Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?

[brownmonster]

Just think how much more competitive they could be if they more closely followed our business model yet kept their labor costs at a more manageable level?

Dannyboy mentioned in another thread that, with the advent of PAS/EDD, he predicts a top rate for UPS drivers of approx. $13.50/hr by the year 2020. I will be retired (hopefully) by that time but his prediction may not be as far-fetched as some may think. We all know that with PAS/EDD UPS can hire someone off the street and with minimal training that person would be able to do the job by simply following EDD. I am not saying that this person would provide the same level of service or be nearly as efficient as a seasoned driver but this was part of the thought process in implementing PAS/EDD.

Even before PAS/EDD it wasn't that hard to learn how to deliver boxes. We all had to sort thru the truck and run areas blind but we figured it out. If UPS drivers are making $13.50 in 2020 the economy now would look rosy in comparison. We can never grow as an economy if wages continue to drop. Why are americans so far in debt? Wages aren't keeping up.

 

[govols019]

Or maybe people have a tendency to buy crap they can't afford.

 

[over9five]

Or maybe people have a tendency to buy crap they can't afford.

There's no such thing, I've got plastic!!!!!!!

 

[JonFrum]

[CAUTION: This post contains sound reasoning based on actual facts. If this may disturb you, please back slowly away from your computer, and read no further.]

PobreCarlos, so you don't believe the Judge, who legally oversees the Fund, is responsible, or the Trustees who, as fiduciaries, have a legal responsibility to run the Fund soley in the best interests of the participants are responsible, or the Wall Street "named fiduciaries," who are legally responsible for the Fund's investment decisions, are responsible; but the IBT is responsible, even though the Fund is a completely seperate legal entity going back to Feb. 1,1955 when the IBT originally sponsored its creation as an independent Trust Fund? Well isn't that special.

You do understand that Union Trustees, as fiduciaries, are legally prohibited from acting in the interests of the Teamsters Union? And Employer Trustees, as fiduciaries, are legally prohibited from acting in the interests of their respective employers? You do understand that UPS signed documents appointing all the Employer Trustees as their representatives, and also ratifies the actions of the Board of Trustees, so long as they are acting within the Law? The Employer Trustees are UPS' representatives, just as a hired lawyer is UPS' representative in court, even if the lawyer is not a regular UPS employee, and may also represent UPS' competitors on other occasions.

What I say is spelled out in ERISA, the Law which prescribes in great detail, how the various types of pension and health & welfare funds must operate. . .
http://benefitslink.com/erisa/crossreference.html

I think you're making up the part about Central States telling UPS their Withdrawal Liability was only $4 billion when it was actually $6.1 billion. ERISA provides the formula for calculation of Withdrawal Liability. They just plug in the data and crunch the numbers. Can you post Central State's $4 billion calculation that you claim they gave to UPS?

Withdrawal Liability is like a mortgage. You get to live in your house and call it your own, even though it is only partially paid for and the rest you owe to the bank. To sell the house and move out you must first finish buying the house in full by paying the remainder of what you owe to the bank. You owed the entire purchase price of the house all along. Announcing that you are moving away triggers the balance to come due.

In the early days of multi-employer pension funds, employers would leave the funds and not pay their Withdrawal Liability because they could legally do that. This left the funds shortchanged, and the rest of the remaining fund's employers had to pick up the slack unfairly. In 1980 Congress mandated that withdrawing employers would have to settle their accounts in full before leaving. They couldn't just leave town and skip out on their debts.

You say that Central States is in financial trouble because the IBT drove some of its contributing employers out of business and the remaining employers had to shoulder the burden the bankrupt contributors left unpaid. There is some truth to this because this is exactly how multi-employer pension funds are designed. This is their very reason for being! It's an insurance arrangement. All the contributing employers agree to make up the difference if any one employer goes belly-up and can't pay the fund all it owes. In a single-employer fund, if the one and only contributing employer goes bankrupt, the fund is terminated and taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. In a multi-employer fund like Central States, the other one or two thousand employers pick up the slack. There is safety in numbers. That's why the PBGC's historical records indicate that single-employer funds fail 100 times more often than multi-employer funds. After all, single-employer funds are totally dependent on just their one employer. All their eggs are in one basket.

