Memories From The '97' Strike........

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum;

I'd take exception to your claim that....

"Almost all of the subsidizing of non-UPSers is the result of UPS policies that make it hard for so many UPSers to earn enough pension credits to get their money's worth back in pension benefits."

...in that I believe almost all objective observers have recognized that UPS subsidizing non-UPSers is primarily a consequence of the Teamsters putting so many of their other contributing employers out of business, leaving their unsupported "orphans" to hang around for pension benefits. If that's a "hostile policy", then it's a policy that the Teamsters THEMSELVES pursued against their own UPS members...and it most assuredly would NOT have been present in a UPS-only plan in which the company was responsible for it's employees ONLY.

 

[104Feeder]

The minimum wages that wind up in a contract have already been negotiated. UPS was willing to set up pension that guaranteed, in the contract, at least as much as what the current plans were offereing. Was it likely UPS would be willing to give more? No, but they could not give less, and the rest was yet to be negotiated.
Sure, going to the dealership for all of those guarantees you are going to get screwed. If you are poor negotiator Again, as I have stated repeatedly the "guaranteed minimum" was not nearly as much as the WCTPF was offering, not even close. And again, we never, ever put forth a vote on contract provisions that are "to be negotiated" later. BTW, I have a car I'd like to sell you*....



This is what I would like to see. Surely if such a comprehensive list existed someone talked about it?
I'm sure I have notes as to what was discussed somewhere, but I'm not digging through 15 years of my notes to find them.
In your discussion in the barns, Surely someone represnting the IBT said, "These offers such and we must reject them, but here is language we could live with..."? Where are those proposals? We don't do it that way.

Or was it all just "What the company is offering is crap, and we should stand firm and prepare to strike?"
The latter is all I remember, but I was not in local meetings. We discussed how the negotiations were going and what proposals were on the table during our strike authorization vote, where a strike was authorized by 95% of the voting members. And I'm sure the meat of the negotiations don't filter down to Specialists so that's understandable.



While I believe Kelly and Co negotiating for the company acted naively in many things, I in no way believe they put "everything about this pension proposal is make believe" in their literature about it. I would suggest your own prejudices & warped perspective allow you to believe that. Just as they allow you to believe that the company was offering less to Western Conference pensioners because your plan was already paying more than the benefit schedule listed in the contract proposal. Even though that same section of the proposal spelled out that anyone in a plan that was currently paying more than the proposed schedule would get their higher rate.
Why don't you ask 'Why didn't the Company put forth what the Union was offering and why they wouldn't agree to it?" Surely the Company has the comprehensive list of proposals offered, as they would have seen them at negotiations. Literature put out by the Company (by Managers not privy to the actual negotiations) contain some references but mostly propaganda. What you still fail to grasp is that the Pension, Subcontracting, & Right to Strike language were the sticking points, and nothing was going to move forward until those issues were resolved.

I should note that the comprehensive LBF offer I typed up was not what the Company put out to UPSers, it was distributed by the Teamsters to my Local. Every piece of literature distributed by the Company about the Pension, and included in the Contract Language being proposed, referred to the "UPS Pension Plan Document". This Document was one we had never seen, had not negotiated, and would override anything in the Contract language including your "guaranteed minimums" and the benefit only good for the term of the Contract. It's not just a car, but a sports car I want to sell you*........




Jonfrum has done exactly that. He is highly knowledgeable and very articulate. I believe I understand him clearly. Just because I understand, however, does not mean I agree. Yet you keep repeating the same misunderstandings...
As for minding ones own business, did you not butt your nose into what has been essentially a debate between Jonfrum and I? Could I not reasonably tell you also to mind your own business? I could, but that would be ridiculous of me. This is an internet forum and you are welcome here to mind any business you choose to in these threads. As am I.
What is it they say? "Better to remain silent and let everyone wonder if you are ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." But since you are so willing to have open discussions about subjects that don't pertain to you, how about posting up your complete, comprehensive Management compensation plan including schedules, pension, MIP etc.
It's not just a sport car, but an exotic sports car I'd like to sell you*...

In the final analysis, you are correct, the proposal was rejected. BTW, I am not at all suggesting that the LBF in its entirety was a good deal anyone should have taken. I just believe it was better, at least in parts, than you care to believe. This is certainly due in part to my own prejudices. And to yours. I am willing to admit mine, and question them (which is partly why I have been asking for the Unions proposal from the time). Are you?

I am willing to let history be the Judge, and by that I compare the contracts since the 1997 debacle. By that measure we made the right decision in every respect.





*aforementioned exotic sports car may or may not be a 2012 Ferrari Italia Spyder or a 1976 Ford Pinto made in Mexico. Please send certified check for $257,000 and car will be delivered to an address of your choosing.

 

[104Feeder]

Rebuttal letter to Wall St. Journal editorial, August 8 1997

Editor
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

Dear Editor:

We read with great concern the August 6 article by Burkins and Brannigan as well as the august 7 "Review and Outlook" about the pension fund issues involved in the UPS/Teamster negotiations. It is unfortunate that both articles present a distorted and nonfactual representation of "Teamster pension plans." Apparently all Teamster pension funds are to be tarred with the same brush.

Unfortunately for the reader and; conversely, fortunately for the participants of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, the real story lacks the sensationalism of the "Review and Outlook" article and the misinformation of the Burkins/Brannigan article. The true story, in fact, is rather boring.

