Local 104 refuses to cooperate with the Department of Labor

[104Feeder]

Can you provide ONE example as to how our current plan exceeds our previous plan?

Just one? How about a few off the top of my head:

Previously we had to pay $35 per ER visit. Now it's only $25, but FREE if you go to the ER within 24 hours of an accident or illness where you are admitted. I've used this one several times, and the ER staff can't believe our coverage.

Previously we had to pay $2.50 for prescription drugs, $0 for generic. Now it's $5 for either, or FREE if you have your prescriptions sent directly to ExpressScripts. I was going to the pharmacy for the first fill, but now I don't pay anything since prescriptions are mostly electronic now the Doctor just sends them directly over and I have my meds in about two days.

Previously we had to see our PCP first for a referral to a specialist, creating an unnecessary extra co-pay. Now we no long have to have a referral and can see specialists as we deem necessary.

 

[twoweeled]

Just one? How about a few off the top of my head:

Previously we had to pay $35 per ER visit. Now it's only $25, but FREE if you go to the ER within 24 hours of an accident or illness where you are admitted. I've used this one several times, and the ER staff can't believe our coverage.

Previously we had to pay $2.50 for prescription drugs, $0 for generic. Now it's $5 for either, or FREE if you have your prescriptions sent directly to ExpressScripts. I was going to the pharmacy for the first fill, but now I don't pay anything since prescriptions are mostly electronic now the Doctor just sends them directly over and I have my meds in about two days.

Previously we had to see our PCP first for a referral to a specialist, creating an unnecessary extra co-pay. Now we no long have to have a referral and can see specialists as we deem necessary.

As a retiree, last ER visit I had cost me a little over $400. The prescription cost I encounter are all over the map! Some or less than $5, some are $180 ish (this is after the $200 deductible). Express scripts isn't bad, but if you need it quick, you don't want to wait for Express scripts. Not in my area. Maybe it's because of the deal the retirees received, that is paying for the active employees? I don't know if it's possible to average this out to good, bad or stellar, but I don't see it so stellar. I'm sure a lot of retirees do not see it as stellar.

 

[104Feeder]

I'm not playing a game and don't know who Andy is or even where Local 104 is located (I'm assuming out west somewhere?).

Fact remains, you haven't answered the question at all???
Perhaps you can't...and that's your game?

While you may try and assert that it is a "compound question", it really isn't...

...I may have interjected rhetorically, so I will "dumb it down" for you.

How is it that this Andy was able to secure a "superior healthcare plan" for a smaller, segregated segment of the membership???

Please help me understand Andy's alchemistic wizardry of one the most volatile, inflated industries in our country.

Sorry I went way over your head with the compound question thing. I'll keep my answers simple so there is no misunderstanding. Seems like you were on extended leave during the last negotiations. Highlights taken from my notes:
-Local 104 covers Arizona
-Andy M as in another name for a Sheriff in the Old West, was the Secretary Treasurer our Local as well as sitting on many Regional and National committees.
-One of the committees he sits on deals with Southwest Service Administrators that administrates the pension plan.
-When the Company wanted to ditch our HC benefits, Hall wanted everyone to just go into Teamcare because it was the only fund large enough to take on an influx of 140,000 new dependents (that smaller, segregated segment you referred to).
-Teamcare is inferior to our previous benefits, so this triggered the Western Region to assert their Maintenance of Standards clause, joined by Local 177
-to try and get the West and 177 to come around, Hall came up with Teamcare "Enhanced". $629 million in additional benefits. This still did not meet our previous benefits
-The Western Supplement and Package/Sort riders had already been signed off at this time, further negotiation was not allowed
-NM passes but WCT & SW failed, preserving our option to "Carve Out", allowing us to control our Destiny
-WR&177 will receive their portion of the $629M for enhancements, but there are no reserves when we start our plan.
-Andy projects $2.5B over 5 years to fund our plan, buying retiree coverage and post-65 coverage with a portion of our general wage increase if necessary
-Andy plans to use the money we have in years 1,2,and 3, with a possible vote to move money if necessary in years 4 and 5 (this has not been necessary, plan is exceeding expectations)
-$1.25 going to pension first three years, $.25 to restore retiree and post-65 coverage
-Andy with SWSA presents our plan with Aetna
-deductible in year 5, demanded so it mirrors Teamcare, $100ind/$200family, $1000 max out of pocket
-changes to weekly eligiblity vs. monthly
-Retiree coverage Yr 1 $50/100 Yr2 $100/200 Yr3 $150/300 Yr4 $150/300 Yr5 $150/300
-August 2017 we are tied to Teamcare. If they put entire $1 of H,W&P to TC we will have to also, otherwise entire $1 will be going to WCTPF.

