1
10 Pt
Guest
People were told that if they kept voting no they could stay in the company plan. It prolonged coverage but Teamcare was inevitable because Fred Z and Tim S did not get an MOU.
That's not why many members voted No. The plan was restrictive and more costly to a lot of members than what many had.The funny part about that is.... Teamcare has been financially sound.
Opponents try and claim, they "needed" to be infused with new plan participants.
BS.
-Bug-
Plus Hoffa told the President that it was unsustainable at that time.
The C6 plan was hugely dimished compared to what we had for so many years and the company was netting at least 4 times what it was twenty years ago.
We didn't believe that consistantly voting No would keep us in the company plan but the plan got enhanced after it was voted down the first time.
Who was negotiating with whom? It looked like trust played a pivotal part of the problem.
I'm glad to see that the prevailing attitude of who is a "true Teamster" is still alive and well and selectively dispensed on here and elsewhere.An informative post, by a true Teamster member.
-Bug-