11Year Central States Pension Freeze

Discussion in 'The Archives' started by brown666, Jul 20, 2002.

  1. brown666

    brown666 Guest

    An eleven year pension freeze makes this contract a hard sell for myself and hopefully most of the UPS Teamsters in the CSPF.The freeze is totally unacceptable.This contract deserves a NO vote because of the freeze. Again, a no vote is the ONLY vote!!!!
  2. deliver_man

    deliver_man Guest

    You can blame the freeze on your local, not the national contract. Here at local639 30 and out's are leaving with $4200 a month, and we did it with the same money everybody got. Instead of blaming the contract, focus on the real problem, your local elected union officals.
  3. lr1937

    lr1937 Guest

    I agree with deliver m. UPS has made major contributions to you pension. I would suggest that a no vote will not fix the problem. Get involved with your union and get answers about what they are doing with the pension money ups gives them.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    What's this about a freeze on Central States Pension Plan? Can you give details. And as for blame, the only thing the company does is give the money to the union and they do the rest. IMO company has no blame whatsoever in this. In fact, from their position they gave a huge increase to the wage, health and welfare benefits plan (.98 cents per hour in 97' verses $1.46 in 2002') which will help prop up the plans and further erode their chance to take the whole thing over. I see it more as a true concern for the welfare of UPSers than the union threats of strike. Had I been Eskew and the boys I'd given real serious thought of calling the unions bluff and end this thing once and for all. Good thing they are more level headed than me! LOL!
  5. proups

    proups Guest

    brown666: A no vote won't change the pension plan problems.

    As mentioned by several others in this post, the CSPF is basically a slush fund for the Teamsters. They, by law, don't even have to keep it fully funded. I have spent some time doing research on the CSPF, and I'm with wkmac - UPS should call the union's bluff and get our (UPS) money to UPS people.

    Please quit calling for a no vote in your posts before you do some research. We have some part-timers that post on this site, and your experience with UPS could influence them to think that a no vote will correct the things you are complaining about.....especially when your issues have nothing to do with the contract. What does a 11 year freeze on the union's pension plan have to do with a 6 year contract?
  6. brown666

    brown666 Guest

    A pension freeze has everything to do with the contract. It means hard working UPSers won't see any increases in the CSPF for 11 years.The retired pension payments will not increase for 11 years.The numbers of UPS Teamsters in the CSPF is great. The CSPF is not a slush fund for the Teamsters.All members in the CSPF deserve better.I realize it is not the best managed fund, but it is the retirement fund for a large part of the UPS workforce!All locals in the CSPF need to take s serious look at this freeze!
  7. proups

    proups Guest

    brown666: take out your old contract book, if you have it. The ONLY language in it about the pension funds has to do with the contribution that UPS will make. Nothing in there about what happens to it once it makes it to Central States. The contract has NOTHING to do with the way the fund is managed.

    If you will remember 1997, that is the primary reason we went on strike. UPS wanted to take over the pension fund for UPS employees. The union made us walk because of that. That was their battle - holding on to that fund.

    By the way, why is it that the Teamsters have been under government control for so long?

    Do some research. Ask your local some questions. But be careful, the BA's might call you a troublemaker if you ask the wrong questions!
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    I share your concern over this issue of retirement and Central States but we part ways when it comes to blame. But I will give your point of view a chance and reconsider mine if you can do me one favor. Could you please name the UPS Trustees that sit on the Central States oversight board? I do know that UPS has Trustees along with the Union's that oversee the 401k plan but their oversight has to do with who our plan is with and what different investment vehicles we have to choose from ie self managed (individual stocks), mutual funds, indexes, etc. I've never seen the names or how many trustees the company has sitting on the Central States Board so if you can supply this information I might just change my opinion and join with you on this issue.
  9. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    There are ten trustees for the Central States Pension fund. Five union and five company. UPS only has one. Daniel J. Brutto has represented UPS's interest since June of 1998. The rest of the management side comes from Master Freight companies.

    Obviously a majority of the ten, including at least one from the union side do not truly represent the people who retire with this fund.

    I think it should be manditory that trustees should be members of the retirement fund and only this fund. That would truly make them fairly represent it.
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    Thanks for the info. This does put a somewhat different spin on everything especially if this has been the case all along. If so, this may mean that the company "may" have had knowledge of some of the fund dipping that many union leaders have got in trouble for and even went to jail for. Kinda hard to scream that your brother had been hitting the cookie jar when there are crumbs all over your face! BTW:To you Brown Bleeders, don't get your drawers in a wad because I said they "MAY" have knowledge, not they "DID" have knowledge.