Differences from Teamcare:
-no Post-65 coverage
-no Surviving spouse coverage
- our retiree coverage cost goes down to $50/mo Post 65
-40 benefits covered were cut by Teamcare ex: Prosthetics 80% vs 100% WR177, durable medical equipment 80 vs 100, ER 80 vs 100, Hospice 80 vs 100, Hearing aids 80 vs 100, eye exam 80 vs 100, dental 80 vs 100, Orthdontia NC vs 100 no cap

If this doesn't help you understand then nothing will.

 

[104Feeder]

As a retiree, last ER visit I had cost me a little over $400. The prescription cost I encounter are all over the map! Some or less than $5, some are $180 ish (this is after the $200 deductible). Express scripts isn't bad, but if you need it quick, you don't want to wait for Express scripts. Not in my area. Maybe it's because of the deal the retirees received, that is paying for the active employees? I don't know if it's possible to average this out to good, bad or stellar, but I don't see it so stellar. I'm sure a lot of retirees do not see it as stellar.

If you are a retiree prior to 1/1/14 then it's my understanding that you are under the Company plan and they can make changes (assuming you are in the WCT or 177, outside of that I don't know). I think it's pretty commendable that Andy took a small portion of our HW&P to restore retiree coverage and post-65 coverage. No one wants to screw over retirees but there are certain limitations when it comes to bargaining for those currently retired as in the Union can't do it.

 

[BlackCat]

Just one? How about a few off the top of my head:

Previously we had to pay $35 per ER visit. Now it's only $25, but FREE if you go to the ER within 24 hours of an accident or illness where you are admitted. I've used this one several times, and the ER staff can't believe our coverage.

Previously we had to pay $2.50 for prescription drugs, $0 for generic. Now it's $5 for either, or FREE if you have your prescriptions sent directly to ExpressScripts. I was going to the pharmacy for the first fill, but now I don't pay anything since prescriptions are mostly electronic now the Doctor just sends them directly over and I have my meds in about two days.

Previously we had to see our PCP first for a referral to a specialist, creating an unnecessary extra co-pay. Now we no long have to have a referral and can see specialists as we deem necessary.

ER visits are 100.00 if you are NOT admitted. I took my daughter to the ER after being refereed by Urgent Care.

How do you consider our prescription plan better? Using my daughter as an example again, after the ER visit we had a list of scripts that needed to be filled immediately, not 2 days later. That again was a out of pocket expense where it was free before.

 

[BlackCat]

double post

 

[104Feeder]

ER visits are 100.00 if you are NOT admitted. I took my daughter to the ER after being refereed by Urgent Care.

How do you consider our prescription plan better? Using my daughter as an example again, after the ER visit we had a list of scripts that needed to be filled immediately, not 2 days later. That again was a out of pocket expense where it was free before.

$100 for non-emergency use of the ER. If Urgent Care sent you, you should have had some documentation and disputed that charge. Prescriptions were only free before if you were able to get generics, otherwise it was $2.50. I had a Pharmacist tell me a script was $50/pill and I said "we'll see". He came back with $2.50 and his jaw was on the floor. I don't think he would be any less impressed at $5 c'mon now.

 

[BlackCat]

$100 for non-emergency use of the ER. If Urgent Care sent you, you should have had some documentation and disputed that charge. Prescriptions were only free before if you were able to get generics, otherwise it was $2.50. I had a Pharmacist tell me a script was $50/pill and I said "we'll see". He came back with $2.50 and his jaw was on the floor. I don't think he would be any less impressed at $5 c'mon now.

While it is impressive, it does not "exceed" our old plan.

The plan was fine based on its own merits, there was no need to go around touting the plan as "the same or better" when in reality it is not "better"

Nitpicking I know.

 

[104Feeder]

While it is impressive, it does not "exceed" our old plan.

The plan was fine based on its own merits, there was no need to go around touting the plan as "the same or better" when in reality it is not "better"

Nitpicking I know.

It's better in the few examples I listed, it's certainly better than our other option which was Teamcare "Enhanced". It's definitely better that the benefits that Teamcare has cut. Look, everything it up for negotiation every time a new contract period comes around. This is the first time the Company took on our HC plan, and thankfully we hadn't bargained away our Maintenance of Standards clause and had enough clout to get our "Carve Out". My exact quote was that it "meets or exceeds" and it has, even if it's "different" in some ways. It would be nice for this whole mess to have never happened, and for all of us to go back under the umbrella of UPS self-insuring us again, but that isn't going to happen. If you've attended any of the meetings during this negotiation and the last year or so you know how straight Andy is with us and how this ordeal aged him. I know I couldn't have done any better.