I sometimes wonder what made UPS join multi-empoyer funds. given they are based on the idea that if UPS successfully puts it various Teamster-represented competitors in the package and freight business into bankruptcy by providing low prices and better service, then UPS must pay a portion of those bankrupt employers' unpaid Withdrawal Liability. Seems to diminsh the financial victory. But UPS has been in numerous such funds for decades, didn't ask this time to withdraw from any but the Central States Fund, and even signed a Memorandum of Understanding that they have such a firm commitment to staying in all the other funds for the next ten years that they won't even suggest leaving, either in negotiations or elsewhere! Go figure.

You say Central States suffers because the Teamsters drove some of its contributing employers out of business, but the Western Conference Pension Fund, which is the largest fund, was 100% funded (or nearly so) during this period. Meaning it had no Withdrawal Liability. Any employer could walk away at any time because those employers were fully paid-up and thus owed nothing additional. Tell me, how can one fund be financially healthy and the other, next door, in trouble, and it all be the fault of the Teamsters driving employers out of business? Some of these employers were nationwide and had operations in both the Central States area and the Western Conference area. With regional employers, some were in one area, others were in the other area. How do you account for the dramatic difference in fund performance when the Teamsters are presumably equally toxic to employers in both areas? Shouldn't the Western Conference Fund be in even worse shape than Central States since it is so much bigger and therefore so much more exposed to the Teamster's harmful effects?

As to UPS's proposal to withdraw from the pension plans in 1997, did you read the actual booklet they sent us? It was a sales job so it didn't have all the details, and it spun everything in a positive way. But if you read it critically, it was a very bad deal. It appeared to offer only a marginally acceptible deal to the handful of members who would be retireing immediately, so as to "buy" their contract ratification vote. The rest of us would be increasingly screwed as time went on. UPS also famously refused to say there would not be a Social Security Offset. That alone would have reduced our pensions a thousand dollars or more an month, and was a deal breaker all by itself.

Ah, the many joys of pension fund analysis.

 

[dannyboy]

Upstate

We all know that with PAS/EDD UPS can hire someone off the street and with minimal training that person would be able to do the job by simply following EDD. I am not saying that this person would provide the same level of service or be nearly as efficient as a seasoned driver but this was part of the thought process in implementing PAS/EDD.

The problem is that we currently dont provide the same quality service we did just 5 years ago.

Some un-named brain trust here at UPS decided that main street USA is the center point for adding and cutting a route. That means that two or three days a week, we add or take away a route that is predominately business, and transfer that work to other drivers that are close by. These drivers then lose some of the outer fringes of their route, and become more condensed.

Problem is that all the areas affected, and the customers along this baseline are all or mostly businesses. Some large, a lot of small. Businesses that have depended on UPS to make deliveries in the morning, and pick them up in the afternoon. Been that way since the early 60's and 70's.

Now it is not unusual for one of the drivers to actually make the delivery after another driver has made the pickup. Or people that have always had their delivery in the morning, getting them after 3. One customer asked the other day why his former time for delivery is now his pickup time, with his former pickup time being his new delivery time when the route is missing.

But darn, it sure looks good on paper!

And what a more glorious atmosphere for FDX to sop up more business. They dont seem to be as organized as we are, but the customer does not seem to suffer from their lack of distribution glitz or IE awards from the geek squad magazines.

Not that long ago, one whole section of businesses did not get a delivery from Monday through Thursday because of the time factor of getting them delivered before they close. Granted in this case, the driver was partially responsible, but management played the game with the loss of customer service.

So tell me, what more can UPS do to run off its customers?

One last thought.

