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 Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 544169" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p></p><p>Saying that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund" in terms of the pension liability it created for the participants is similar to saying an arsonist had no control over the fire he started. The fact is, the IBT had ULTIMATE control. It's the entity that CAUSED THE PROBLEM.</p><p></p><p>The reason the Central States Pension Fund slid into the financial position it's in was NOT primarily because of the trustees, or even the actions of the investment managers...but rather because the IBT couldn't maintain the membership - or, to be more accurate - the membership employers to sustain the plan.</p><p></p><p>Again, I point to the notorious "Lynch Testimony" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065201/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065201/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864</a> Read it. Learn from it.</p><p></p><p>As for there not being a "shakedown", if you recall, in '97 that pension liability was only a HALF billion or so...and UPS offered a FULL billion to withdraw. When the union wouldn't accept withdrawal even at that level, it went on strike...only to "blink" - UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CSPF a few weeks later (again, I cite "Sprague v. CSPF" at <a href="http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm" target="_blank">"http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm</a>"; read that and learn it as well!), with the presentation of a hundred million rebate FROM the CSPF. As for the full FINAL withdrawal liability, if you recall, the CSPF originally quoted that at 4 (FOUR) billion dollars, and UPS ultimately paid more than 6 (SIX) billion.</p><p></p><p>Now, maybe you don't call an extra 5.5 BILLION dollars - and a MASSIVE cost to UPS Teamsters retirement benefits - a "shakedown", but I do. And I'll stick with that appellation, thank you! If anything pointed to the moral bankruptcy of the Teamsters union, that whole adventure did...starting with being dishonest with the membership prior to the '97 strike, down to the end, when the union proved that concern for the actual pensions of the members it was supposed to represent came way down on the list.</p><p></p><p>The withdrawal liability is nothing LIKE a mortgage when someone "sells a house and moves away". What it *IS* "like" is the forcing of one innocent homeowner to pay-off the mortgage of third-party deadbeat...or, more accurately, like the Teamsters putting employer after employer (read "contributor after contributor") out of business, and then demanding that the remaining employers take up the slack. And that attitude of the Teamsters is costing it additional employment today. Take a look at the problems YRCW is currently experiencing, for example. Or the ongoing newspaper problem up in the Twin Cities Tribune bankruptcy negotiations with the Teamsters.</p><p></p><p>The fact is, time after time, the union showed that one CAN "...just walk away and leave the debt for someone else shoulder"....IF you're put out of business by the union! (in that vein, do you remember the statements put out by CSPF itself following the bankruptcy of CFWY?) And I don't recall ERISA mandating that a union put the bulk of its contributors out of business so the remaining few can be stuck with the bill....do you?</p><p></p><p>Again, DO THE READING....then you come back and tell me that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund". If you can do so with a straight face, then I suggest a bright future for you writing blurbs on either the TDU's or the IBT's web pages and/or print publications.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, you don't have to incorporate the entire "Encyclopedia Britianica" in your posts..but it WOULD be nice if, in your presentation, you could at least incorporate a COUPLE of actual facts with references in support of your position....and not blindly spew-forth the same tired crappola that Teamster apologists have been feeding their [declining] membership for lo these many years now.</p><p></p><p>P.S. - Lest we forget, perhaps it should be noted that, of the full body of trustees, "yes" only half are from the union, and half from the employers...ALL the employers. As competitors, they don't (and could not) function as a unit. The Teamsters could and did. It might also be worth noting that, at no time, did UPS ever have more than 1 (ONE) trustee on the board, even though it made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer. One also can't help but recall that it was only in the final years of UPS's participation in CS that it had even that 1 (ONE) trustee on the board; prior to that, it had NONE AT ALL! Yep, that's "separate" alright! [grin!]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 544169, member: 16651"] Jon; Saying that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund" in terms of the pension liability it created for the participants is similar to saying an arsonist had no control over the fire he started. The fact is, the IBT had ULTIMATE control. It's the entity that CAUSED THE PROBLEM. The reason the Central States Pension Fund slid into the financial position it's in was NOT primarily because of the trustees, or even the actions of the investment managers...but rather because the IBT couldn't maintain the membership - or, to be more accurate - the membership employers to sustain the plan. Again, I point to the notorious "Lynch Testimony" [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065201/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864[/url] Read it. Learn from it. As for there not being a "shakedown", if you recall, in '97 that pension liability was only a HALF billion or so...and UPS offered a FULL billion to withdraw. When the union wouldn't accept withdrawal even at that level, it went on strike...only to "blink" - UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CSPF a few weeks later (again, I cite "Sprague v. CSPF" at [URL='http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm']"http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm[/URL]"; read that and learn it as well!), with the presentation of a hundred million rebate FROM the CSPF. As for the full FINAL withdrawal liability, if you recall, the CSPF originally quoted that at 4 (FOUR) billion dollars, and UPS ultimately paid more than 6 (SIX) billion. Now, maybe you don't call an extra 5.5 BILLION dollars - and a MASSIVE cost to UPS Teamsters retirement benefits - a "shakedown", but I do. And I'll stick with that appellation, thank you! If anything pointed to the moral bankruptcy of the Teamsters union, that whole adventure did...starting with being dishonest with the membership prior to the '97 strike, down to the end, when the union proved that concern for the actual pensions of the members it was supposed to represent came way down on the list. The withdrawal liability is nothing LIKE a mortgage when someone "sells a house and moves away". What it *IS* "like" is the forcing of one innocent homeowner to pay-off the mortgage of third-party deadbeat...or, more accurately, like the Teamsters putting employer after employer (read "contributor after contributor") out of business, and then demanding that the remaining employers take up the slack. And that attitude of the Teamsters is costing it additional employment today. Take a look at the problems YRCW is currently experiencing, for example. Or the ongoing newspaper problem up in the Twin Cities Tribune bankruptcy negotiations with the Teamsters. The fact is, time after time, the union showed that one CAN "...just walk away and leave the debt for someone else shoulder"....IF you're put out of business by the union! (in that vein, do you remember the statements put out by CSPF itself following the bankruptcy of CFWY?) And I don't recall ERISA mandating that a union put the bulk of its contributors out of business so the remaining few can be stuck with the bill....do you? Again, DO THE READING....then you come back and tell me that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund". If you can do so with a straight face, then I suggest a bright future for you writing blurbs on either the TDU's or the IBT's web pages and/or print publications. Lastly, you don't have to incorporate the entire "Encyclopedia Britianica" in your posts..but it WOULD be nice if, in your presentation, you could at least incorporate a COUPLE of actual facts with references in support of your position....and not blindly spew-forth the same tired crappola that Teamster apologists have been feeding their [declining] membership for lo these many years now. P.S. - Lest we forget, perhaps it should be noted that, of the full body of trustees, "yes" only half are from the union, and half from the employers...ALL the employers. As competitors, they don't (and could not) function as a unit. The Teamsters could and did. It might also be worth noting that, at no time, did UPS ever have more than 1 (ONE) trustee on the board, even though it made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer. One also can't help but recall that it was only in the final years of UPS's participation in CS that it had even that 1 (ONE) trustee on the board; prior to that, it had NONE AT ALL! Yep, that's "separate" alright! [grin!] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
Top