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="wkmac" data-source="post: 147108" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>That is why in the same post I made this statement which I believe really holds the more weight and as such I worded it to suggest that.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">No argument from me that McDevitt's claims didn't match up to current reality but the simple truth that also few want to publically acknowledge is the use of legalize speak when it comes to processes like this. Folks who testify will make grand statements that suggest one thing or another as in the case of McDevitt but if confronted with counter point facts of say the past funding levels as you correctly pointed out, this is their out.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">"Well in the case of the committee's purpose, it was to look at the current funding levels of the various retirement plans and in what respect those levels would effect our future retirees. Those having already retired are locked in to their monthly pension so we are not discussing them as the current crisis effects more than any other class of persons, near future and farther out retirees under these various plans."</span></p><p> </p><p>In other words, McDevitt or for that fact you can take most any fourm of law with testimony of facts and unless someone from an opposing point of view is asking hard questions (not the case when McDevitt testified) then after the fact when a point of order is made, the wiggle room is, <span style="color: red">"oh I was testifying as regards to current funding levels and what that would do isolated from the other companies <span style="color: darkorchid"><strong>(McDevitt was there to push the partition idea which limits UPS liability exposure, not a complete removal from mutli-employer plans)</strong></span> and for our hourly retirees going forward. I said that in respect that your legislation will only effect going forward and that you are not suggesting legislation that would in effect be ex post facto law. Those funding and payout levels I used were as your law would be, a forward looking point of order. It also was the fact under the partition scenario as to which I was offering testimony in support of!"</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">Again, what is so telling here is that not once did anyone or any official statement come forth from the IBT challenging what McDevitt said in his testimony. I think they didn't because to do so placed at great risk that UPSers would begin to learn more as the partition idea (good or bad) came out and they might begin to see the "what if's" of this scenario and that scenario. People might begin to think and ask questions and that was just to great a risk for them (IBT) to take IMO.</span></p><p> </p><p>Hey Jon, I'm thirsty and was gonna fix me something to drink. Care to join me. Grape or Cherry?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/wink.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 147108, member: 2189"] That is why in the same post I made this statement which I believe really holds the more weight and as such I worded it to suggest that. [COLOR=red][B][I][/I][/B][/COLOR] [B][I][COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR][/I][/B] [COLOR=black]No argument from me that McDevitt's claims didn't match up to current reality but the simple truth that also few want to publically acknowledge is the use of legalize speak when it comes to processes like this. Folks who testify will make grand statements that suggest one thing or another as in the case of McDevitt but if confronted with counter point facts of say the past funding levels as you correctly pointed out, this is their out.[/COLOR] [COLOR=red]"Well in the case of the committee's purpose, it was to look at the current funding levels of the various retirement plans and in what respect those levels would effect our future retirees. Those having already retired are locked in to their monthly pension so we are not discussing them as the current crisis effects more than any other class of persons, near future and farther out retirees under these various plans."[/COLOR] In other words, McDevitt or for that fact you can take most any fourm of law with testimony of facts and unless someone from an opposing point of view is asking hard questions (not the case when McDevitt testified) then after the fact when a point of order is made, the wiggle room is, [COLOR=red]"oh I was testifying as regards to current funding levels and what that would do isolated from the other companies [COLOR=darkorchid][B](McDevitt was there to push the partition idea which limits UPS liability exposure, not a complete removal from mutli-employer plans)[/B][/COLOR] and for our hourly retirees going forward. I said that in respect that your legislation will only effect going forward and that you are not suggesting legislation that would in effect be ex post facto law. Those funding and payout levels I used were as your law would be, a forward looking point of order. It also was the fact under the partition scenario as to which I was offering testimony in support of!"[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Again, what is so telling here is that not once did anyone or any official statement come forth from the IBT challenging what McDevitt said in his testimony. I think they didn't because to do so placed at great risk that UPSers would begin to learn more as the partition idea (good or bad) came out and they might begin to see the "what if's" of this scenario and that scenario. People might begin to think and ask questions and that was just to great a risk for them (IBT) to take IMO.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black][/COLOR] Hey Jon, I'm thirsty and was gonna fix me something to drink. Care to join me. Grape or Cherry? :wink: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
local 804 pension problems
Top