For all of the hot air that baloney brings, he does have a valid point about the MEPP's in that FDX could not handle all that extra money needed to help fund some of the plans out there that the Teamsters need funded. I would suspect that Fred would rather shut it down than become union.

Should that happen, what happens next? Who better than the Obama'nites to take over FDX and run them as well. Cause sure as you and I are sitting here, they would never allow the only real competitor of ours to fold and let us become the only game in town.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jon;

Loved your "caution" remark. It would have been nice, however, to actually FIND some "sound reasoning" and "actual facts" contained in the post that followed it. Unfortunately, I didn't.

Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that you DIDN'T do the suggested reading (BIG surprise - a Teamster who won't inform himself. Who would have thought it!). 'Course, given that you WON'T inform yourself, it's not difficult to see why you probably aren't capable of presenting any "sound reasoning" or much in the way of "actual facts", either. So perhaps I need to put it to you a bit more bluntly.

(1) You seem to be pushing the proposition that the Teamsters themselves have absolutely no control over the fund. If so, then would you care to explain why they signed that "Letter of Understanding" with UPS as a codicil to the contract before last....a codicil that specified that the union would press the trustees for FULL FUNDING OF CENTRAL STATES like the Western Fund?

(2) In terms of your....

"You say that Central States is in financial trouble because the IBT drove some of its contributing employers out of business and the remaining employers had to shoulder the burden the bankrupt contributors left unpaid. There is some truth to this because this is exactly how multi-employer pension funds are designed."

...did you READ the Lynch Testimony I gave a link to? Did you absorb the reasoning there? And, after that, did you READ the Sprague v CSPF ruling, in which there were things you seem to be in denial about that were stipulated by BOTH sides? I.e - "SOME TRUTH"?!?!?! Just how deep in the manure do you have your head buried???? What will you say next...that there might be "some truth" in the presumption that John Wilkes Booth assasinated Lincoln?

As to why UPS involved itself in a multiple employer fund, I think it's obvious; it trusted the Teamsters to be an organization of its WORD...both when it entered into the agreement initially in terms of maintaining an organized industry, and even again during the contract before last, when they AGREED to work to correct the situation. Of course, the company eventually realized that trusting Teamsters is like pissing in the wind; it's just a no-go. If you want to blame UPS to that extent, then you go right ahead. You could consider the company as the bunt of the joke like the one in the old "Animal House" line, I guess; i.e. - to paraphrase, something like the Teamsters laughing and telling UPS "Heh', You f_cked up! You trusted us!" Call us "Flounder" if you want.

Meanwhile, referring to your mention of the pamphlet sent to you by the company as a "sales lead"; surely, as what appears to be a confirmed unionist, I think you know as well as I just how far the company could go by way of "informing" represented employees. As it was, the union complained that the company was passing too much information on directly. In short, don't complain that lack of information, or the context of it on the company; that's COMPLETELY the union's doing.

As for being "increasingly screwed" as time went on...is that right? Do you think that the UPS members of Central States would have been "increasingly screwed" to the extent of the SIX BILLION DOLLARS that was eventually LOST to their retirement accounts (not counting, of course, excess payments not credited to them personally before that withdrawal)? Really? Do you know how much SIX BILLION is, divided among all the eligible participants? Or, for that matter, assuming that the company kept even 2/3rds (got that? TWO THIRDS!) of it, do you realize what TWO BILLION would have meant to the UPS participants? Talk about "increasingly screwed" all you want...but there's no comparison with what UPS might (read that; "might") have done compared to what the Teamsters DID do. Just the money UPS spent on withdrawal alone would have covered ALL their particpants pensions at a higher level than there going to receive now, even with continued contributions on the "alone" level.

As for your "UPS ratifies the trustees actions", that's complete and utter bullsh_t; many's the time that there have been split+1 trustees votes in which the union "bought out" an "employer" trustee, and the remaining employer trustees were over-ridden...without ratifying ANYTHING! That's exactly why UPS, for many, many years, refused to even participate on the board because the union trustees were NOT solely interested in the participants welfare.

