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: 544679" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p> </p><p>Again, you obviously refused to read (or are behaving in a more typical Teamster manner, as mentioned in a previous post, and outlined below!) the links I provided, or you wouldn't be making inane statements like....</p><p> </p><p>"When you say UPS "made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer," you <u>do</u> understand that UPS had more covered employees and so was buying proportionally more coverage for more of its people?"</p><p> </p><p>...otherwise you would know (or, if honest, would be willing to admit) that, in them, that topic was directly addressed. Tell me, are you prepared to state unequivocally that UPS was not paying "proportionally more" PER EMPLOYEE - more than for mere coverage - than the share paid by employers - both existent and extinct - of the other participants? If you are, then don't try to tell me that you've "read" Lynch and Sprague later on..or at least not with a straight face.</p><p> </p><p>Beyond that, actually, I think I've made quite a lot "stick". What has happened is that I'm speaking with an individual who is quite capable of denying the reality of that "sticking" You blame it on the economy (Central States was in the crapper well before the economy went south), the previous down-tick in the economy, and despite the MASSIVE loss of contributing employers, allow that there may be only "some truth" the idea that the Teamsters let the pensions down by not refraining from putting those businesses that contributed to the plans out of business. Typical Teamster; deny, deny, deny....and NEVER, under ANY circumstances, accept RESPOSIBILITY for what they've done.</p><p> </p><p>Always "someone else's fault, isn't it Jon? I mean the fact that those 47 of 50 once-largest trucking companies listed in Lynch which were Teamster-organized are out of business today is pure coincidence, isn't it? And if the fact that those companies went out of business (which, again, the Teamsters are in no way responsible for - at least according to the party line), is, in turn, in no way responsible for the state the pension funds are in. Yep, that "won't stick", will it? S.h.e.e.s.s.s.h!!!!!</p><p> </p><p>Which brings us to FDX. Contrary to your assumption that I'm like a father who's daughter has been raped, what I am is one who actually DOES want a "level playing field". As to "WHY" i would want it? Well, beyond selfish reasons, isn't it OBVIOUS? I.E. - to PROTECT those that UPS employ who, in case you hadn't noticed it, ARE TEAMSTER PENSION FUND PARTICIPANTS!!! As for the "evil" part, "yes", I do think that the union is somewhat "evil" - at least in terms of it's membership- when it parasitically feeds off of one entity while giving a competitive entity a complete "bye". In case you hadn't noticed, that's EXACTLY the form of EVIL (and yes, it *IS* evil) that has ALREADY cost well over a million Teamster members their jobs.</p><p> </p><p>Which brings us to your....</p><p> </p><p>"Why do you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong? For just one example, why repeatedly scold me for not reading the Lynch testimony when I read it years ago and even posted it on Browncafe?"</p><p> </p><p>...in what way am I making a assumptions that are wrong. First, I'd be willing to be that if you "posted it on Browncafe" "years ago", you first retrieved it by virtue of a link I posted elsewhere. Secondly, I haven't made the SOLE assumption that you haven't read "Lynch"; if you'll notice, in a post above, I think I mentioned that it was likely that you HAD read them, but simply chose to ignore - or not admit - that you had. In any case, to be completely forthright, I really don't doubt that you HAVE read it, because, from what little I've learned about you from your posts (and here I AM "assuming"...but I think I'm on pretty safe ground) I think it's a case of you not having the integrity to deal with such documents honestly; i.e. - since they don't conform to that little Teamster universe that you will only allow yourself to function in, then you think they can't have validity. In short, I was trying to avoid calling you a liar to your face. Happy?</p><p> </p><p>In any case, given your comments, I think it's pretty obvious to even a casual observer (who has read Lynch) that, if you, yourself, had read it, your comprehension of what you read is very, very minimal. </p><p> </p><p>Lastly, I know that it must really piss you off to have a guy come on here and make you realize that, in spite of your rantin' 'n' raving, your tossing excuses around like they were orange slices, etc., and with almost all the tilting in their favor an organization could hope for, you and your compadres STILL can't make a go of it in terms of constituting a constructive labor union...and STILL can't point to something substantial and positive that you've accomplished for the membership (past and present) as whole. Nope...only a half century of failure. Leader leader after leader being indicted and/or convicted of crimes. Lost jobs, lost pensions, and lost membership. You find yourselves in a position where you can't get enough workers to vote for you of their own free will, so you push for a legislation that allows you to intimidate them into publicly "signing off" on your failed program.</p><p> </p><p>In that vein, I got a kick out of your little ditty about FDX above; if something like that isn't indicative of the state of the moral bankruptcy that the Teamsters union is in today, I don't know what is. What's your purpose, "Jon"? To deprive ANOTHER million decent individuals of their means of making a living? You must feel SO proud!