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 Retirement Topics
local 804 pension problems
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: 146949"><p>wkmac,</p><p>That isn't the powerful arguement you think it is. In practice, it's almost unheard of for any one to be prosecuted for perjury or contempt. Even in criminal trials, perjurers are almost never charged with perjury. Scandalous, but true. </p><p></p><p>Testimony before Congress always involves panalists who are either pro or con concerning the bill up for consideration. Everyone is either in favor of say, abortion, capital punishment, gun control, right to work, global warming, the war in Iraq, etc. or they're against it. There are at least two sides to every issue. Obviously, they can't all be right. But Congresspeople take all this in stride. They (more or less) allow everyone to have their "say", and nobody is sentenced to do hard time in the Slammer for testifing falsely. </p><p></p><p>John McDevitt said UPS contributions go to non-UPSers, but he offered no convincing proof or details. He then compared Teamsters pension performance using contributions from previous decades when contributions were only a fraction of what they are today, to a hypothetical UPS plan starting in the present, with the much higher present day contribution levels. Some have charged him with lying, probably because he should know better given his job. (See Below) I just say he is wrong in his apples-to-oranges comparison, and wrong in his analysis of what happens to UPS contributions. (UPS contributions are mostly "voluntarily" abandoned by UPSers, and by UPS, who contributes the money on UPSers' behalf. UPSers time and again fail to meet the qualifications necessary to entitle them to the higher pension benefit levels, or to any pension benefit at all. This is ultimately the result of a wide variety of factors and policies at UPS that make earning a full retirement too much like winning a lottery.) </p><p></p><p>Most famous people and institutions are slandered, libeled, and ridiculed on a regular basis. Most don't have the time to respond, and refrain from doing so because it only gives the accuser free publicity and a certain legitimacy. Often responding doesn't end it there, as the controversy tends to grow and expand into other areas as well. It's frustrating to people like me who want Truth and Justice to win out, but most prominent people decide not to defend themselves and hope the accuser will just give up eventually when they realize they aren't getting much traction. Beyond that, the Teamsters and UPS aparently have a long-standing agreement to keep their differences out of the public arena. Just look at all the issues that are discussed on BrownCafe and elsewhere, and yet you never see an official response from a Teamsters or UPS spokesperson. Even during the Strike of '97 criticism of each other was muted. Currently, both sides are in contract negotiations and have agreed to keep talks private. </p><p></p><p>In very, very rough terms, let's say UPS contributes, on average, a billion dollars a year to these pension funds for each of the last ten years. So if 60% of this money is wrongly going to non-UPS people, that's $600 million a year, or $6 billion total. UPS has not provided any details about where this money went or what specific crimes were comitted or who specifically broke what specific laws. Nor has any one else. All I ever see is endless repetition of the allegation, never any details, never any actual charges filed. Do you, wkmac, have any details to back up John McDevitt's allegation? Do you have an explanation for why UPS hasn't filed charges to get it's $6 billion back? </p><p></p><p>- - - -</p><p>Here's what one retiree group said about John McDevitt's testimony . . .</p><p><a href="http://www.homestead.com/PUPSInc/RETIREES.html" target="_blank">Retired UPSers</a></p><p>"Misinformation about Teamster Pensions</p><p></p><p>Last year John McDevitt, UPS senior vice president, testified before the U.S. Congress and lied about our pensions. Management and an anti-Teamster group of UPS employees continue to spread the same material. In his prepared testimony a year ago, McDevitt stated that if UPS had contributed to a 401(k) instead of a union pension plan, and “assuming a conservative 7.5 percent rate of return the employee would have a nest egg of $827,000 after 30 years.” And this money could be converted to a pension of $5,833 a month. McDevitt stated this should be “today’s reality” but instead a Teamster would only get about $3,000 a month from a Teamster plan.</p><p></p><p>Figures Greatly Inflated</p><p></p><p>UPS management had to know that this was false. His figures assume that the current negotiated pension contribution rate of about $5 per hour has been in place for 30 years. But thirty years ago UPS was only contributing about 48 cents per hour to the pension. Twenty years ago it was $1.37. Ten years ago it was $2.50. So his figures were greatly inflated. He told Congress that UPS could have provided a $5,833 monthly pension with the same money, and that was totally false.</p><p></p><p>The Truth</p><p></p><p>By using the actual amounts UPS paid into the pension fund each year since 1974 for a full timer who worked every day, calculations demonstrate that this Teamster would get, under management’s system, only $2,394 per month after 30 years! This is less than any Teamster fund provides. (We used management’s figure of 7.5% annual rate of return and their conversion formula from lump sum to a monthly pension. TDU can provide the calculations to interested members.) Moreover, many Teamster pension plans (Washington D.C., Baltimore, Upstate New York, and the Western Region) today provide benefits over $3,000 per month. Some even pay close to $5,000 per month with thirty years of service."