 

[Bubblehead]

Sorry I went way over your head with the compound question thing. I'll keep my answers simple so there is no misunderstanding. Seems like you were on extended leave during the last negotiations. Highlights taken from my notes:
-Local 104 covers Arizona
-Andy M as in another name for a Sheriff in the Old West, was the Secretary Treasurer our Local as well as sitting on many Regional and National committees.
-One of the committees he sits on deals with Southwest Service Administrators that administrates the pension plan.
-When the Company wanted to ditch our HC benefits, hall wanted everyone to just go into Teamcare because it was the only fund large enough to take on an influx of 140,000 new dependents (that smaller, segregated segment you referred to).
-Teamcare is inferior to our previous benefits, so this triggered the Western Region to assert their Maintenance of Standards clause, joined by Local 177
-to try and get the West and 177 to come around, hall came up with Teamcare "Enhanced". $629 million in additional benefits. This still did not meet our previous benefits
-The Western Supplement and Package/Sort riders had already been signed off at this time, further negotiation was not allowed
-NM passes but WCT & SW failed, preserving our option to "Carve Out", allowing us to control our Destiny
-WR&177 will receive their portion of the $629M for enhancements, but there are no reserves when we start our plan.
-Andy projects $2.5B over 5 years to fund our plan, buying retiree coverage and post-65 coverage with a portion of our general wage increase if necessary
-Andy plans to use the money we have in years 1,2,and 3, with a possible vote to move money if necessary in years 4 and 5 (this has not been necessary, plan is exceeding expectations)
-$1.25 going to pension first three years, $.25 to restore retiree and post-65 coverage
-Andy with SWSA presents our plan with Aetna
-deductible in year 5, demanded so it mirrors Teamcare, $100ind/$200family, $1000 max out of pocket
-changes to weekly eligiblity vs. monthly
-Retiree coverage Yr 1 $50/100 Yr2 $100/200 Yr3 $150/300 Yr4 $150/300 Yr5 $150/300
-August 2017 we are tied to Teamcare. If they put entire $1 of H,W&P to TC we will have to also, otherwise entire $1 will be going to WCTPF.

Differences from Teamcare:
-no Post-65 coverage
-no Surviving spouse coverage
- our retiree coverage cost goes down to $50/mo Post 65
-40 benefits covered were cut by Teamcare ex: Prosthetics 80% vs 100% WR177, durable medical equipment 80 vs 100, ER 80 vs 100, Hospice 80 vs 100, Hearing aids 80 vs 100, eye exam 80 vs 100, dental 80 vs 100, Orthdontia NC vs 100 no cap

If this doesn't help you understand then nothing will.

That was simple???...hardly.
It was actually an impressive example of copy and paste.

I am going to try again, from a different angle, to ask a similar question:

Let's pretend that Andy is in charge (this might help him concentrate on the question) of securing the entire membership at UPS a single healthcare plan, for all employees, in all regions nationwide.

With that in mind, isn't it a fair assumption that Andy could take all that money and purchase a plan that would eclipse TeamCare, "the carve out", and all of the other plans that litter the Teamster landscape for UPSer's?

Please concentrate and answer within this hypothetical scenario, then maybe we can expound as to why that didn't happen, with or without Andy.

 

[twoweeled]

If you are a retiree prior to 1/1/14 then it's my understanding that you are under the Company plan and they can make changes (assuming you are in the WCT or 177, outside of that I don't know). I think it's pretty commendable that Andy took a small portion of our HW&P to restore retiree coverage and post-65 coverage. No one wants to screw over retirees but there are certain limitations when it comes to bargaining for those currently retired as in the Union can't do it.

I retired after 2014. I don't totally understand the differences with that whole thing. Some drivers made a point of retiring before, while others chose to retire after. Speaking to some prior 2014, there doesn't seem to be any certain differences I can nail.
Personally, I cannot believe anything is off the table at negotiation time. To believe that, I'd have to believe UPS just wanted to take care of retirees with excellent coverage for $50 month premium - then after many years, decided they didn't care anymore. $50 to $300 month for less coverage in 3 years. Just doesn't make sense at a quick glance.
I'll make it, in spite of this, but it's very aggravating in principle what took place. Really, it is the principle. We also did it with wage progression. We do it with new hires.We're being divided. We shot ourselves in the foot. Just my opinion

 

[104Feeder]

That was simple???...hardly.
It was actually an impressive example of copy and paste.

