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
Poll: APWA-Support or Oppose
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="satellitedriver" data-source="post: 183638" data-attributes="member: 1664"><p>Avoid most of your post? </p><p>You are telling an untruth.</p><p>You posted:</p><p></p><p>Quote:</p><p>Originally Posted by brett636 </p><p>Exactly, their pension payouts are based on a best case scenario. Throw in one good recession or one bad investment choice and pension payouts will drop. Are you going to advocate a change of unions then as well? Their plan as far as I can tell only involves the pension. Now I don't know about you, but every week I receive a paycheck, not a pension. I have medical, vacation, and other benefits to be concerned with. The APWA has nothing to bargain with as they have no strike fund, so the union's only real weapon, the strike, is useless. I can only imagine how bad that first contract would be. Luckily this group does not have the support it claims to have, and will not be the bargaining agent for UPSers within my lifetime. Maybe one day a real union, with real experienced officers, and a real history will come along to fix this pension issue, or maybe it will be fixed in the meantime. As for now the only place the APWA has support are the few morons such as yourself on this message board. </p><p></p><p>In this post you brought up 5 points.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my reply to your post, I posted :</p><p></p><p>If the AWPA pension is based on a best case scenario, then why did teamsters Central States S.E. & S.W. report a 14.5% return for 2006 and we still are only funded at 59%?The AWPA plan in based on a 12.5% return invested in Income Fund of America. (Just do a simple google search to find it.)</p><p>The same recession would effect all funds.</p><p>Why is it that CS blames the drop in 2002 of the stock market to reduce our pensions, while other funds rebounded and are fully funded? Could it possibly be bad investment management? </p><p>Good point about receiving a paycheck, better point that you are not receiving a pension.</p><p>Strike fund, that should be a strong selling point to stay with the teamsters. Did you receive your $50.00 check in 1997? Did the teamsters union take out their union dues of $40.00. After taxes you could not buy lunch with that big strike fund check. </p><p>You ponder that maybe one day a real union will come along. How about building one from the ground up that only benefits UPSer's?</p><p>I do not know where you get the data that APWA is only supported on this board and no where else.</p><p>Sorry about the "I think not" comment, it was just too easy of a shot and I took it.</p><p>Now to the point of you trying to be insulting with the term morons, maybe I can help you with that. A maroon is the highest classification of mental deficiency,( ranging about 50 to 75 on the standard intelligence quotient scale) above imbecle and idiot. So, if you think someone is an idiot and you call them a maroon ,you actually are giving them a compliment.</p><p>Pax</p><p></p><p>I commented on all 5 of your points.</p><p></p><p>Doesn't look like avoidance of most of your post. </p><p></p><p>You state that you like they way the majority of my post concerned the definition of maroon. This to is a falsehood.</p><p>My post contained 19 lines and only 5 pertained to the use of the word maroon.</p><p>Doing simple fuzzy math, that equals roughly 30% of the post. Hardly a majority.</p><p>Lame as my mini-tutorial on the use of the term maroon may have been, at least it was factual.</p><p>So, I hope this post meets your requirements of replying to the majority your post.</p><p>Finally, </p><p>Common practice in this forum, for most users, is when replying to a multi-positioned post is to single out the points they wish to address. So using your "fuzzy" logic, if not every single thing is replied to, all is negated.</p><p>What is your definition of a real debate?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="satellitedriver, post: 183638, member: 1664"] Avoid most of your post? You are telling an untruth. You posted: Quote: Originally Posted by brett636 Exactly, their pension payouts are based on a best case scenario. Throw in one good recession or one bad investment choice and pension payouts will drop. Are you going to advocate a change of unions then as well? Their plan as far as I can tell only involves the pension. Now I don't know about you, but every week I receive a paycheck, not a pension. I have medical, vacation, and other benefits to be concerned with. The APWA has nothing to bargain with as they have no strike fund, so the union's only real weapon, the strike, is useless. I can only imagine how bad that first contract would be. Luckily this group does not have the support it claims to have, and will not be the bargaining agent for UPSers within my lifetime. Maybe one day a real union, with real experienced officers, and a real history will come along to fix this pension issue, or maybe it will be fixed in the meantime. As for now the only place the APWA has support are the few morons such as yourself on this message board. In this post you brought up 5 points. In my reply to your post, I posted : If the AWPA pension is based on a best case scenario, then why did teamsters Central States S.E. & S.W. report a 14.5% return for 2006 and we still are only funded at 59%?The AWPA plan in based on a 12.5% return invested in Income Fund of America. (Just do a simple google search to find it.) The same recession would effect all funds. Why is it that CS blames the drop in 2002 of the stock market to reduce our pensions, while other funds rebounded and are fully funded? Could it possibly be bad investment management? Good point about receiving a paycheck, better point that you are not receiving a pension. Strike fund, that should be a strong selling point to stay with the teamsters. Did you receive your $50.00 check in 1997? Did the teamsters union take out their union dues of $40.00. After taxes you could not buy lunch with that big strike fund check. You ponder that maybe one day a real union will come along. How about building one from the ground up that only benefits UPSer's? I do not know where you get the data that APWA is only supported on this board and no where else. Sorry about the "I think not" comment, it was just too easy of a shot and I took it. Now to the point of you trying to be insulting with the term morons, maybe I can help you with that. A maroon is the highest classification of mental deficiency,( ranging about 50 to 75 on the standard intelligence quotient scale) above imbecle and idiot. So, if you think someone is an idiot and you call them a maroon ,you actually are giving them a compliment. Pax I commented on all 5 of your points. Doesn't look like avoidance of most of your post. You state that you like they way the majority of my post concerned the definition of maroon. This to is a falsehood. My post contained 19 lines and only 5 pertained to the use of the word maroon. Doing simple fuzzy math, that equals roughly 30% of the post. Hardly a majority. Lame as my mini-tutorial on the use of the term maroon may have been, at least it was factual. So, I hope this post meets your requirements of replying to the majority your post. Finally, Common practice in this forum, for most users, is when replying to a multi-positioned post is to single out the points they wish to address. So using your "fuzzy" logic, if not every single thing is replied to, all is negated. What is your definition of a real debate? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Poll: APWA-Support or Oppose
Top