Lastly, do you recall over just the last couple of weeks how it's been reported in the news how the Teamsters were putting pressure on their investment advisors for NOT supporting the EFCA? Or how they threatened to PULL THEIR ACCOUNTS if the advisors didn't come around? That your "completely separate legal entity", is it?

I submit that it's far from "separate"...and, given that we're talking about the Teamsters, since when has the word "legal" meant all that much? You're talking about how it's supposed to be; I'm talking how it IS; i.e. - there's a reason the union itself (as well as the fund) is under a form of trusteeship. We're talking about esentially a criminal organization here, remember? And one that signed a consent decree acknowledging that criminality.

As a final note, regarding Western, I (1) point to the codicil mentioned above (2) note that Western isn't doing all that well now either (although the UNION trustees out there, unlike the ones in Central States, did NOT insist on hiring a "go-getter" investment firm that concentrated on equities, but rather one that focused on the far more secure fixed investment route), and (3) that even if you give Western full credit, that still means that LESS THAN HALF of the Teamsters have secure pensions (remember, CS isn't the only fund in trouble, and that in terms of the number of retired participants, it's STILL bigger than Western)

As for your other questions, again, I suggest you read the documentation. If you're too lazy to do so - as it appears you are - then fine and dandy...but please don't come back here crying with any more of that same ol' worn-out, stale Teamsters crappola; over the last forty years, I've had more than my fill of it.

 

[PobreCarlos]

In terms of the "legal separation" the Teamsters supposedly have from JonFrum's perspective, I suggest readers take a look at the article entitled "Labor pushes Wall Street on card check"

Some blurbs from it;

"The labor movement is taking square aim at Wall Street with a new tool in its fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act: the hundreds of billions of dollars in pension funds it manages for union workers and retirees, some of it held by the same firms that are fighting the provision known as "card check."

"The letter, from the two top officials of Teamsters Local 507 in Cleveland, Albert Mixon and Carl Pecoraro, who are also trustees of the union's health, welfare and pension funds, says some pension fund managers "are undermining the interests" of the union"

"Financial industry officials took a darker view of the survey. "The fact that union bosses would try and shake down financial institutions by asking that they disclose information" about the bill "is beyond outrageous," said an aide to one trade organization, who – like other industry officials rattled by the letters – refused to speak on the record. He also called it "troubling that Big Labor would use their pension plans as the bargaining chip."

"So far, it's not clear than any of the unions have pulled their pension funds from firms supporting EFCA, or are close to doing so. But it's also clear the threat -- implied but not made explicit in the letters -- has gotten the attention of the firms, who fear that's the next step. So far, there's no sign of firms backing out of the card-check fight because of the survey. Labor backers have nonetheless cheered the new tactic in the no-holds-barred fight for EFCA."

...among others.

I suggest that anyone who's inclined to munch on the Pablum Teamster apologists like Jon want to feed them read the article first.

 

[iowa boy]

please, please stop feeding the troll

 

[PobreCarlos]

please, please stop feeding the troll

Grin...wanna' keep those good ol' Teamsters boys and girls heads buried in the sand, 'eh? God forbid that they actually be presented with information that isn't filtered through the Marble Palace (or the Detroit anti-Christ branch) first. Hell, they might actually begin to think their OWN thoughts, instead of those that they're supposed to be programmed to think. What would the world come to if THAT happened?!?

 

[iowa boy]

Grin...wanna' keep those good ol' Teamsters boys and girls heads buried in the sand, 'eh? God forbid that they actually be presented with information that isn't filtered through the Marble Palace (or the Detroit anti-Christ branch) first. Hell, they might actually begin to think their OWN thoughts, instead of those that they're supposed to be programmed to think. What would the world come to if THAT happened?!?