I am going to try again, from a different angle, to ask a similar question:

Let's pretend that Andy is in charge (this might help him concentrate on the question) of securing the entire membership at UPS a single healthcare plan, for all employees, in all regions nationwide.

With that in mind, isn't it a fair assumption that Andy could take all that money and purchase a plan that would eclipse TeamCare, "the carve out", and all of the other plans that litter the Teamster landscape for UPSer's?

Please concentrate and answer within this hypothetical scenario, then maybe we can expound as to why that didn't happen, with or without Andy.

I deal in reality and facts, not pretend or hypotheticals. Best of luck to you with Teamcare.

 

[104Feeder]

I retired after 2014. I don't totally understand the differences with that whole thing. Some drivers made a point of retiring before, while others chose to retire after. Speaking to some prior 2014, there doesn't seem to be any certain differences I can nail.
Personally, I cannot believe anything is off the table at negotiation time. To believe that, I'd have to believe UPS just wanted to take care of retirees with excellent coverage for $50 month premium - then after many years, decided they didn't care anymore. $50 to $300 month for less coverage in 3 years. Just doesn't make sense at a quick glance.
I'll make it, in spite of this, but it's very aggravating in principle what took place. Really, it is the principle. We also did it with wage progression. We do it with new hires.We're being divided. We shot ourselves in the foot. Just my opinion

Read Article 1, section 2 of the National Master. Retirees are not included in the employees covered. Read Article 2, section 1- again Retirees are not included. Your preamble or first two articles of your Regional agreement will also not mention retirees. In the WCT, under Article 30 (2)(b),(c),and (d) it discusses how healthcare coverage will be handled for retirees prior to 1/1/14 and on or after 1/1/14. That is the only place retirees has ever been mentioned in any contract I have read. The SW Package and Sort rider also does not mention retirees except in Section 25 Health Insurance Coverage- which mirrors the WCT language.

UPS did take care of retirees for many years, but now they are not willing to shoulder the liability for either current employees or retirees. They'd rather just cut a check and let us fend for ourselves. Anything can happen in the next contract, anything but HC going back to the way it was before 2013.

I don't know how you tell current employees to forego a wage increase to shorten a progression or increase the starting wage for someone who may never be hired. The minimum wage outpaces our starting wage in many States so that is forcing them to pay more regardless. I don't see progression being reduced either unless the Company decides that a shorter path to $90-100K is better than their retarded Integrad failure.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I don't know how you tell current employees to forego a wage increase to shorten a progression or increase the starting wage for someone who may never be hired. The minimum wage outpaces our starting wage in many States so that is forcing them to pay more regardless. I don't see progression being reduced either unless the Company decides that a shorter path to $90-100K is better than their retarded Integrad failure.

That is an astute observation.



-Bug-

 

[ski or die]

If you are a retiree prior to 1/1/14 then it's my understanding that you are under the Company plan and they can make changes (assuming you are in the WCT or 177, outside of that I don't know). I think it's pretty commendable that Andy took a small portion of our HW&P to restore retiree coverage and post-65 coverage. No one wants to screw over retirees but there are certain limitations when it comes to bargaining for those currently retired as in the Union can't do it.

IF -- Retirees had the right to vote in elections (not new contracts), the union would learn to respect and honor retirees who had earned their pensions and benefits. Just as in elections for political leaders, they know the silver hair population does get out and vote and how they can affect an election. Just give us retirees the right to vote, we have been around long enough to know how the game is played and know the players pretty well.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

IF -- Retirees had the right to vote in elections (not new contracts), the union would learn to respect and honor retirees who had earned their pensions and benefits. Just as in elections for political leaders, they know the silver hair population does get out and vote and how they can affect an election. Just give us retirees the right to vote, we have been around long enough to know how the game is played and know the players pretty well.

Absolutely 100% disagree!

 

[trickpony1]

Absolutely 100% disagree!

You seem to have a disdain for PT'ers who, by your own words, won't be around very long (not meant to be a career) and retirees who have been around (a career) and have seen what the company is capable of.

Is there anyone you like?

 

[trickpony1]

EDIT:
Some day you'll be a dreaded "retiree". We'll see what you think then.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

You seem to have a disdain for PT'ers who, by your own words, won't be around very long (not meant to be a career) and retirees who have been around (a career) and have seen what the company is capable of.

Is there anyone you like?

I like hard working people who don't feel the need to hide behind a contract.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

EDIT:
Some day you'll be a dreaded "retiree". We'll see what you think then.

...and I will be fine as I take care of my business...