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
What happened in the 2008 contract??
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 653135" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p></p><p>Your comment that I'll "just have to adjust" reminds me of the Indiana legislature coming within a vote or two in the 19th century of passing a law that made the mathematical constant "pi" equal to "3"; i.e. - just because something is made "law" doesn't change the facts. Congress can legislate all they want in terms of claiming insolvency isn't insolvency...but that doesn't make an entity any less insolvent. Sorry...just the way things are! (on the other hand, Congress *CAN* hand-out various forms of welfare, which is pretty much what CSPF and the Teamsters behind it are asking for these days. And make no mistake about it; begging and/or demanding welfare is something Teamsters - as an organization - are very, very good at...perhaps the only thing they're good at in recent times)</p><p></p><p>As for your comments about not retiring now, all I can say is that, as you, yourself, indicated, one of the major complaints about CSPF is that "early retirement was taken away"...which, in case you hadn't noticed, was an OBLIGATION on the part of CSPF, and an indicatiion that the retirements ARE being attempted and that, in not being able to meet it's OBLIGATIONS, CSPF is ALREADY insolvent. I.e. - an entity claiming it's not insolvent yet stops paying it's (to participants, very real!) debts is NOT a very valid description of the process.</p><p></p><p>As for the length of time if would take to "exhaust the 19.3 billion", one can't help but note - again - that the 19.3 billion is ALREADY less than the funds liabilities; i.e. - they have no working "capital" at all. And as for the actual time it would take to exhaust such an amount, based on recent history, it could be as little as a few quarters....and with YRCW rushing to bankruptcy (and essentially no longer contributing and/or backstopping fund liability), that period of time could be rapidly accelerated.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, in reference to your speaking of the "de minimus" rule, in which you claimed....</p><p></p><p>"You were claiming <u>most</u> of the small employers <u>in he fund</u> aren't sharing the burden. But the "de minimis rule" applies only to <u>a few</u> small employers who <u>leave</u> the fund"</p><p></p><p>...I said *NO SUCH THING!* What I said - and WHICH YOU YOURSELF QUOTED!!!! - was....</p><p></p><p>"". . . MANY (not "most"!) of the smaller firms aren't required to bear the "sharing" burden"</p><p></p><p>I have kind of a thing about individual's being dishonest about what I say. If you can't stick to the truth in a discussion, then I suggest you keep your trap shut; the LAST thing the Teamsters and/or the CSPF fund needs right now is yet another nickel-and-dime-liar "defender". Got it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 653135, member: 16651"] Jon; Your comment that I'll "just have to adjust" reminds me of the Indiana legislature coming within a vote or two in the 19th century of passing a law that made the mathematical constant "pi" equal to "3"; i.e. - just because something is made "law" doesn't change the facts. Congress can legislate all they want in terms of claiming insolvency isn't insolvency...but that doesn't make an entity any less insolvent. Sorry...just the way things are! (on the other hand, Congress *CAN* hand-out various forms of welfare, which is pretty much what CSPF and the Teamsters behind it are asking for these days. And make no mistake about it; begging and/or demanding welfare is something Teamsters - as an organization - are very, very good at...perhaps the only thing they're good at in recent times) As for your comments about not retiring now, all I can say is that, as you, yourself, indicated, one of the major complaints about CSPF is that "early retirement was taken away"...which, in case you hadn't noticed, was an OBLIGATION on the part of CSPF, and an indicatiion that the retirements ARE being attempted and that, in not being able to meet it's OBLIGATIONS, CSPF is ALREADY insolvent. I.e. - an entity claiming it's not insolvent yet stops paying it's (to participants, very real!) debts is NOT a very valid description of the process. As for the length of time if would take to "exhaust the 19.3 billion", one can't help but note - again - that the 19.3 billion is ALREADY less than the funds liabilities; i.e. - they have no working "capital" at all. And as for the actual time it would take to exhaust such an amount, based on recent history, it could be as little as a few quarters....and with YRCW rushing to bankruptcy (and essentially no longer contributing and/or backstopping fund liability), that period of time could be rapidly accelerated. Lastly, in reference to your speaking of the "de minimus" rule, in which you claimed.... "You were claiming [U]most[/U] of the small employers [U]in he fund[/U] aren't sharing the burden. But the "de minimis rule" applies only to [U]a few[/U] small employers who [U]leave[/U] the fund" ...I said *NO SUCH THING!* What I said - and WHICH YOU YOURSELF QUOTED!!!! - was.... "". . . MANY (not "most"!) of the smaller firms aren't required to bear the "sharing" burden" I have kind of a thing about individual's being dishonest about what I say. If you can't stick to the truth in a discussion, then I suggest you keep your trap shut; the LAST thing the Teamsters and/or the CSPF fund needs right now is yet another nickel-and-dime-liar "defender". Got it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
What happened in the 2008 contract??
Top