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
Pension fix
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: 3971451" data-attributes="member: 14596"><p>Correct. I would argue that CS, if it did not start with ponzi-esq attributes quickly adapted them as employer-union negotiations saw those entities agreeing to up promised benefits without fully funding them which was feasible under a continually growing workforce in the early decades. It certainly cannot at this point meet anywhere near its pension obligations without new input from current workers, making it quite Ponzi-ish.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.pionline.com/article/20160428/ONLINE/160429859/ups-faces-up-to-38-billion-charge-if-central-states-benefit-reductions-approved" target="_blank">Not according to this article originally linked earlier</a> by [USER=18708]@UnconTROLLed[/USER] </p><p></p><p>According to this article, the proposed average cuts were 29% for Tier1, 34% for Tier II and 53% for Tier III. The Tier III employees are the UPS employees. That looks like the UPS retirees are taking a larger cut, which of course would be totally understandable, as by gouging those employees with larger cuts, you save money to give less harsh cuts to the others, knowing UPS will have to make up the cuts to their employees. Understandable, but certainly not fair, and UPS argued, not legal. Now, I admit that these numbers come from UPS spokespersons from the article, so if you have a less biased source to support your claim the UPS retiree's benefits were actually the least cut under the proposal, I wold be interested to see it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Meh, if they had had such a person, they would not have listened to him anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brownIEman, post: 3971451, member: 14596"] Correct. I would argue that CS, if it did not start with ponzi-esq attributes quickly adapted them as employer-union negotiations saw those entities agreeing to up promised benefits without fully funding them which was feasible under a continually growing workforce in the early decades. It certainly cannot at this point meet anywhere near its pension obligations without new input from current workers, making it quite Ponzi-ish. [URL='https://www.pionline.com/article/20160428/ONLINE/160429859/ups-faces-up-to-38-billion-charge-if-central-states-benefit-reductions-approved']Not according to this article originally linked earlier[/URL] by [USER=18708]@UnconTROLLed[/USER] According to this article, the proposed average cuts were 29% for Tier1, 34% for Tier II and 53% for Tier III. The Tier III employees are the UPS employees. That looks like the UPS retirees are taking a larger cut, which of course would be totally understandable, as by gouging those employees with larger cuts, you save money to give less harsh cuts to the others, knowing UPS will have to make up the cuts to their employees. Understandable, but certainly not fair, and UPS argued, not legal. Now, I admit that these numbers come from UPS spokespersons from the article, so if you have a less biased source to support your claim the UPS retiree's benefits were actually the least cut under the proposal, I wold be interested to see it. Meh, if they had had such a person, they would not have listened to him anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Pension fix
Top