up to two-and-a-half years of Pension Credit per calender year!!! Yes, you read that correctly. (See Table 1B of the Rules & Regulations.) Isn't that exactly what UPSers need: the ability to earn credits as rapidly as possible to compensate for the excessive wear and tear on our bodies? [url=http://www.nettipf.com/plandocs.htm]plan documents[/url] UPS makes every effort to hire people in school knowing many will not spend their entire career in a UPS-Teamsters job, probably not even in Teamsters jobs. UPS hires mostly males, knowing that males have died about seven years earlier than females. This mortality gap is narrowing, but it accounts for a portion of UPS funds that are abandoned due to the death of the potential recipient. UPS makes every effort to hire the very young. These people have a very long way to go to reach Normal Retirement Age of 64 or 65. Alot can happen between now and then, to cause them to forfeit some or all of their pension contributions. UPS assigns work initially, and transfers work as well, to less senior workers in a variety of ways that insure that the employee less likely to stay a long time at UPS gets the hours towards the accumulation of Pension Credits. Assigning or transfering work to a Preload shift instead of a Local Sort shift, for example, will increase the likelyhood that the pension contributions will be abandoned in the fund as the Preload worker is more likely to quit, or quit sooner. UPS assigns work to supervisors that should be given to bargaining unit members who need the hours to build their Pension Credit account. If UPS fires a vested member, or drives him to "quit voluntarily," they often could have decided to handle the case differently. When they force someone out, they often force him to "retire" as well. If he doesn't get another job in another company covered by the fund, his retirement is calculated based on the Pension Credits he has now, and his current age. He will have to settle for a reduced pension amount, and probably have to wait years to begin collecting it. The frozen amount will be eaten by inflation in the meantime. UPS, the Teamsters, and the members could insist that the pension fund trustees change their many policies to better suit UPS employees (and other employees as well.) Plans could require fewer hours to qualify for the various benchmarks. Contracts could require longer pension contribution coverage during sickness and injury, and a less onerous working environment and workload that causes almost everyone, labor and management alike, to throw in the towel prematurely. Pension funds are back-end loaded: you earn a greater percentage of your benefit the further into your career at UPS you go. For every 10,000 new hires, how many are still working at five years (vested), at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and beyond? That's not just a retorical question. I really want to know. What percentage of New Hires actually make it to the finish line? How many even make seniority? The inability of UPS to hire and keep people means a revolving door policy that, in effect, keeps the lower ranks of the employment roster non-union and temporary. Many people are hired just during free periods to cover vacations or during Peak. Some are hired knowing they are just here until they graduate. The rediculously low part-time starting wages and subsequent slow five year wage progression almost guarantees few will stay on as part-timers. Even transfering to management is a form of "quiting" the Teamsters-sponsored pension plan, although I don't know how the management plan may handle this. It's bad enough that UPS knowingly contributes on our behalf to plans with such mismatched features that are just not attuned to our situation at UPS, but it is unseemly when they complain that their voluntarily abandoned money is subsidizing others. If you abandon money, you forfeit not only the money, but also any say in it's future use. It's strange to see UPS try so hard in puting competitors out of business then complain that they (UPS) have to subsidize the defunct company's retirees. So why did UPS spend all those years in the same plan as it's competitors and not say a word until 1997? Most of the so called subsidy is to one degree or another money deliberately, knowingly, consciously, premeditately (are you getting my drift?) abandoned in the fund by UPS. It's like divorcing your spouse but still wanting to control who she dates. Understandable but not allowable. What hutspa for UPS to know so much about the detailed workings of these plans and yet to arrange its affairs and ours so as to forfeit so much of what has been contributed on our behalf. (The definitive example of hutspa is the child who kills his parents, then demands mercy from the court because he is an orphan.) Why hasn't UPS informed UPSers of all aspects of the pension situation in a through way all along? Not just during the strike of '97, with a poorly crafted campaign of misinformation that was bound to fail. UPS is not restricted by labor law from commenting on pension matters, they just can't negotiate with us behind the Teamsters' back. Indeed, why aren't UPS people in the UPS-run plans, reaping the benefits of high rates of returns on investments, liberal retirement rules, no cuts, and dramatically higher benefit amounts right now and for all these past years? This includes non-bargaining unit employees, as well as some part-timers. What is UPS waiting for. They control these funds to a much greater degree than the multi-employer funds. They could have unilaterally implimented improvements years ago if it was so easy, if they really wanted to. Why did John McDevitt of UPS resort to an apples-to-oranges comparison of Teamsters-sponsored plans to UPS-only plans? He used actual historical data for his 30-year Teamsters plan example, so the Teamsters numbers were low because the UPS contribution rates were historically low. But his UPS plan example wasn't based on actual historical data from 30 years of the UPS-only plans. Instead he switches to a hypothetical future 30 years that is not held down by all those years of small UPS yearly contributions. Even at that, the higher UPS plan benefit is not that much higher, and its purchasing power would be reduced during the intervening 30 years of waiting. There is no way of knowing how difficult it would be to actually achieve the goal of a comfortable retirement because to evaluate a pension plan one must see the entire plan and understand how each and every one of its features will effect you. Remember the non-existant UPS Plan that the company tried to sell us during the '97 strike. No actual details were provided because the plan would only be created and negotiated after the contract was ratified, when most of the Union's bargaining power had evaporated. You would also have to survive at UPS until retirement, and the company would have to survive until then, and beyond. And now the bad news: moving to a single-employer plan won't solve any of these problems because you will still be dealing with the same employer and its same retirement-hostile policies. In addition, any "excess" money in a UPS-only fund can be legally skimmed off by UPS, something not permitted in a multi-employer fund. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top