No, I come here to read about my coworkers plights and share my own when it comes to both work and play, not to learn how I alone caused the collapse of the banking industry and GM and Chrysler

 

[PobreCarlos]

Iowa Boy;

I'm curious...where did this "I alone cause the collapse of. .." stuff come from? Someone state, or even insinuate that you had? Guilt trip? What? Surely you wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole, would you?

As for reading "about [your] coworkers plights", and "shar[ing] you own", one would think that you would like to be informed as to the reasons as to just WHY you and your coworkers suffer those plights...rather than just burying your head in the sand and pretending that they don't exist. What is it that Teamsters such as yourself have against functioning [using the fullest sense of the word] intelligently?

That's always left me wondering. How is that members of an organization that have watched that organization cost a million (and probably much, much more) of their fellow members their jobs, and costing more as we speak, so easily dismiss the intelligence that could help to halt those losses. Is their some part of the Teamster's oath that demands that they allow them to be herded like sheep and think only what the bureaucracy allows them to think?

I'm serious about that question. The problems the Teamsters have brought upon themselves are beyond hyperbole...and I simply don't understand how Teamsters such as yourself can continue to ignore them. Could you clue me in?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

PC, I, for one, would like to thank you for your contributions to this forum, but was wondering if those contributions were available in Cliff Notes?

It is the content of posts that make them effective, not the number of words contained therein.

 

[govols019]

Iowa Boy;

I'm curious...where did this "I alone cause the collapse of. .." stuff come from? Someone state, or even insinuate that you had? Guilt trip? What? Surely you wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole, would you?

As for reading "about [your] coworkers plights", and "shar[ing] you own", one would think that you would like to be informed as to the reasons as to just WHY you and your coworkers suffer those plights...rather than just burying your head in the sand and pretending that they don't exist. What is it that Teamsters such as yourself have against functioning [using the fullest sense of the word] intelligently?

That's always left me wondering. How is that members of an organization that have watched that organization cost a million (and probably much, much more) of their fellow members their jobs, and costing more as we speak, so easily dismiss the intelligence that could help to halt those losses. Is their some part of the Teamster's oath that demands that they allow them to be herded like sheep and think only what the bureaucracy allows them to think?

I'm serious about that question. The problems the Teamsters have brought upon themselves are beyond hyperbole...and I simply don't understand how Teamsters such as yourself can continue to ignore them. Could you clue me in?

Seriously, it took you four paragraphs to answer one sentence? Granted, it was a LONG sentence but a four paragraph response seems a bit excessive.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Upstate;

Unfortunately, they're about as concise as I can make them and still make a timely response. One might note that I get complaints if I don't address each and every point presented. With that in mind, and hard as it may be to believe, I'd probably include more content and be more precise (probably making my posts longer) if I had the opportunity.

In any case, I appreciate the "thanks", and will make an effort to shorten my remarks whenever possible.

 

[PobreCarlos]

govols019;

No. If you notice, I didn't "answer" at all; rather, I used those paragraphs to ask questions. And "yes", it DID take four paragraphs....and I can't help but note that you, in turn, included ALL FOUR OF MY PARAGRAPHS in YOUR post.

Kinda' redundant...and rather ironic, don't you think?

 

[govols019]

It's a free ride when you've already paid....

 

[tieguy]

PC, I, for one, would like to thank you for your contributions to this forum, but was wondering if those contributions were available in Cliff Notes?

It is the content of posts that make them effective, not the number of words contained therein.

unfortunately I think the complexity of the material may require some lengthy responses. Though we probably could edit out some of the shots that are intermingled in the material. Its an interesting discussion that is exposing me to some different aspects of the pension debate.

 

[pickup]

unfortunately I think the complexity of the material may require some lengthy responses. Though we probably could edit out some of the shots that are intermingled in the material. Its an interesting discussion that is exposing me to some different aspects of the pension debate.

