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="wkmac" data-source="post: 52953"><p>Don't know how many saw this in yesterday's news but it worth taking note of. It does give good argument for those opposed to a or any company run plan although CS in one of their recent magazine issues discussed what would happen if the gov't took over our fund and some suggested this might be a precursor to this really happening. That did give pause for thought but thankfully so far this hasn't happened. The more and more I think on this folks the more I believe the problem is the medical not the retirement part itself and I'll give you my reasons why. First off they vastly raised the premiums a retiree has to pay with a declining scale from 57 to 62 years of age. Now why 62? Isn't 62 one of the earliest ages you can qualify for medicare which by law becomes your primary coverage once you reach certain age brackets? If so this in a sense gets CS off the hook for a bulk of cost coverage. Most of the formulas I've seen have those of us with 20 years or more at the time of the CS cuts being able to walk away at 62' with the max. payout if you have the years service along with the least amount of out of pocket for the insurance premiums. Fall somewhere outside that employee group and it looks like 65 years of age is the magic number. Will this all change if the Federal gov't rolls up the coverage ages for medicare and social security? Most all agree that even with all the coverage over social security and the related concerns or non-concerns, pick your political poison, the real trouble on the immediate horizon is medicare which our esteemed sorry asses in Washington on bothsides won't talk about or give the time of day too. Could what we see on the larger scale with Social Security showing some longterm concerns true but the medicare side being in a real dicey situation almost right now be a mirror image so to speak of what we are seeing in out own pension plans? Just thinking out loud with this whole side of medical costs just to see what thoughts and ideas others had.</p><p></p><p>Trickpony,</p><p>Although I thought your observation about the MIP, thrift plan was dead on my other comments concerning how we express opinions to say the management folks about their current MIP problem was not directed at you. If you will noticed I used terms like we, many of us and yes I was even including myself. There was a time many of us and yes many even myself would have gone to the MIP Redesign thread and popped off with "We told you so" or "and you wanted us to trust big brown" but that hasn't happened and you could make the argument, maybe not in the end a valid one, that those type of comments could be justified. On the flip side, none of the management folks have been overhere blasting us with "Well you struck for it in 97' so live with it" and yep there is a thread of truth to that on the surface but I think there was a whole lot more to it and I also think the pension offer was a last ditch effort by the company to soil the strike impact as much as they could and to be honest I'd do the same thing in their position. I do agree they knew something was coming and whether or not the offer was really genuine will really never truly be known IMO. We can only speculate. The bottomline is bothsides are facing situations that aren't good. With our current pension problems and no telling what looms on the horizon and now management is slapped with a compensation cut which IMO will force more good folks to look towards the door as an option coupled with the fact many good folks now hourly who were thinking management may decide to stay where they are. Through all this both sides held their tongues and that was the real point. I consider that a good thing and a positive. As I said, those of us in the trenches whether hourly or management have a lot more in common than either we realize or it probably more than we want to admit.</p><p></p><p>Sawman,</p><p>There's several problems with your bust the union idea. I think OK2BC has it dead on that the IBT is now the pet toy of Glenlake and getting even moreso by the day. However, if we did go on strike in 2008' the way some management folks feel right now I'd not be surprised to see some of them out there with us but I just don't think that will happen either way. I know down South you'd have a large group of especially FTer's who just might not walk out to begin with and you have a good percentage of PTer's in numerous locations outside say the really big hubs who are small business owners during the day and use UPS for the insurnace coverage who aren't in the union to begin with and wouldn't walk and a segement of the college students probably either wouldn't or wouldn't stay out long especially is they saw a large segement of FTer's going across. UPS doesn't have to worry about a strike as based on what I see it will fall on it's face almost from the start. Based on what I hear out of the Carolina's you too know full good and well how many drivers have left the IBT completely and do you think they will honor a IBT picketline if that happens in 08'? Who you kiddin' Son!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 52953"] Don't know how many saw this in yesterday's news but it worth taking note of. It does give good argument for those opposed to a or any company run plan although CS in one of their recent magazine issues discussed what would happen if the gov't took over our fund and some suggested this might be a precursor to this really happening. That did give pause for thought but thankfully so far this hasn't happened. The more and more I think on this folks the more I believe the problem is the medical not the retirement part itself and I'll give you my reasons why. First off they vastly raised the premiums a retiree has to pay with a declining scale from 57 to 62 years of age. Now why 62? Isn't 62 one of the earliest ages you can qualify for medicare which by law becomes your primary coverage once you reach certain age brackets? If so this in a sense gets CS off the hook for a bulk of cost coverage. Most of the formulas I've seen have those of us with 20 years or more at the time of the CS cuts being able to walk away at 62' with the max. payout if you have the years service along with the least amount of out of pocket for the insurance premiums. Fall somewhere outside that employee group and it looks like 65 years of age is the magic number. Will this all change if the Federal gov't rolls up the coverage ages for medicare and social security? Most all agree that even with all the coverage over social security and the related concerns or non-concerns, pick your political poison, the real trouble on the immediate horizon is medicare which our esteemed sorry asses in Washington on bothsides won't talk about or give the time of day too. Could what we see on the larger scale with Social Security showing some longterm concerns true but the medicare side being in a real dicey situation almost right now be a mirror image so to speak of what we are seeing in out own pension plans? Just thinking out loud with this whole side of medical costs just to see what thoughts and ideas others had. Trickpony, Although I thought your observation about the MIP, thrift plan was dead on my other comments concerning how we express opinions to say the management folks about their current MIP problem was not directed at you. If you will noticed I used terms like we, many of us and yes I was even including myself. There was a time many of us and yes many even myself would have gone to the MIP Redesign thread and popped off with "We told you so" or "and you wanted us to trust big brown" but that hasn't happened and you could make the argument, maybe not in the end a valid one, that those type of comments could be justified. On the flip side, none of the management folks have been overhere blasting us with "Well you struck for it in 97' so live with it" and yep there is a thread of truth to that on the surface but I think there was a whole lot more to it and I also think the pension offer was a last ditch effort by the company to soil the strike impact as much as they could and to be honest I'd do the same thing in their position. I do agree they knew something was coming and whether or not the offer was really genuine will really never truly be known IMO. We can only speculate. The bottomline is bothsides are facing situations that aren't good. With our current pension problems and no telling what looms on the horizon and now management is slapped with a compensation cut which IMO will force more good folks to look towards the door as an option coupled with the fact many good folks now hourly who were thinking management may decide to stay where they are. Through all this both sides held their tongues and that was the real point. I consider that a good thing and a positive. As I said, those of us in the trenches whether hourly or management have a lot more in common than either we realize or it probably more than we want to admit. Sawman, There's several problems with your bust the union idea. I think OK2BC has it dead on that the IBT is now the pet toy of Glenlake and getting even moreso by the day. However, if we did go on strike in 2008' the way some management folks feel right now I'd not be surprised to see some of them out there with us but I just don't think that will happen either way. I know down South you'd have a large group of especially FTer's who just might not walk out to begin with and you have a good percentage of PTer's in numerous locations outside say the really big hubs who are small business owners during the day and use UPS for the insurnace coverage who aren't in the union to begin with and wouldn't walk and a segement of the college students probably either wouldn't or wouldn't stay out long especially is they saw a large segement of FTer's going across. UPS doesn't have to worry about a strike as based on what I see it will fall on it's face almost from the start. Based on what I hear out of the Carolina's you too know full good and well how many drivers have left the IBT completely and do you think they will honor a IBT picketline if that happens in 08'? Who you kiddin' Son! [/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