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: 1023781" data-attributes="member: 14596"><p>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. </p><p>Sure, going to the dealership for all of those guarantees you are going to get screwed. If you are poor negotiator.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>This is what I would like to see. Surely if such a comprehensive list existed someone talked about it? </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Or was it all just "What the company is offering is crap, and we should stand firm and prepare to strike?"</p><p>The latter is all I remember, but I was not in local meetings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brownIEman, post: 1023781, member: 14596"] 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. 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. 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 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Memories From The '97' Strike........
Top