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
Pobre and friends
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 1025088" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p><strong>Re: Comparison: Last, Best & Final to Pre-strike proposals</strong></p><p></p><p>104Feeder;</p><p></p><p>That's about as disingenuous a claim as I've heard in a while. Yes, it was "payment required to remove UPS from the multi-employer plan", only because THE TEAMSTERS HAD SQUANDERED THE CONTRIBUTIONS THE COMPANY HAD MADE AWAY! Those contributions were intended to cover UPS EMPLOYEES...and they were SUFFICIENT to cover UPS employees IF the Teamsters had held up their end of the bargain; i.e. - maintained contributing members in order that the plan was TRUE "multi-employer". But the Teamster didn't...and they essentially pissed away BILLIONS in the process.</p><p></p><p>Beyond that, you remember the codicil that the Teamsters signed the next contract AFTER '97? I.e. - the one in which they agreed to pursue FULL FUNDING for Central States, ala' Western States? They uphold that agreement, did they? I think you know as well as I that they didn't...or the "withdrawal liability" wouldn't have more than doubled in the few shorts years AFTER the Teamsters agreed to attempt to rectify the situation. They made a promise, and failed to keep it. Their word was no good. Unfortunately, that's something one encounters all-too-often when dealing with the Teamsters union.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, but when an organization puts employer-contributor after employer-contributor out of business as the Teamster have - to the tune of SCORES, if not HUNDREDS - then I don't know what term could be used to describe the situation other than "squandered". And the only "crap" I see being "peddled" here is that coming from those who posture as if the Teamsters DIDN'T "screw the pooch" when it came to Central States and the contributors to it. The made a promise, and they FAILED TO KEEP IT! Simple as that.</p><p></p><p>As for you being "done responding", I can well understand why you'd resent being called on your B.S and want to skedaddle; I'd back out too, if I was being asked to support the trash you've been slopping around here. And if you think the loss of contributors to Central States, or the inability of the Teamster to retain the viability of their employers is mere "conjecture", then I not only am going to question your integrity, but also your grasp on reality. For example, if that $6 billion WASN'T "squandered", then what happened to it? Because if it WASN'T squandered by the Teamsters, then I - as a UPS shareholder - WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BACK!</p><p></p><p>That possible, you think?</p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1025088, member: 16651"] [b]Re: Comparison: Last, Best & Final to Pre-strike proposals[/b] 104Feeder; That's about as disingenuous a claim as I've heard in a while. Yes, it was "payment required to remove UPS from the multi-employer plan", only because THE TEAMSTERS HAD SQUANDERED THE CONTRIBUTIONS THE COMPANY HAD MADE AWAY! Those contributions were intended to cover UPS EMPLOYEES...and they were SUFFICIENT to cover UPS employees IF the Teamsters had held up their end of the bargain; i.e. - maintained contributing members in order that the plan was TRUE "multi-employer". But the Teamster didn't...and they essentially pissed away BILLIONS in the process. Beyond that, you remember the codicil that the Teamsters signed the next contract AFTER '97? I.e. - the one in which they agreed to pursue FULL FUNDING for Central States, ala' Western States? They uphold that agreement, did they? I think you know as well as I that they didn't...or the "withdrawal liability" wouldn't have more than doubled in the few shorts years AFTER the Teamsters agreed to attempt to rectify the situation. They made a promise, and failed to keep it. Their word was no good. Unfortunately, that's something one encounters all-too-often when dealing with the Teamsters union. Sorry, but when an organization puts employer-contributor after employer-contributor out of business as the Teamster have - to the tune of SCORES, if not HUNDREDS - then I don't know what term could be used to describe the situation other than "squandered". And the only "crap" I see being "peddled" here is that coming from those who posture as if the Teamsters DIDN'T "screw the pooch" when it came to Central States and the contributors to it. The made a promise, and they FAILED TO KEEP IT! Simple as that. As for you being "done responding", I can well understand why you'd resent being called on your B.S and want to skedaddle; I'd back out too, if I was being asked to support the trash you've been slopping around here. And if you think the loss of contributors to Central States, or the inability of the Teamster to retain the viability of their employers is mere "conjecture", then I not only am going to question your integrity, but also your grasp on reality. For example, if that $6 billion WASN'T "squandered", then what happened to it? Because if it WASN'T squandered by the Teamsters, then I - as a UPS shareholder - WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BACK! That possible, you think? [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Pobre and friends
Top