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
Has IBT/CS been a wise steward of our pension?
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="ezrider" data-source="post: 52925"><p><font color="0000ff">It may be these funds APWA can point to and say if these guys can do it then why have they not done it for you</font></p><p></p><p>Wkmac I don't disagree with you regarding this and most any other things here. There's certainly nothing wrong with pointing to successful plans to show hourlies that there's evidence that success can be attained. All I'm saying is APWA reps should leave it at that and not try to entice hourlies with some mirage of a pot of gold monthly benefit that increases to double what most can hope to salvage now if they are lucky. There's just no way any bargaining agent can go into the 2008 talks with the goal being to get the company to not only bail the pensions out but double the payout on top of that after not only resisting thier efforts to evade the current mess in '97 but allowing IBT to give them the finger in public for two weeks. UPS's position likely will be "We tried to tell you then, and you shouldn't have been ****ting where you eat."</p><p></p><p>As for McDevitt's testimony, I'm sure he didn't walk in there with the idea of "Someday with the help of Congress, my company can double the retirement benefits of our unionized employees." The more likely agenda was to build the case for someday allowing the company to exit the plans at terms much more favorable to them than they currently are and nothing more. Just because he didn't necessarily lie under oath doesn't mean he told the whole truth about what the company's intentions are. I'd be looking for what he didn't say as well as what he did at this stage.</p><p></p><p>I too think an ideal situation for me would also be to just get the money up front in the form of 401k money and let me take it from there. If it helped the company get away from having to throw more money at another sinking ship like PBGC all the better it could be for all at the company. The big question would be would the majority of our co-horts support the idea and that I don't know for sure, but they might if CSPF and others were forced to open the books and they saw just where thier money that was entrusted to the "profesionals" was really going.</p><p></p><p>The only thing we may not view along the same line is the issue of individual's interests vs. the overall good of the workforce. You may shake your head in disbelief but I do still feel loyalty to UPS and especially to workers like yourself and others who lobbied for things such as the 401k that I was fortunate to begin participation in very early into my employment here. I may not like everything I see coming from the high levels but I'm greatful that I was with a company that was run well enough to survive a strike that could have put a not-so-well-run company out of business. I even still feel loyalty to many managers who I know had to absorb a load of change in thier jobs as a result of that strike. They could have easily turned bitter given the circumstances but were big enough not to hold me responsible personally and I'm a better employee today for it.</p><p></p><p>Just because I'm fortunate enough not to be trapped in CSPF doesn't mean the situation doesn't affect me. If it gets worse, it has ramifications for all the employees no matter where they are. That's why I'd be willing to make the tough choices now. If taking a pay freeze enabled the short-timers in CS to retire comfortably now rather than having to risk being confined to a wheelchair in less than 10 years then I'll do it. The few guys we have in my building that are in thier 50's are out often months out of the year anyway on injury. I don't see that trend changing and if it grows in proportion to increases in stops per-driver and weight limits then it reaches the point of diminishing returns for the company. This isn't a job that someone can do for 30 to 35 years anymore. Things are changing and I think the best way to address changes is to admit that there need to be changes. </p><p></p><p>A UPSers only union found on the premise of serving the direct interests of the workers and the company may be a noble ideal in origin. But for it to ever get past IBT much less hold up in bargaining sessions against the company, it's leaders and the members who pick them will have to put being realistic for the sake of all ahead of being idealistic for the sake of the few. We let IBT and maybe others deny us the facts many times over and it's caught up. We can't afford to do it again. There's no walking out on reality. It always will be there. Lets deal with it now or it may deal us out later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ezrider, post: 52925"] <font color="0000ff">It may be these funds APWA can point to and say if these guys can do it then why have they not done it for you</font> Wkmac I don't disagree with you regarding this and most any other things here. There's certainly nothing wrong with pointing to successful plans to show hourlies that there's evidence that success can be attained. All I'm saying is APWA reps should leave it at that and not try to entice hourlies with some mirage of a pot of gold monthly benefit that increases to double what most can hope to salvage now if they are lucky. There's just no way any bargaining agent can go into the 2008 talks with the goal being to get the company to not only bail the pensions out but double the payout on top of that after not only resisting thier efforts to evade the current mess in '97 but allowing IBT to give them the finger in public for two weeks. UPS's position likely will be "We tried to tell you then, and you shouldn't have been ****ting where you eat." As for McDevitt's testimony, I'm sure he didn't walk in there with the idea of "Someday with the help of Congress, my company can double the retirement benefits of our unionized employees." The more likely agenda was to build the case for someday allowing the company to exit the plans at terms much more favorable to them than they currently are and nothing more. Just because he didn't necessarily lie under oath doesn't mean he told the whole truth about what the company's intentions are. I'd be looking for what he didn't say as well as what he did at this stage. I too think an ideal situation for me would also be to just get the money up front in the form of 401k money and let me take it from there. If it helped the company get away from having to throw more money at another sinking ship like PBGC all the better it could be for all at the company. The big question would be would the majority of our co-horts support the idea and that I don't know for sure, but they might if CSPF and others were forced to open the books and they saw just where thier money that was entrusted to the "profesionals" was really going. The only thing we may not view along the same line is the issue of individual's interests vs. the overall good of the workforce. You may shake your head in disbelief but I do still feel loyalty to UPS and especially to workers like yourself and others who lobbied for things such as the 401k that I was fortunate to begin participation in very early into my employment here. I may not like everything I see coming from the high levels but I'm greatful that I was with a company that was run well enough to survive a strike that could have put a not-so-well-run company out of business. I even still feel loyalty to many managers who I know had to absorb a load of change in thier jobs as a result of that strike. They could have easily turned bitter given the circumstances but were big enough not to hold me responsible personally and I'm a better employee today for it. Just because I'm fortunate enough not to be trapped in CSPF doesn't mean the situation doesn't affect me. If it gets worse, it has ramifications for all the employees no matter where they are. That's why I'd be willing to make the tough choices now. If taking a pay freeze enabled the short-timers in CS to retire comfortably now rather than having to risk being confined to a wheelchair in less than 10 years then I'll do it. The few guys we have in my building that are in thier 50's are out often months out of the year anyway on injury. I don't see that trend changing and if it grows in proportion to increases in stops per-driver and weight limits then it reaches the point of diminishing returns for the company. This isn't a job that someone can do for 30 to 35 years anymore. Things are changing and I think the best way to address changes is to admit that there need to be changes. A UPSers only union found on the premise of serving the direct interests of the workers and the company may be a noble ideal in origin. But for it to ever get past IBT much less hold up in bargaining sessions against the company, it's leaders and the members who pick them will have to put being realistic for the sake of all ahead of being idealistic for the sake of the few. We let IBT and maybe others deny us the facts many times over and it's caught up. We can't afford to do it again. There's no walking out on reality. It always will be there. Lets deal with it now or it may deal us out later. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Has IBT/CS been a wise steward of our pension?
Top