</p><p> </p><p>Anyway, you have fun. Eventually, breaking the pattern of all the evidence found so far, maybe you'll find something that DOESN'T "stick". One can hope, 'eh? [smile]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 544679, member: 16651"] Jon; Again, you obviously refused to read (or are behaving in a more typical Teamster manner, as mentioned in a previous post, and outlined below!) the links I provided, or you wouldn't be making inane statements like.... "When you say UPS "made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer," you [U]do[/U] understand that UPS had more covered employees and so was buying proportionally more coverage for more of its people?" ...otherwise you would know (or, if honest, would be willing to admit) that, in them, that topic was directly addressed. Tell me, are you prepared to state unequivocally that UPS was not paying "proportionally more" PER EMPLOYEE - more than for mere coverage - than the share paid by employers - both existent and extinct - of the other participants? If you are, then don't try to tell me that you've "read" Lynch and Sprague later on..or at least not with a straight face. Beyond that, actually, I think I've made quite a lot "stick". What has happened is that I'm speaking with an individual who is quite capable of denying the reality of that "sticking" You blame it on the economy (Central States was in the crapper well before the economy went south), the previous down-tick in the economy, and despite the MASSIVE loss of contributing employers, allow that there may be only "some truth" the idea that the Teamsters let the pensions down by not refraining from putting those businesses that contributed to the plans out of business. Typical Teamster; deny, deny, deny....and NEVER, under ANY circumstances, accept RESPOSIBILITY for what they've done. Always "someone else's fault, isn't it Jon? I mean the fact that those 47 of 50 once-largest trucking companies listed in Lynch which were Teamster-organized are out of business today is pure coincidence, isn't it? And if the fact that those companies went out of business (which, again, the Teamsters are in no way responsible for - at least according to the party line), is, in turn, in no way responsible for the state the pension funds are in. Yep, that "won't stick", will it? S.h.e.e.s.s.s.h!!!!! Which brings us to FDX. Contrary to your assumption that I'm like a father who's daughter has been raped, what I am is one who actually DOES want a "level playing field". As to "WHY" i would want it? Well, beyond selfish reasons, isn't it OBVIOUS? I.E. - to PROTECT those that UPS employ who, in case you hadn't noticed it, ARE TEAMSTER PENSION FUND PARTICIPANTS!!! As for the "evil" part, "yes", I do think that the union is somewhat "evil" - at least in terms of it's membership- when it parasitically feeds off of one entity while giving a competitive entity a complete "bye". In case you hadn't noticed, that's EXACTLY the form of EVIL (and yes, it *IS* evil) that has ALREADY cost well over a million Teamster members their jobs. Which brings us to your.... "Why do you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong? For just one example, why repeatedly scold me for not reading the Lynch testimony when I read it years ago and even posted it on Browncafe?" ...in what way am I making a assumptions that are wrong. First, I'd be willing to be that if you "posted it on Browncafe" "years ago", you first retrieved it by virtue of a link I posted elsewhere. Secondly, I haven't made the SOLE assumption that you haven't read "Lynch"; if you'll notice, in a post above, I think I mentioned that it was likely that you HAD read them, but simply chose to ignore - or not admit - that you had. In any case, to be completely forthright, I really don't doubt that you HAVE read it, because, from what little I've learned about you from your posts (and here I AM "assuming"...but I think I'm on pretty safe ground) I think it's a case of you not having the integrity to deal with such documents honestly; i.e. - since they don't conform to that little Teamster universe that you will only allow yourself to function in, then you think they can't have validity. In short, I was trying to avoid calling you a liar to your face. Happy? In any case, given your comments, I think it's pretty obvious to even a casual observer (who has read Lynch) that, if you, yourself, had read it, your comprehension of what you read is very, very minimal. Lastly, I know that it must really piss you off to have a guy come on here and make you realize that, in spite of your rantin' 'n' raving, your tossing excuses around like they were orange slices, etc., and with almost all the tilting in their favor an organization could hope for, you and your compadres STILL can't make a go of it in terms of constituting a constructive labor union...and STILL can't point to something substantial and positive that you've accomplished for the membership (past and present) as whole. Nope...only a half century of failure. Leader leader after leader being indicted and/or convicted of crimes. Lost jobs, lost pensions, and lost membership. You find yourselves in a position where you can't get enough workers to vote for you of their own free will, so you push for a legislation that allows you to intimidate them into publicly "signing off" on your failed program. In that vein, I got a kick out of your little ditty about FDX above; if something like that isn't indicative of the state of the moral bankruptcy that the Teamsters union is in today, I don't know what is. What's your purpose, "Jon"? To deprive ANOTHER million decent individuals of their means of making a living? You must feel SO proud! Anyway, you have fun. Eventually, breaking the pattern of all the evidence found so far, maybe you'll find something that DOESN'T "stick". One can hope, 'eh? [smile] [/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