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 in Jeopardy
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: 86462" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Cezanne,</p><p>Interesting post to say the least and thought provoking as well. I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody is wrong in the sense that people for the most part are only repeating what was told to them by the various union leadership (locally, nationally) during that whole process. Even here in my local area I had one union official say it was about protecting good pensions while another said it was about FT jobs creation. There's truth in really both explainations. </p><p> </p><p>I will also agree in some respect your explaination of the loss of FT to PT jobs being a boom for the company and at the same time placing the pension at further risk. However, I'd also argue that the company has ever right to construct it's business as it see's fit and it so did all with the blessing of the union over the years. Even the move in 82' to the $8 starting wage was a cooperative effort IMO and many a management person who works in the trenches now and having been around for some years is at least quietly questioning that logic now as they see the new workforce we get now as a result of this low starting wage which has moved up but oh so slightly. </p><p> </p><p>I'd also argue that why should UPS be forced to modify it's workforce (more FTers) just to insulate the various Teamster pension funds from a collasping membership as a result of Teamster bankrupt trucking companies especially during the 80's? Seems to me the Teamsters may have been better served in the 80's having read the political Tea leaves better and seeing the impact of what deregulation of trucking would have and then work with the companies to adapt to be successful. Had they done that, it's possible (not probable mind you) some would have survived and the pension problems today may not be a severe.</p><p> </p><p>As to the comment that Carey and others saw the problem and that the trustees to quote you, "back in the early 90's the trustees began to see the plan participants dwindling and the retirees multiplying" and I completely agree with you on that and will add this to it. UPS was also fully aware because although they specifically weren't represented on the CS board by a UPSer for example, they were represented by the equal number of "employer trustees" and my guess is they took part in some fashion of selecting those individuals and then being completely aware of the financial status and demographic reports as it relates to those funds. For "ANYONE" IMO to suggest that UPS was a "UNKNOWING" party in all of this is at best ill-informed. I also believe that knowledge along with an attempt to scuttle the strike in 97' was the motive behind the pension offer 3 days (less than one business day) before the strike took place. </p><p> </p><p>Now here's my question to you but let me set the table first. Leading up to the 97' strike, especially in the CS covered area, there was a growing and growing movement to put pressure on the union leadership to raise retirement levels. UPS knew this also and is a very important point in the history of what happened. Most all union leaders I heard at the time played to this growing voice and said we need the make this happen. This also included Mr. Carey as he expressed this same regard on a campaign visit to the Atlanta area prior to his election as union President when the question was posed by a local member about the CS payout structure. Now as we both agree, everyone knew the pending and growing danger so that being the case, then why very soon after the 97' strike did Mr. Carey along with the union leadership including ALL the trustees let this happen and none offered a voice of concern or warning? Carey never offered along with any other union leader that this shouldn't be done at this time because of the already stated reasons and neither did UPS but I would question as to whether that was their place to begin with. In fact, labor law may have prevented them from saying so but that's only a guess on my part. It's ironic when UPS wants to speak it does find a way so there you go! There are/maybe a number of answers here but I'm curious as to what insight you might have in this area as it relates to why Carey went ahead and greenlighted pension increases knowing the pending ramifications of doing so in the future? </p><p> </p><p>It's ironic that the biggest boom for FT jobs at the highest level was not via some contract article but was in fact a gift from good ole' FedEx. You see for years they maintained their movement of merchandise on the road instead of on the rail like UPS and thus they did had better lane enhancement for some time in transit from hub to hub. Generally speaking they slowed down when it came to the delivery point and we tended to catch up in that area. However for FedEx that began to improve and UPS saw it and responded with the first of continuing lane enhancements back in February that was nothing more than taking volume off the trains, putting on Feeder drivers and moving the volume over the road. In other words, it was the pure demands of business that helped created the biggest and most promising jump in FT jobs in our area because all those Feeder drivers moved up from the package ranks which opened up package driver jobs for Pters'. In other words, the business demanded more Fters. Seems to me that one area where we can help our own problem of pension concerns is to grow the business in areas where the need for more Fters is obvious. JMO.</p><p> </p><p>BTW: Get back on your soapbox when you like as I enjoyed the preaching!