Rule of 62 True

Please say it isnt so? Another reduction in any incentive to going into management!!!! In what galaxy can a UPS employee survive doing 100 percent of their job at this age. Im sure the teamsters will be locked into the same age requirement soon. MMMMMM, just think of the cost savings of having all the hard working members of BOTH management and the driver ranks working until 62! The reduction in staffing from heart attacks will be simply wonderful. I hope IE builds in their "cost" plans and PE in their building plans the wiring requirements for an ample supply of heart defibrillators.
Here my friends is the biggest irony....Your in management and born before 62...odds are you have several years of MIP in your pocket before the stock went public (ya got a nice nest egg). You can still get out yet the poor saps who DIDNT benefit from the IPO get to STAY 7 years longer! AWESOME isnt it? I'm sure the added 7 years will offset the 5% return on the stock. And the younger ones get to pay MORE for health care and do the same work that was formerly done by two.
But in all fairness one must note the positives...On the bright side you do get the benefit of using computers that would struggle to play the Atari games from the 80's, you do get a p/t workforce that is paid what they were 15 years ago (no need to learn all those tricky wage rates), you will have more time to date after the divorce the stress will cause, you can put off the retirement party plans AND each day when you pass those guys that retired into their Lexus when they were 55 you can sit up proud in that package car that was washed just 3 weeks ago and say "at least I dont have to pay an accountant to figure out to do with all my money...cause i dont have any"
Yep, we cant hire any college kids to be loaders anymore but at least we will get some takers to come right in as F/T management. How do the those with MILLIONS in Atlanta sleep at night? Doesnt the money in there mattress at least keep them up a little? Jim Casey, you were a great businessman, Im glad you arent here to see what has become of what you created! BTW, who is willing to wager that Jim is sleeping less these days than the pretenders to his throne?

[nhguy]

I have no knowledge of any changes being rumored or being substantiated by anyone reliable, but I do think it's only a matter of time before something changes with the whole management pension plan. I personally think they will raise the age from 55 to 57 or 60. Just the fact that medical costs continue to sky rocket and people as a whole continue to live longer. The cost of people living longer and the cost of health care has to eventually put a strain on all pension plans. The large number of UPS baby boomers that will be drawing from the plan is probably just as proportionate to the rest of the working world.

I'd sure like to see some stats as to how long UPS management people live after retirement. If I had to guess 5-10 years max! By pushing the age to 62 that means the average employee would draw about three years on the pension. What a cost savings!!!

[wkmac]

I know my coming comment will provoke the usual tripe from both sides but here goes anyway.

Since 97', the issue of pension has been a hot and getting hotter topic between management and union hourly. IMO management has every right to gloat and issue the "shutup and sitdown, you missed your chance" comments we so often hear on this subject when it involves union FT folk and to be honest they are in some ways right.

However, since that timeframe we've also heard that had we taken the deal that we'd be set, 30 and out any age, big money, etc. etc. etc. Now there has been nothing official that I know of announcing what the browntruth posted and it could very well just be a "let's stir em' up" deal but I have heard this very topic circulating amongst the talk of many a management person and the old adage, "where there's smoke, there's usually fire!"

With that said and going into the early talks with the union on the 08' contract where the pension will be a hot topic, I just find the timing of the bean counters to be just aweful. I can see where the union apologist will be wailing, "see where you'd be if you would have took there deal!" In one sense that may be correct but how many like me are already looking at working till 62' anyway just in the hope of lightening the load as it pertains to the insurance coverage premuim one has to pay in retirement. Not heard yet if that will change for management. Also management gets to work anywhere they so desire in retirement whereas we are very limited on a declining scale and the decline only comes as you get older which limits the potential of a 2nd and very different career if you so choose. So even with those factors when placed side by side, IMO it weights a little to the company side.

If they do make this move to 62 as browntruth and I've heard others not of Browncafe say is coming, it again just points to the fact that this company has come to following the pack on Wall Street and just chasing a number. UPS was once a hardnosed, tough place to work but come thick or thin, you felt pretty good about you future and you'd never ever hear of management getting shortchanged and even though I was never in that position I did feel some sense of security when you cut through all the company/union gobidee gook that things would be handled and you'd come out OK. That secure feeling has left me now and if this turns out to be true it just re-enforces my belief. Going into this upcoming contract and watching what may be a very important time for all, I just think this is the absolute wrong message to be sending. But then, over the last 15 years UPS seems to have a habit of shooting off it's nose in spite of it's face!

The 401k may be a risk and as some suggest a defined benefit but is it? You gotta think a little and not be risk adverse to understand from where I ask that question from. The bottomline in the present situation is which "hounds of hell" do you want controlling your retirement future? UPS or IBT! I say fire em' both, roll the lumpsum and let's go 401k.

