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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 1022539" data-attributes="member: 18044"><p>I'm never disingenuous.</p><p></p><p>Teamster sponsored plans are legally independent from the Union and Company. The Employer trustees are from various companies, (usually not UPS.) This makes the ongoing existence of the plan and its features something you can usually count on, more or less. (This is before all the Market downturns, remember.) The entire proposed UPS plan would be up for re-negotiation with every Contract renewal, like the Central States full-timers will now discover. This greatly complicates the negotiating process and will crowd-out many other matters.</p><p></p><p>Giving UPS full control of the administration of the plan, plus 50% of the trustee decision-making authority almost guarantees a perpetual stalement. Inflation "requires" that you increase wages and benefits year after year, or your stagnant dollars will fall behind in purchasing power. UPS trustees wouldn't have to actually cut benefits, or tighten eligibility for those benefits, they just have to vote "no" to preserve the status quo and let time take its toll. Like the way stagnant part-timer starting wages are worth less and less as the decades pass.</p><p></p><p>A pension plan, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link(s). What the glossy UPS pension brochure described was a sales job. It was the <u>highlights</u> of the plan as positively spun by the UPS Public Relations Department. It has no legal standing. Just talking points. We could only evaluate the plan if we had the <u>entire</u> <u>Plan</u> <u>Document</u> <u>in</u> <u>writing</u> to throughly examine. What may sound acceptable in the headline may well be unatainable, or difficult to attain, because of any number of plan details. Pension plans are know for rendering people ineligible for this or that benefit because Social Security kicks in, or because they aren't old enough, or haven't enough Pension Credits etc. The Devil is in the details.</p><p>- - - -</p><p>Labor Law requires both sides in a contract negotiation to actively bargain, engage in give-and-take, and earnestly try to find agreement. There are extensive rules governing the process. So yes, the Union would have had its proposals, as always, and would respond to management's proposals with counter proposals. For either side to not do so would be an Unfair Labor Practice, unless a legally defined "impass" had been reached.</p><p></p><p> But this was in the early days of the Internet, so the proposals may not have been put on-line.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 1022539, member: 18044"] I'm never disingenuous. Teamster sponsored plans are legally independent from the Union and Company. The Employer trustees are from various companies, (usually not UPS.) This makes the ongoing existence of the plan and its features something you can usually count on, more or less. (This is before all the Market downturns, remember.) The entire proposed UPS plan would be up for re-negotiation with every Contract renewal, like the Central States full-timers will now discover. This greatly complicates the negotiating process and will crowd-out many other matters. Giving UPS full control of the administration of the plan, plus 50% of the trustee decision-making authority almost guarantees a perpetual stalement. Inflation "requires" that you increase wages and benefits year after year, or your stagnant dollars will fall behind in purchasing power. UPS trustees wouldn't have to actually cut benefits, or tighten eligibility for those benefits, they just have to vote "no" to preserve the status quo and let time take its toll. Like the way stagnant part-timer starting wages are worth less and less as the decades pass. A pension plan, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link(s). What the glossy UPS pension brochure described was a sales job. It was the [U]highlights[/U] of the plan as positively spun by the UPS Public Relations Department. It has no legal standing. Just talking points. We could only evaluate the plan if we had the [U]entire[/U] [U]Plan[/U] [U]Document[/U] [U]in[/U] [U]writing[/U] to throughly examine. What may sound acceptable in the headline may well be unatainable, or difficult to attain, because of any number of plan details. Pension plans are know for rendering people ineligible for this or that benefit because Social Security kicks in, or because they aren't old enough, or haven't enough Pension Credits etc. The Devil is in the details. - - - - Labor Law requires both sides in a contract negotiation to actively bargain, engage in give-and-take, and earnestly try to find agreement. There are extensive rules governing the process. So yes, the Union would have had its proposals, as always, and would respond to management's proposals with counter proposals. For either side to not do so would be an Unfair Labor Practice, unless a legally defined "impass" had been reached. But this was in the early days of the Internet, so the proposals may not have been put on-line. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Memories From The '97' Strike........
Top