I feel the same. I , sometimes post long letters here on browncafe and I can speak from experience: It is a lot easier to read a long post than it is to write it (while keeping everything hanging together) . Post as long and as hard as you want PobreCarlos

 

[JonFrum]

PobreCarlos,

Of course the IBT can press the Central States Trustees to move to full funding like the Western Conference Fund, but all they can do is press, not impliment. They have no actual control. They can only ask. It's like petitioning Congress. You can present your petition, but it's the Congresspeople who actually vote. And you do understand how weird it is to hear you cite the IBT urgeing the financially responsible goal of full funding while you claim all along it's the IBT that is the cause of the grossly inadequate funding status of the plan?

There was no lack of information provided to us during the 1997 negotiations and 15-day strike. We received UPS literature in the mail and picked up literature in the building. We were all very impressed at how professional and extensive they were, and commented that they had to have been long in the planning. The problem was they were promotional, when what would have been useful was to give us the actual plan documents. Why tell us its a great deal with glossy brochures that only tell the good points. Give us the actual plan documents so we can see it all, good and bad, and make a fully informed decision? UPS refused to answer our questions (because there were no Plan Documents, because there was no actual Plan) and said it would be negotiated after the strike was over and we all went back to work. Of course, by then our bargaining power would be almost nonexistant.

You claim "excess payments not credited to them personally before that withdrawal" were lost. What are you talking about? Everyone's account was current through the day of withdrawal.

You say, "Just the money UPS spent on withdrawal alone would have covered ALL their particpants pensions at a higher level than there going to receive now, even with continued contributions on the "alone" level." True!!! But companies like UPS refuse to pay Withdrawal Liability (their fair share of the Fund's unfunded liability) unless forced to by ERISA. And ERISA only forces them when they actually withdraw, not while they're ongoing contributors!!! It's always been the case that if only all contributing employers would contribute the full amount (that is, required monthly contractually negotiated contributions, plus Withdrawal Liability) then the Fund would be fully funded and all would be well in Teamsterville. But just as a homeowner normally has no obligation to pay off the outstanding portion of his mortgage, so a contributing employer normally has no obligation to pay off his (potential) Withdrawal Liability. If the homeowner announces he intends to move out and sell the house, the remaining mortgage immediately becomes due. Simillarly, if a contributing employer announces he is withdrawing from the Fund, his Withdrawal Liability immediately becomes due. If all employers stayed in the fund and just paid their proportionate share of the Fund's unfunded liability all would be well. This is what employers do in the case of single-employer funds. Every year-end they simply contribute into the fund an amount of money sufficient to cover their unfunded liability. ERISA required a sum large enough to fund the Fund at a minimum 90% level. Lately, ERISA requires even higher levels, and will soon require 100% funding. Unfortunately, ERISA does not require such responsible funding for multi-employer funds, and so employers normally don't pay unless a withdrawal triggers the mandatory Withdrawal Liability payment clause.

Take your evidence of Trustee wrongdoing to the Departments of Labor and Justice. ERISA rules are very strict and hold Trustees on a short leash. You do have evidence don't you?

If the IBT does business with an investment house, or any business for that matter, it can threaten to take its business elsewhere anytime. It's a free country. But pension plans are a seperate entity from the IBT and their Trustees can only legally do by majority vote what is in the best interest of the participants. Again, if you have evidence of wrongdoing, take it to the authorities.

The IBT 1989 Consent Decree gave the government sweeping powers to rid the Teamsters of crime and corruption, but did not put the IBT into trusteeship. The earlier Central States Pension Fund Consent Decree did the same, but also put the Fund into trusteeship so it is actually being run (ultimately) by Judge Moran who oversees everything. If you believe the government isn't getting results after over two decades of effort, again, complain to the authorities and present them your evidence.

UPS' participation in the various pension and health & welfare plans is agreed to in Contract Article 34, and in the regional Supplements. In my New England Supplement it's Articles 68 and 69.

 

[brownmonster]

PC, I, for one, would like to thank you for your contributions to this forum, but was wondering if those contributions were available in Cliff Notes?

It is the content of posts that make them effective, not the number of words contained therein.

Dude, I agree. I don't read any post longer than 47 words. BM