Some basic concepts that BrownIEman needs to grasp:
Guaranteed Minimum: look up our wage rates in the Contract. Those are also "guaranteed minimums". UPS would not raise pension payments under their proposed plan any more than they would raise wages inside a contract term. Hoping for a better deal later on is a pipe dream & a time killer. It's sort of like going to the car dealer for your new car, trade in, and financing: you are guaranteed to get screwed.
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.
Contract proposals are gathered from locals via barn meetings, sometimes they are discussed & voted on at that time as to whether they are passed on to the negotiating committee. The committee then negotiates but has the power to reject whatever contract offer the Company sticks too if they feel it is substandard. We had barn meetings where what was being shoved down our throats as a LB&friend was discussed and a strike authorization vote given. There is no comprehensive list of proposals from all the locals passed around other than however they assembled them within the negotiating committee. When something is worthy of voting on then a copy of the proposed changes is mailed with the ballot to everyone and most barns have meetings where we discuss the impact of the changes. We're mostly old-school and prefer to hand things out to members only & in the hall where we can keep the rumors to a minimum. Every local does it their own way.
This is what I would like to see. Surely if such a comprehensive list existed someone talked about it?
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?
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.
JonFrum is right that the plan as proposed sucked & the documents handed out had a disclaimer on the bottom basically saying everything you see above is make-believe. The "guaranteed minimum" you are stuck on too would have run roughshod over all better language negotiated in the supplements. As I pointed out before, our WCTPF was paying much better than the $3500 maximum then, even better now, and with much better PEER benefits.
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.
Jonfrum has laid it all out in a very easily understandable fashion that covered all the problems & pitfalls of accepting UPS's make-believe pension plan. It's a matter of your prejudices & warped perspective that you can't understand it. We don't have one word to say about your MIP or management pension so how about minding your own business? It's all moot anyway as we rejected it and won better language. My fund, the WCTPF even got a huge boost from the buyout of the CSPF so we didn't mind at all.
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.
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.
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?