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 Union Issues
Not one valid reason to stay with the Teamsters
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="tieguy" data-source="post: 153422" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>We tried to get out of all multi-employer pension plans in 97. Why opens up a whole can of possible worms:</p><p> </p><p>1) union theory - to eventually control the pensions and not have to pay into them. Actual we offered a single employer plan that would have been co-administered therefore no company control.</p><p> </p><p>2) Because we love our people and want the best for them. Actual - we recognize our people could do a lot better and we had a lot of our people asking us to fix the crappy plans once they lost faith in the teamsters to do so. </p><p> </p><p>3) We saw huge potential liabilities with multi-employer plans. Actual - lot of truth through that answer. And it scares the crap out of us today. CS issues are the tip of the iceburg. A CS folding would mean the feds step in and expect us to dole out a lot more money to cover the plans liabilities. A CS folding could pull all of us down. </p><p> </p><p>4) Going after the pension was meant to bring Carey to his knees. Actual - some truth to this . We threatened to go after the pension in 93 and got those stalemated talks moving. We then studied the issue and thought if ever we better do it in 97 since laws enacted would make it much more expensive for us to do so later. At this point I am speculating but I believe it was a ploy to get the teamsters to either give the pension plans up or to get them to do more to fix those plans. In so doing we may have also helped hurt them. Many plans looked at our offer to pay 3000 a month and raised their disbursements to meet that offer. CS was one of them. The teamsters did little to fix the plans Thus more being paid out and no more going in. Despite that its possible these plans would have been ok if not for the damage that 9/11 and the enron scandels did to the stock market and pension investments. Pension investors were not set up to quickly pull their money out. Those investment decisions are made methodically slow thus they sat their with their thumbs up their rears as the stock market quickly soured. </p><p> </p><p>So short answer - the time was right to go after those pensions since it would cost much more to do so later. We went after them because many of our people asked us to do so and because we are scared to death of the financial liabilities we would encur if one of those huge monster plans should fold. CS would be the worst because we are the big dog in that plan and we would pay through the nose if it went up. </p><p> </p><p>JMHOFWIW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 153422, member: 1912"] We tried to get out of all multi-employer pension plans in 97. Why opens up a whole can of possible worms: 1) union theory - to eventually control the pensions and not have to pay into them. Actual we offered a single employer plan that would have been co-administered therefore no company control. 2) Because we love our people and want the best for them. Actual - we recognize our people could do a lot better and we had a lot of our people asking us to fix the crappy plans once they lost faith in the teamsters to do so. 3) We saw huge potential liabilities with multi-employer plans. Actual - lot of truth through that answer. And it scares the crap out of us today. CS issues are the tip of the iceburg. A CS folding would mean the feds step in and expect us to dole out a lot more money to cover the plans liabilities. A CS folding could pull all of us down. 4) Going after the pension was meant to bring Carey to his knees. Actual - some truth to this . We threatened to go after the pension in 93 and got those stalemated talks moving. We then studied the issue and thought if ever we better do it in 97 since laws enacted would make it much more expensive for us to do so later. At this point I am speculating but I believe it was a ploy to get the teamsters to either give the pension plans up or to get them to do more to fix those plans. In so doing we may have also helped hurt them. Many plans looked at our offer to pay 3000 a month and raised their disbursements to meet that offer. CS was one of them. The teamsters did little to fix the plans Thus more being paid out and no more going in. Despite that its possible these plans would have been ok if not for the damage that 9/11 and the enron scandels did to the stock market and pension investments. Pension investors were not set up to quickly pull their money out. Those investment decisions are made methodically slow thus they sat their with their thumbs up their rears as the stock market quickly soured. So short answer - the time was right to go after those pensions since it would cost much more to do so later. We went after them because many of our people asked us to do so and because we are scared to death of the financial liabilities we would encur if one of those huge monster plans should fold. CS would be the worst because we are the big dog in that plan and we would pay through the nose if it went up. JMHOFWIW. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Not one valid reason to stay with the Teamsters
Top