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="retiredone" data-source="post: 86464" data-attributes="member: 1576"><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: black"><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> The complete original post appears above. I simply don't think these arguments have merit. The company encouraged part timers primarily because they suited the business need of short sort spans to meet service requirements. If we had more full timers, the burden on the union pension plan would increase with the additional participants drawing benefits. I would argue that, since pension contributions were made for part timers who statistically are less likely to burden the plan by drawing benefits, the use of part timers helped pension solvency. And then there is the comparison to other Teamster pension plans which are solvent and paying generous benefits. UPS used part timers all over the country. If the problem was with UPS, why aren't all the plans suffering? I simply don't follow the logic of the prior post, and I believe it is factually wrong and conflicts with obvious facts.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/redface.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":o" title="Embarrassment :o" data-shortname=":o" />ffice<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/redface.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":o" title="Embarrassment :o" data-shortname=":o" />ffice" /><o<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" />></o<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" />></span></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="retiredone, post: 86464, member: 1576"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] The complete original post appears above. I simply don't think these arguments have merit. The company encouraged part timers primarily because they suited the business need of short sort spans to meet service requirements. If we had more full timers, the burden on the union pension plan would increase with the additional participants drawing benefits. I would argue that, since pension contributions were made for part timers who statistically are less likely to burden the plan by drawing benefits, the use of part timers helped pension solvency. And then there is the comparison to other Teamster pension plans which are solvent and paying generous benefits. UPS used part timers all over the country. If the problem was with UPS, why aren't all the plans suffering? I simply don't follow the logic of the prior post, and I believe it is factually wrong and conflicts with obvious facts.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension in Jeopardy
Top