<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/thumbup1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":thumbup1:" title="Thumbup1 :thumbup1:" data-shortname=":thumbup1:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 86462, member: 2189"] Cezanne, Interesting post to say the least and thought provoking as well. I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody is wrong in the sense that people for the most part are only repeating what was told to them by the various union leadership (locally, nationally) during that whole process. Even here in my local area I had one union official say it was about protecting good pensions while another said it was about FT jobs creation. There's truth in really both explainations. I will also agree in some respect your explaination of the loss of FT to PT jobs being a boom for the company and at the same time placing the pension at further risk. However, I'd also argue that the company has ever right to construct it's business as it see's fit and it so did all with the blessing of the union over the years. Even the move in 82' to the $8 starting wage was a cooperative effort IMO and many a management person who works in the trenches now and having been around for some years is at least quietly questioning that logic now as they see the new workforce we get now as a result of this low starting wage which has moved up but oh so slightly. I'd also argue that why should UPS be forced to modify it's workforce (more FTers) just to insulate the various Teamster pension funds from a collasping membership as a result of Teamster bankrupt trucking companies especially during the 80's? Seems to me the Teamsters may have been better served in the 80's having read the political Tea leaves better and seeing the impact of what deregulation of trucking would have and then work with the companies to adapt to be successful. Had they done that, it's possible (not probable mind you) some would have survived and the pension problems today may not be a severe. As to the comment that Carey and others saw the problem and that the trustees to quote you, "back in the early 90's the trustees began to see the plan participants dwindling and the retirees multiplying" and I completely agree with you on that and will add this to it. UPS was also fully aware because although they specifically weren't represented on the CS board by a UPSer for example, they were represented by the equal number of "employer trustees" and my guess is they took part in some fashion of selecting those individuals and then being completely aware of the financial status and demographic reports as it relates to those funds. For "ANYONE" IMO to suggest that UPS was a "UNKNOWING" party in all of this is at best ill-informed. I also believe that knowledge along with an attempt to scuttle the strike in 97' was the motive behind the pension offer 3 days (less than one business day) before the strike took place. Now here's my question to you but let me set the table first. Leading up to the 97' strike, especially in the CS covered area, there was a growing and growing movement to put pressure on the union leadership to raise retirement levels. UPS knew this also and is a very important point in the history of what happened. Most all union leaders I heard at the time played to this growing voice and said we need the make this happen. This also included Mr. Carey as he expressed this same regard on a campaign visit to the Atlanta area prior to his election as union President when the question was posed by a local member about the CS payout structure. Now as we both agree, everyone knew the pending and growing danger so that being the case, then why very soon after the 97' strike did Mr. Carey along with the union leadership including ALL the trustees let this happen and none offered a voice of concern or warning? Carey never offered along with any other union leader that this shouldn't be done at this time because of the already stated reasons and neither did UPS but I would question as to whether that was their place to begin with. In fact, labor law may have prevented them from saying so but that's only a guess on my part. It's ironic when UPS wants to speak it does find a way so there you go! There are/maybe a number of answers here but I'm curious as to what insight you might have in this area as it relates to why Carey went ahead and greenlighted pension increases knowing the pending ramifications of doing so in the future? It's ironic that the biggest boom for FT jobs at the highest level was not via some contract article but was in fact a gift from good ole' FedEx. You see for years they maintained their movement of merchandise on the road instead of on the rail like UPS and thus they did had better lane enhancement for some time in transit from hub to hub. Generally speaking they slowed down when it came to the delivery point and we tended to catch up in that area. However for FedEx that began to improve and UPS saw it and responded with the first of continuing lane enhancements back in February that was nothing more than taking volume off the trains, putting on Feeder drivers and moving the volume over the road. In other words, it was the pure demands of business that helped created the biggest and most promising jump in FT jobs in our area because all those Feeder drivers moved up from the package ranks which opened up package driver jobs for Pters'. In other words, the business demanded more Fters. Seems to me that one area where we can help our own problem of pension concerns is to grow the business in areas where the need for more Fters is obvious. JMO. BTW: Get back on your soapbox when you like as I enjoyed the preaching!:thumbup1: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension in Jeopardy
Top