Thanks to both UPS and IBT over the last several years of making my arguement for this move easier and easier. Keep up the outstanding work. Let's not be afraid to take a few steps off the UPS/IBT Plantation because as we go just a little further each time we may begin to see at somepoint that we don't need to go back at all. That is really what both sides fear the most!

JMHO

[mittam]

Originally Posted by wkmac

I know my coming comment will provoke the usual tripe from both sides but here goes anyway.

Since 97', the issue of pension has been a hot and getting hotter topic between management and union hourly. IMO management has every right to gloat and issue the "shutup and sitdown, you missed your chance" comments we so often hear on this subject when it involves union FT folk and to be honest they are in some ways right.

However, since that timeframe we've also heard that had we taken the deal that we'd be set, 30 and out any age, big money, etc. etc. etc. Now there has been nothing official that I know of announcing what the browntruth posted and it could very well just be a "let's stir em' up" deal but I have heard this very topic circulating amongst the talk of many a management person and the old adage, "where there's smoke, there's usually fire!"

With that said and going into the early talks with the union on the 08' contract where the pension will be a hot topic, I just find the timing of the bean counters to be just aweful. I can see where the union apologist will be wailing, "see where you'd be if you would have took there deal!" In one sense that may be correct but how many like me are already looking at working till 62' anyway just in the hope of lightening the load as it pertains to the insurance coverage premuim one has to pay in retirement. Not heard yet if that will change for management. Also management gets to work anywhere they so desire in retirement whereas we are very limited on a declining scale and the decline only comes as you get older which limits the potential of a 2nd and very different career if you so choose. So even with those factors when placed side by side, IMO it weights a little to the company side.

If they do make this move to 62 as browntruth and I've heard others not of Browncafe say is coming, it again just points to the fact that this company has come to following the pack on Wall Street and just chasing a number. UPS was once a hardnosed, tough place to work but come thick or thin, you felt pretty good about you future and you'd never ever hear of management getting shortchanged and even though I was never in that position I did feel some sense of security when you cut through all the company/union gobidee gook that things would be handled and you'd come out OK. That secure feeling has left me now and if this turns out to be true it just re-enforces my belief. Going into this upcoming contract and watching what may be a very important time for all, I just think this is the absolute wrong message to be sending. But then, over the last 15 years UPS seems to have a habit of shooting off it's nose in spite of it's face!

The 401k may be a risk and as some suggest a defined benefit but is it? You gotta think a little and not be risk adverse to understand from where I ask that question from. The bottomline in the present situation is which "hounds of hell" do you want controlling your retirement future? UPS or IBT! I say fire em' both, roll the lumpsum and let's go 401k.

Thanks to both UPS and IBT over the last several years of making my arguement for this move easier and easier. Keep up the outstanding work. Let's not be afraid to take a few steps off the UPS/IBT Plantation because as we go just a little further each time we may begin to see at somepoint that we don't need to go back at all. That is really what both sides fear the most!

JMHO

all these comments of 401k and pensoin and how long we have to work to 62 is exactly why we need to get rid of the teamsters and bring in the APWA time for a change!!!!!!!

[ups_vette]

Full time management are eligible to retire with full pension at age 62. They may decide to retire before reaching age 62 starting at age 55. There is a penalty for retiring before age 62. The pension you receive is reduced by 3% for each year of what your full pension would be if you continued working to age 62.
If you retire at age 55, your pension will be 79% of what your age 62 pension would be. If you retire at age 56, your pension will be 82% of what your full pension would be, and so on.

Talking with current UPS Management, there has been no official anouncement of any change to the pension plan for current management.

It's interesting to note that you become eligible for Social Security at age 62. Of course there's a reduction in the amount you receive if you accept Social Security at age 62 rather than wait till your reach 65. The Social Security Administration will tell you the amount you will receive at age 62 and what you will receive at age 65. In most cases, you are better off taking it at age 62, unless you plan on living to 100 and having Willard Scott wishing you a Happy 100th Birthday on the Today Show.

[nhguy]

Just wanted to clarify a couple of errors by the vette man. The normal retirement age for management is 65. You can retire early at age 55 as long as you have 25 years of service. If you don't have 25 years of service, the penalty is 3% a year up to age 65. You potentially could lose 30% of your pension. The whole pension program is very complex to understand. Management also has a matching 401k where the company will match up to 3% of your contributions with UPS stock. This 401k starts to disperse to you when you retire, without penalty in a monthly payout. I can assure you that the management pension is not a big paying pension. If you happen to get 30-35 years of service it can be a very good pension but those of us that were older when we started at UPS in most cases will only get 25 years in. The company hopes that between the pension, the stock you accumulate and the 401k plan, we should be able to live decent until we are eligible for our social security. Only 29 months left to go!

