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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 544548" data-attributes="member: 18044"><p>PobreCarlos,</p><p></p><p>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 <u>do</u> 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?</p><p></p><p>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 <u>actual plan documents.</u> 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 <u>after</u> the strike was over and we all went back to work. Of course, by then our bargaining power would be almost nonexistant.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <u>do</u> have evidence don't you?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 544548, member: 18044"] 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 [U]do[/U] 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 [U]actual plan documents.[/U] 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 [U]after[/U] 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 [U]do[/U] 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. [/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