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: 544461" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>(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?</p><p> </p><p>(2) In terms of your....</p><p> </p><p>"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 <u>exactly</u> how multi-employer pension funds are designed."</p><p> </p><p>...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?</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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?</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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)</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 544461, member: 16651"] 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 [U]exactly[/U] 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. [/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