    At the very least, the fund should be setup in such as way that it is fully funded, is capable of generating a profits and provides for cost of living increases for current and future retirees. Full funding will also allow companies like UPS to no longer have to contribute or at least on a limited basis thus freeing up money to re-invest in UPS to create more jobs. As more employees are added, UPS can pay a one time fee to add new employees to the fund and new companies added to Central States coverage would also pay a onetime fee although theirs would be a somewhat higher amount. Also, this would also encourage employee retention because everytime employee is added UPS has to pay that fee so it would be cost effective for UPS to do a good job of hiring and retaining employees. I'm sure there are many complications to this idea but it's just food for thought on another way to run a railroad, so to speak! JMO.

    I also hope Mr. Hoffa hits the freight companies to pony up on benefits also. I see where several in recent days have posted some very nice earnings including Yellow Freight. Time for these guys to step up rather than make UPS haul the load for everyone!
  11. twomore

    twomore Guest

  12. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    I disagree on the fully funded theory. I believe that is only advantageous to the company as it absolves them of all non contractual obligations to financial support of the plans. It also makes future benefit improvements less likely.

    I believe upper 80, lower 90 percent is a more desireable target. Especially if it can be maintained in this current deplorable stock market environment.
  13. badhab1

    badhab1 Guest

    So you think the company should be obligated to non contractual financial support? Sorry, that's a little scary to me. Where does the union's responsibility lie. It is a little heavy handed to suggest the company is obligated to cover your ass should the union officials, elected by the way, fail in being fiscally responsible to the members. JMHO
  14. robonono

    robonono Guest

    Bravo, badhab1!
  15. thedrooler

    thedrooler Guest

    Union officials not fiscally responsible? Why that would never happen!! They have always taken care of pension funds entrusted to them! Haven't they?

  16. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    I guess we just see this from different viewpoints. I see no problem with a fully funded pension plan that is not only self sustaining but actually grows to allow for future increases. If this can be done with UPS not addding one more cent, IMO this is a good thing. Besides, if we save them money on the pension maybe we could get them to pony up more in pay to fatten our 401k's or 401k matching would be nice. I really like that idea! JMO

  17. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest


    Perhaps you misunderstood as well as being misinformed. Non contractual obligations was referring to the laws of our nation that exist to protect pension funds. There is nothing heavy handed in that statement.

    You are obviously misinformed in many ways about Teamster pension funds. First the trustees are composed of equal amounts of Teamster officials and company officials, so any mismanagement would be a shared responsibility or crime. Also the Teamster officials are appointed and not elected.


    same old drooler.


    Yes, I would say it is a perspective difference between us as I, like you would have no problems with UPS not contributing if the fund was self sustaining and growing to allow future improvements. I am more concerned with what if the fund is mismanaged (on accident, on purpose, or without fault)? For instance, let us say it went fully funded five years ago just before the last contract and UPS was allowed to quit contributing both legally and contractually. Five years later the stock market has toileted and possibly/probably has at least a ways to still go down. Without continuing contributions from companies such as UPS the extrapolated profits used to predict that the fund was self sustaining, let alone growing for future improvements would be false,but UPS would have no obligations to save my and all other participant employees ass [​IMG].

    So we are not really diametrically opposed on this subject, rather I have a more negative view on the potential ability of management and Teamster trustees ability to manage the fund without continuing contributions.
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    Excellent point about the market tanking and putting pressure on the fund. This is a very valid and in our case a very real concern. However pension payments are a bargaining issue from contract to contract and formulas (like an inflation formula for example) can be setup to kick in when certain events take place. But your point is a very good one.

    As for the trustees, company or union, I would not trust them one ounce and this is why I believe the best scenario is to place the money on a weekly basis in an employee's retirement account (401k, etc.) of his or her on choosing. The only thing the union would do with this is negociate future increases for inflation or whatever but once the weekly payment was made to the employees account, the company or union has no control and in no way could get at that money. Then retirement or leaving the company revolves around issues that in no way pertain to retirement itself because that money goes with you. In the case of 401k your retirement date may be 59 1/2 at the earliest, whereas under the current system it could be a few years earlier so this is one drawback but I'd give that up gladly for an independent system.

    Nothing is perfect but I just don't trust the current system to be there until I die and I plan to live forever. LOL!!!!

    Enjoy the points and thanks for making me think. This Bud's for you![​IMG]
  19. robonono

    robonono Guest


    The IBT will NEVER agree to let you control "their" money in your own 401K.
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Guest

    Neither will the company. I know because I talked with them on this. I'm not sure who laughed harder or thought I was crazier, the company or the union. Both sides want to control this for various reasons and I think for now we are stuck with what we have. I still believe the best solution is to turn all the money over to the employee and give him or her the responsibility of setting up and maintaining his/her own retirement as well as medical, dental, etc. etc. plan. BTW: I also believe the gov't should not be involved with worker's comp, unemployment, medicare, etc. but let the employee purchase those plans from private companies. JMO.