Since it's inception in 1955, the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust has not suffered on ehint of scandal. There has never been any of the corruption alluded to in these two articles. Our investment policies have always been on the conservative side and, even with that, have produced investment returns averaging 11%+ annually since inception. Since 1987, this pension fund of $18+billion has been 100% fully funded, as attested by two of the nation's finest independent actuarial firms. While maintaining zero unfunded vested benefit liability, we have still managed to increase benefits significantly in 1986, 1992, and 1994. In the 1970's, the movers and shakers who put together what we not call ERISA many times held this Pension Trust as a model of fiscal integrity, and we have continued that reputation with the U.S. Department of Labor in it's numerous regular audits over the years.

In the Teamsters Union, "pension" does not just mean retirement at age 65. In fact in the west, we have individuals retiring as early as age 49 with full benefits. In addition, the Plan's survivor benefits, pre-retirement death benefits, life insurance, spousal benefits, and disability benefits provide a complete security umbrella. Over the past 32 years we have been able to refine existing benefits and add new benefits to a point where today's full-time (2076 hours) UPS Employee at the contribution rates of the recently expired contract earns a permanent monthly benefit of $155.69 for each year of service. The part-time UPS employee (1040 hours) in our area earns a benefit of $100.97 for each year of service.

The very strike involved in these negotiations may bring into the limelight one of the major benefits of a multi-employer pension plan; that is, portability. Teamster members who are on strike may either choose or be forced to take employment outside of UPS. This portability allows Teamster members to move from one contributing employer to another within the Western States without detriment to their pension. Also most of our pension funds reciprocate with each other so that our members can move from one area of the country to another and still receive full pension benefits. Portability is rare indeed among single employer plans, a fact noted in recent legislative initiatives.

The sensationalism of the distorted representations in these articles does a great disservice to the hundreds of service providers and administrative employees who work very hard to produce the best benefits available to the members of the Teamsters Union. It also does a disservice to the trustees- including representatives of UPS management- who diligently review the plans and continually update programs for the benefit of the participants. It does a disservice tot he countless employers who depend on the teamster pension funds to provide a livable pension for their employees when they leave after years of service. but most importantly, it does a a disservice to the UPS participants of the pension plans who are currently on strike and who try to believe what they read in publications such as yours. This type of article only tends to be confusing and could actually cause them to make decisions that would adversely affect their financial status in their retirement years.

Sincerely,

Western Conference of Teamsters
Pension Trust
Anthony C. Lock
Chairman

Owen L. Bennett
Co-Chairman.

 

[TechGrrl]

The NYS Teamsters Pension Plan lost roughly 30% of its market value during the 2008-09 downturn, which was a combination of market losses and the issues at YRC and PennTraffic.

I really wish the company would simply EFT the funds earmarked for my pension directly in to my 401k.

The stock market bottomed at around 6500 in early 2009; (too lazy to check exact date) DOW closed yesterday at 13,333. So, presumably, all those pension funds should have regained all their lost value by now. I know my 401K and IRA did.

Of course, for those folks who could not afford to ride it out for 3 years, or who sold out in a panic and tucked cash in zero interest rate bank accounts, this is small comfort. But large pension funds should not be able to hide behind any of that for an excuse, not with new money coming in every week, buying in at market bottom and riding the curve upwards.

 

[CharleyHustle]

The stock market bottomed at around 6500 in early 2009; (too lazy to check exact date) DOW closed yesterday at 13,333. So, presumably, all those pension funds should have regained all their lost value by now. I know my 401K and IRA did.

Of course, for those folks who could not afford to ride it out for 3 years, or who sold out in a panic and tucked cash in zero interest rate bank accounts, this is small comfort. But large pension funds should not be able to hide behind any of that for an excuse, not with new money coming in every week, buying in at market bottom and riding the curve upwards.

You didn't sell, or have to sell. Pension funds like CSPF with both employers and employees with companies contributing on their behalf declining, there was less money coming into the fund. However they still have to make payments to current beneficiaries who are retired. Funds that are in trouble most likely bought investments high and had to sell low to pay current retirees.

 

[TechGrrl]

You didn't sell, or have to sell. Pension funds like CSPF with both employers and employees with companies contributing on their behalf declining, there was less money coming into the fund. However they still have to make payments to current beneficiaries who are retired. Funds that are in trouble most likely bought investments high and had to sell low to pay current retirees.

Yeah, not buying that argument, Charley. I mentioned individuals not having the luxury to hang tough, but the pension funds, even while paying out pensions, had money coming in. And 'professional' managers should have been able to ride out a couple of years of bad returns. The stock market fell off a cliff in September 2008. By October of 2009, it was back above 10000. So, the funds are so poorly managed they can't ride out a 1 year storm? Bad, very bad management.

You guys should be negotiating for your pension funding to go directly to a personal retirement account under your personal control if that's the best the 'professionals' can do.

 

[menotyou]

Yeah, not buying that argument, Charley. I mentioned individuals not having the luxury to hang tough, but the pension funds, even while paying out pensions, had money coming in. And 'professional' managers should have been able to ride out a couple of years of bad returns. The stock market fell off a cliff in September 2008. By October of 2009, it was back above 10000. So, the funds are so poorly managed they can't ride out a 1 year storm? Bad, very bad management.

You guys should be negotiating for your pension funding to go directly to a personal retirement account under your personal control if that's the best the 'professionals' can do.

My father was a pension admin for the Carpenter's. There are admin's that have a clue. I have my issues with the NYS ones.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

A week before the strike I walked into the building I work in now and asked the counter clerk if they were hiring. I had just met the guy a few weeks before through a mutual friend so he was honest with me. He said he was pretty sure they'd be on strike next week so maybe I shouldn't even bother applying. I said screw that and ended up working at Kroger. A couple of years later I ended up working in a hub not far from my current center and got to hear plenty of stories about the strike that pretty much mirrored the stories I've heard from the older guys in my current center. Basically stories about the strike being a two week long picnic with a little of vandalism and intimidation thrown in to the mix.