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 Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
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="wkmac" data-source="post: 54907"><p>OK2BC, </p><p>You needed to clarify that because at times what P-man was misunderstanding was not just P-man's misunderstanding. I was also confused because at times your comments seemed to suggest workers were only taking their company's money and nothing else and then other times your explaination above which I too happen to agree with seem to come out. Now there's no doubt and this really helps clarify. Thanks. </p><p> </p><p>The big question I have about the underfunding concerns whether the Teamsters in order to protect certain mob controlled trucking companies back in the day from shelling out to much money got caught up in very young retirement funds that was known to be dipped into at times for the right people and in the course of this practice the Teamsters couldn't just stick it to the other non-mob employers so they got the same sweet deal. These other employers weren't gonna squeal as they were paying bottom dollar so to speak and in turn could look their employees in the eye and say, "see, we pony up for you to have a good retirement!" Now the chickens are coming home to roost and they face the probability of having to really pony up now. UPS knows it faces a huge liability as by law they would have to fork over the monies necessary but if they can just limit that liability to their people ie UPSers and the partitioning idea then it's a cost effective means of solving a real threatening problem out there. Good for us? Hard to truly say for certain. For sure bad for the other non UPS CS members. </p><p> </p><p>I see we face 2 real dilemmas here. The first and obvious is the real threat to our pensions itself as many of us have already seen some of that results as with the cuts at CS. The second threat not yet truly bared out is the liability threat to our employer UPS. "IF" and if is a potential not a fact yet, a nightmare scenario happens with CS or other multi-employer fund or even several funds at the same time then this could impact hugely on UPS as a major economic drain. As a result we could see demands for major concessions in the way of wages and or benefits or it could go to the level, again we're talking absolute worse case which is a long way off, of forcing UPS to downscale as a company costing jobs and could even go to the level of bankruptcy, reorganization not liquidation and then where would we be. Ask the United Airline folks for starters. And United Airline is also good to look at for those who favor a single employer fund. </p><p> </p><p>Far fetched? Not really because if the nuclear scenarion happened and if the bean counters show that approach (bankruptcy)to be more cost effective and over time they come out the other end in much better shape I truly believe they would take it. It's business, not personal. We are lucky we work for a deep well and yes that well is stengy with water at times but it made the well deep. UPS is happy to sit back and let us dip bucket fulls of water from the well because we pour it in by the tanker load but if we get greedy these folks do have options even by the law that can leave us in much worse conditions than we find ourselves in today. In some respects you defend maintaining funds like CS and I can understand that and I agree they can be fixed by the right people but the question is, do we have the right people? </p><p> </p><p>The problem is in the case of your arguement and to be fair on the flip side with the argument of going with the AWPA plan, company plan or even my idea of self managed, it's not all black and white but many, many shades of gray. The more we continue to push and push to get the facts out on the table from all quarters the more those shades will go from gray to black or white and the direction we need to go in will become more obvious and clearer. </p><p> </p><p>This is why I believe the threat talk of going to alternative plans is a good thing. I'm not so sure UPS would like to see us jump to another union, even one we created for ourselves as they are in the catbird seat right now with the Teamsters. A new union minus the history of corruption might pose a harder nut to crack and control. We need facts and I'm not convinced at this point either side is willing to give us that. We need to keep the pressure on and hope the dam wall start to crack and the water of truth leaks out faster and faster. </p><p> </p><p>You just have to beat the grass in order to startle the snakes!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 54907"] OK2BC, You needed to clarify that because at times what P-man was misunderstanding was not just P-man's misunderstanding. I was also confused because at times your comments seemed to suggest workers were only taking their company's money and nothing else and then other times your explaination above which I too happen to agree with seem to come out. Now there's no doubt and this really helps clarify. Thanks. The big question I have about the underfunding concerns whether the Teamsters in order to protect certain mob controlled trucking companies back in the day from shelling out to much money got caught up in very young retirement funds that was known to be dipped into at times for the right people and in the course of this practice the Teamsters couldn't just stick it to the other non-mob employers so they got the same sweet deal. These other employers weren't gonna squeal as they were paying bottom dollar so to speak and in turn could look their employees in the eye and say, "see, we pony up for you to have a good retirement!" Now the chickens are coming home to roost and they face the probability of having to really pony up now. UPS knows it faces a huge liability as by law they would have to fork over the monies necessary but if they can just limit that liability to their people ie UPSers and the partitioning idea then it's a cost effective means of solving a real threatening problem out there. Good for us? Hard to truly say for certain. For sure bad for the other non UPS CS members. I see we face 2 real dilemmas here. The first and obvious is the real threat to our pensions itself as many of us have already seen some of that results as with the cuts at CS. The second threat not yet truly bared out is the liability threat to our employer UPS. "IF" and if is a potential not a fact yet, a nightmare scenario happens with CS or other multi-employer fund or even several funds at the same time then this could impact hugely on UPS as a major economic drain. As a result we could see demands for major concessions in the way of wages and or benefits or it could go to the level, again we're talking absolute worse case which is a long way off, of forcing UPS to downscale as a company costing jobs and could even go to the level of bankruptcy, reorganization not liquidation and then where would we be. Ask the United Airline folks for starters. And United Airline is also good to look at for those who favor a single employer fund. Far fetched? Not really because if the nuclear scenarion happened and if the bean counters show that approach (bankruptcy)to be more cost effective and over time they come out the other end in much better shape I truly believe they would take it. It's business, not personal. We are lucky we work for a deep well and yes that well is stengy with water at times but it made the well deep. UPS is happy to sit back and let us dip bucket fulls of water from the well because we pour it in by the tanker load but if we get greedy these folks do have options even by the law that can leave us in much worse conditions than we find ourselves in today. In some respects you defend maintaining funds like CS and I can understand that and I agree they can be fixed by the right people but the question is, do we have the right people? The problem is in the case of your arguement and to be fair on the flip side with the argument of going with the AWPA plan, company plan or even my idea of self managed, it's not all black and white but many, many shades of gray. The more we continue to push and push to get the facts out on the table from all quarters the more those shades will go from gray to black or white and the direction we need to go in will become more obvious and clearer. This is why I believe the threat talk of going to alternative plans is a good thing. I'm not so sure UPS would like to see us jump to another union, even one we created for ourselves as they are in the catbird seat right now with the Teamsters. A new union minus the history of corruption might pose a harder nut to crack and control. We need facts and I'm not convinced at this point either side is willing to give us that. We need to keep the pressure on and hope the dam wall start to crack and the water of truth leaks out faster and faster. You just have to beat the grass in order to startle the snakes! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension Agency Faces a New Front
Top