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 Discussions
Memories From The '97' Strike........
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="brownIEman" data-source="post: 1022081" data-attributes="member: 14596"><p>This is a terribly disingenuous argument. For one, you seem to be saying making a jointly trusteed plan was some sort of subterfuge on UPS' part to ensure the trustees do not increase benefits. Yet are not most plans jointly trusteed between the union and representatives of the company or companies in the plans? Was not Central States? And why would Trustees be improving the plan yearly (by this I take it to mean increase benefits)? I was not aware trustees role was to increase benefits and therefore company liabilities between contracts? Are you saying it would be more fair for UPS to pay into a plan run solely by teamsters trustees who could increase UPS liability to the plan any time they wanted? Should not that sort of thing be handled in negotiations?</p><p></p><p>Also, you claim UPS had no pension plan, with no features, and that UPS wanted to quietly negotiate one after the strike ended and as you put it, your bargaining power had evaporated. This is not really true is it? if you look at the offered contract UPS had on the table as quoted in the Last, Best Final thread from 104feeder, you will see the pension UPS was committing itself too in that contract proposal had specific payout amounts, and held UPS liable to pay benefits at levels NOT LESS than what pensioners would have been entitled to had they stayed in their original plan. Sounds like features to me.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f39/ups-last-best-final-offer-july-22-1997-a-345917/#post1019893" target="_blank">http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f39/ups-last-best-final-offer-july-22-1997-a-345917/#post1019893</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brownIEman, post: 1022081, member: 14596"] This is a terribly disingenuous argument. For one, you seem to be saying making a jointly trusteed plan was some sort of subterfuge on UPS' part to ensure the trustees do not increase benefits. Yet are not most plans jointly trusteed between the union and representatives of the company or companies in the plans? Was not Central States? And why would Trustees be improving the plan yearly (by this I take it to mean increase benefits)? I was not aware trustees role was to increase benefits and therefore company liabilities between contracts? Are you saying it would be more fair for UPS to pay into a plan run solely by teamsters trustees who could increase UPS liability to the plan any time they wanted? Should not that sort of thing be handled in negotiations? Also, you claim UPS had no pension plan, with no features, and that UPS wanted to quietly negotiate one after the strike ended and as you put it, your bargaining power had evaporated. This is not really true is it? if you look at the offered contract UPS had on the table as quoted in the Last, Best Final thread from 104feeder, you will see the pension UPS was committing itself too in that contract proposal had specific payout amounts, and held UPS liable to pay benefits at levels NOT LESS than what pensioners would have been entitled to had they stayed in their original plan. Sounds like features to me. [URL]http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f39/ups-last-best-final-offer-july-22-1997-a-345917/#post1019893[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Memories From The '97' Strike........
Top