[trickpony1]

The "vette man" doesn't make mistakes.

[Cezanne]

Management's pension plan is not a big paying pension plan, yeah and pigs fly. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it based on your best or last five years, one half of my annual salary. What would be the salary of a manager with 25 years in, would it be correct to quote 100 grand, now add that matching UPS stock 401k and those MIP (annual stock bonuses) and I would wish I had that kind of retirement as an hourly.

If I am wrong on this please correct me, but provide facts and figures to justify that statement.

[traveler]

If the pension part is still the same as when I left it is 1/2 of the average of the highest five of the last ten years less the anticipated Social Security payments that will start at age 65. That turns out to be about 1/4 of those five years when the signature hits the retirement check. And, yes, it is reduced 3% for every year you begin to draw before 65 (reduced 30% if you collect at 55). Also, that is the single life payment. The number is reduced further if you elect to have the payment continue to your spouse if you go to the big brown truck in the sky first.

[nhguy]

Cezanne,
You are right that the pension is based on your five highest consectutive years of pay. Everyones salary in management is different. We are paid based on the grade of the job we work in. For example operations people are usually payed higher than staff. Just to give an idea on the pension, a supervisor with 25 years of service at 55 might draw a pension around $2500 to $3,000 a month (gross). We then have to pay taxes and some cost for our medical. A managers monthly pension might be $500.00 more a month. As I said earlier, it's a very complex program that has different payment options that you can select from. None of this includes the 401k or the personal stock each person might have. I can assure you that the average supervisors and managers who are retired are not living in luxary unless they have held onto their stock for a long time without selling or have been very successful in their personal investments. Don't have any facts but I would bet that most have sold shares over the years and you need to remember their was a period of years when the stock being issued was not a lot of money(1990's). Not complaining but don't think that we are all filthy rich. Most of us live pay check to pay check just like you do. If being in management meant you could be filthy rich, then why aren't people knocking the door down to get in. Too many people think of the old timers that left in the past ten years. The days of the millionaires are over.

[Cezanne]

Understand that things are not as rosey for management people now compared to the old timers who required alot of stock before it went public in the 90's. I do believe that the social security reduction in the UPS Retirement Plan was eliminated in the early 90's, could be wrong on that one. The plan was really set up for the high salary management people, can see how the non union adminisrative employees and low level supervisors get the crumbs. Do know that the plan was well run and well over 100 percent vested by now, that is one of the reasons that I do not understand why the Plan is would require it's participants to stay in longer, imagine cost savings in health and welfare considering medicare /medicad kicks in automatically at 65. In my area we went under the company health and welfare system years ago so guessing that your retiree's medical coverage is at 50 dollars a month also.

[tieguy]

Take me out and shoot me for saying this but managment is still well compensated. Compensation has changed and may be less in some cases but its still pretty darn good. None of us has seen the RSU process in action and it may end up being a very good deal. I think eventually they bump the retirement age up to 57 . I don't believe they will bump it to 62. We don't want to stay that long and they don't want us around that long.

[ups_vette]

Originally Posted by trickpony1

The "vette man" doesn't make mistakes.

The " Trickster" must be under the impression that I was a Feeder Driver, because, using his thought process, Feeder Drivers never make mistakes. Opps..he just made one.

[speeddemon]

My center is in Alabama and am a member of the teamsters. They changed our age of retirment from 55 to 62 three years ago. You can be sure on one thing, drivers going out on disability is going to skyrocket.

Originally Posted by tieguy

Take me out and shoot me for saying this but managment is still well compensated. Compensation has changed and may be less in some cases but its still pretty darn good. None of us has seen the RSU process in action and it may end up being a very good deal. I think eventually they bump the retirement age up to 57 . I don't believe they will bump it to 62. We don't want to stay that long and they don't want us around that long.

Tieguy,
If you would like i could introduce you to my new friend from a couple weeks back, what was his name "Gibby" i think......Anyways, UPPER management is well compensated. You were right on with everything else you said but you forgot the "UPPER". Supervisors and the newer managers get the crumbs from their feast

[Cezanne]

Come to think of it what ever did happen to Gibby (our disgrunted part time supervisor), did he get his chops busted. Several years ago we had a long term union employee lose her job for stating less workforce violence did old Gibby spouted. If they did not get him here it would be a matter of time

[No Talent Clown]

Effective this past Jan. 1 new full time management trainees that end up being hired in are being told they don't get medical bennies when they retire. IMO that is fine as long as everything is laid out on the table before they start.