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 146949"] wkmac, That isn't the powerful arguement you think it is. In practice, it's almost unheard of for any one to be prosecuted for perjury or contempt. Even in criminal trials, perjurers are almost never charged with perjury. Scandalous, but true. Testimony before Congress always involves panalists who are either pro or con concerning the bill up for consideration. Everyone is either in favor of say, abortion, capital punishment, gun control, right to work, global warming, the war in Iraq, etc. or they're against it. There are at least two sides to every issue. Obviously, they can't all be right. But Congresspeople take all this in stride. They (more or less) allow everyone to have their "say", and nobody is sentenced to do hard time in the Slammer for testifing falsely. John McDevitt said UPS contributions go to non-UPSers, but he offered no convincing proof or details. He then compared Teamsters pension performance using contributions from previous decades when contributions were only a fraction of what they are today, to a hypothetical UPS plan starting in the present, with the much higher present day contribution levels. Some have charged him with lying, probably because he should know better given his job. (See Below) I just say he is wrong in his apples-to-oranges comparison, and wrong in his analysis of what happens to UPS contributions. (UPS contributions are mostly "voluntarily" abandoned by UPSers, and by UPS, who contributes the money on UPSers' behalf. UPSers time and again fail to meet the qualifications necessary to entitle them to the higher pension benefit levels, or to any pension benefit at all. This is ultimately the result of a wide variety of factors and policies at UPS that make earning a full retirement too much like winning a lottery.) Most famous people and institutions are slandered, libeled, and ridiculed on a regular basis. Most don't have the time to respond, and refrain from doing so because it only gives the accuser free publicity and a certain legitimacy. Often responding doesn't end it there, as the controversy tends to grow and expand into other areas as well. It's frustrating to people like me who want Truth and Justice to win out, but most prominent people decide not to defend themselves and hope the accuser will just give up eventually when they realize they aren't getting much traction. Beyond that, the Teamsters and UPS aparently have a long-standing agreement to keep their differences out of the public arena. Just look at all the issues that are discussed on BrownCafe and elsewhere, and yet you never see an official response from a Teamsters or UPS spokesperson. Even during the Strike of '97 criticism of each other was muted. Currently, both sides are in contract negotiations and have agreed to keep talks private. In very, very rough terms, let's say UPS contributes, on average, a billion dollars a year to these pension funds for each of the last ten years. So if 60% of this money is wrongly going to non-UPS people, that's $600 million a year, or $6 billion total. UPS has not provided any details about where this money went or what specific crimes were comitted or who specifically broke what specific laws. Nor has any one else. All I ever see is endless repetition of the allegation, never any details, never any actual charges filed. Do you, wkmac, have any details to back up John McDevitt's allegation? Do you have an explanation for why UPS hasn't filed charges to get it's $6 billion back? - - - - Here's what one retiree group said about John McDevitt's testimony . . . [url=http://www.homestead.com/PUPSInc/RETIREES.html]Retired UPSers[/url] "Misinformation about Teamster Pensions Last year John McDevitt, UPS senior vice president, testified before the U.S. Congress and lied about our pensions. Management and an anti-Teamster group of UPS employees continue to spread the same material. In his prepared testimony a year ago, McDevitt stated that if UPS had contributed to a 401(k) instead of a union pension plan, and “assuming a conservative 7.5 percent rate of return the employee would have a nest egg of $827,000 after 30 years.” And this money could be converted to a pension of $5,833 a month. McDevitt stated this should be “today’s reality” but instead a Teamster would only get about $3,000 a month from a Teamster plan. Figures Greatly Inflated UPS management had to know that this was false. His figures assume that the current negotiated pension contribution rate of about $5 per hour has been in place for 30 years. But thirty years ago UPS was only contributing about 48 cents per hour to the pension. Twenty years ago it was $1.37. Ten years ago it was $2.50. So his figures were greatly inflated. He told Congress that UPS could have provided a $5,833 monthly pension with the same money, and that was totally false. The Truth By using the actual amounts UPS paid into the pension fund each year since 1974 for a full timer who worked every day, calculations demonstrate that this Teamster would get, under management’s system, only $2,394 per month after 30 years! This is less than any Teamster fund provides. (We used management’s figure of 7.5% annual rate of return and their conversion formula from lump sum to a monthly pension. TDU can provide the calculations to interested members.) Moreover, many Teamster pension plans (Washington D.C., Baltimore, Upstate New York, and the Western Region) today provide benefits over $3,000 per month. Some even pay close to $5,000 per month with thirty years of service." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
local 804 pension problems
Top