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 vs. 401(k)
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: 197748" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>something to add to the discussion in case you have not seen it.</p><p> </p><p><strong>May 10, 2007</strong></p><p><strong></strong><a href="http://www.teamster.org/07news/hn_070510_3.asp" target="_blank"><strong><u><span style="color: #0000ff">http://www.teamster.org/07news/hn_070510_3.asp</span></u></strong></a></p><p><em>The following is a statement from hall, Director of the Teamsters Parcel and Small Package Division and Co-Chairman of the National UPS Negotiating Committee </em></p><p><em></em>The Teamsters Union entered into early negotiations with UPS with the central objective of protecting our members’ pensions and health care.</p><p>The Negotiating Committee presented an economic proposal to UPS at the end of March, which included a demand for an increase in health and welfare and pension contributions of $2 per hour in the first year. Our proposal also included significant increases in wages and other economic conditions.</p><p>When National Master negotiations resumed after a break in which the supplemental committees met, United Parcel Service responded to our economic package with its own opening offer. <strong><em><u>What will capture the headlines is an offer to create a new, joint Teamsters-Company pension plan to cover full-time UPS employees who currently obtain their pension benefits from the Central States Fund. </u></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><u></u>In the past, the Company has attempted to create a Company plan that it would administer by itself. The current proposal would create a plan jointly administered by UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with an equal number of Teamster-appointed and Company trustees. </em></strong></p><p><strong><em>The Company also proposed increases in pension and health and welfare contributions for other benefit funds covering UPS members. While smaller than the Union's demands, the Company proposal is greater than the amounts contained in the 2002-2008 contract. </em></strong></p><p><strong><em>The Company proposes to pay in a lump sum the withdrawal liability owed to the Central States pension fund, an amount subject to negotiation between the Company and that Fund. The Company contends that depositing a large amount of money into the Fund will improve its stability and protect the Fund from some of the requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which will go into effect in 2008. These determinations require complicated economic calculations. The Teamsters Negotiating Committee has retained its own actuaries to examine the figures that have been received from Central States in order to independently determine the impact on the Fund if the Company withdrew.</em></strong></p><p><strong><em>I can assure you that the Negotiating Committee will not consider any plan that jeopardizes the benefits of members in Central States or members of any other Teamster fund. The Company’s proposal is not a negotiating tactic. It is a serious proposal that must be seriously evaluated and compared with the other options available for improving and protecting the pension benefits of our members. </em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong>The Company’s pension proposal is included in a wide range of contract changes which the Company wants to offset the cost of the new plan. These proposals are almost universally unacceptable. Most of them are too farfetched to even discuss at this point because the Negotiating Committee will never bring them back to the members or trade away these contract protections.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 197748, member: 1912"] something to add to the discussion in case you have not seen it. [B]May 10, 2007 [/B][URL="http://www.teamster.org/07news/hn_070510_3.asp"][B][U][COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.teamster.org/07news/hn_070510_3.asp[/COLOR][/U][/B][U][COLOR=#0000ff][/color][/U][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/URL] [I]The following is a statement from hall, Director of the Teamsters Parcel and Small Package Division and Co-Chairman of the National UPS Negotiating Committee [/I]The Teamsters Union entered into early negotiations with UPS with the central objective of protecting our members’ pensions and health care. The Negotiating Committee presented an economic proposal to UPS at the end of March, which included a demand for an increase in health and welfare and pension contributions of $2 per hour in the first year. Our proposal also included significant increases in wages and other economic conditions. When National Master negotiations resumed after a break in which the supplemental committees met, United Parcel Service responded to our economic package with its own opening offer. [B][I][U]What will capture the headlines is an offer to create a new, joint Teamsters-Company pension plan to cover full-time UPS employees who currently obtain their pension benefits from the Central States Fund. [/U]In the past, the Company has attempted to create a Company plan that it would administer by itself. The current proposal would create a plan jointly administered by UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with an equal number of Teamster-appointed and Company trustees. The Company also proposed increases in pension and health and welfare contributions for other benefit funds covering UPS members. While smaller than the Union's demands, the Company proposal is greater than the amounts contained in the 2002-2008 contract. The Company proposes to pay in a lump sum the withdrawal liability owed to the Central States pension fund, an amount subject to negotiation between the Company and that Fund. The Company contends that depositing a large amount of money into the Fund will improve its stability and protect the Fund from some of the requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which will go into effect in 2008. These determinations require complicated economic calculations. The Teamsters Negotiating Committee has retained its own actuaries to examine the figures that have been received from Central States in order to independently determine the impact on the Fund if the Company withdrew. I can assure you that the Negotiating Committee will not consider any plan that jeopardizes the benefits of members in Central States or members of any other Teamster fund. The Company’s proposal is not a negotiating tactic. It is a serious proposal that must be seriously evaluated and compared with the other options available for improving and protecting the pension benefits of our members. [/I][/B][I][/I]The Company’s pension proposal is included in a wide range of contract changes which the Company wants to offset the cost of the new plan. These proposals are almost universally unacceptable. Most of them are too farfetched to even discuss at this point because the Negotiating Committee will never bring them back to the members or trade away these contract protections. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Pension vs. 401(k)
Top