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
Question for Central Staters
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="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 54866"><p>gman, you really need to read slower. </p><p> </p><p>I just finished stating I am a Teamster. </p><p> </p><p>I have probably been one longer than you. </p><p> </p><p>I became a Teamster in the oil industry in 1969. </p><p> </p><p>I became a UPS Teamster in 1973. </p><p> </p><p>I do believe most of your statements are simply misunderstanding me and the situation. </p><p> </p><p>For instance: "As for retirement benefits, those that have closed up are no longer paying in, right" </p><p> </p><p>You seem to think that proves something you are saying. </p><p> </p><p>It doesn't. </p><p> </p><p>That statement is correct, but not taken far enough. </p><p> </p><p>Those that have closed up, their workers no longer receive any further retirement credit. </p><p> </p><p>So by itself, that <strong>should</strong> be a zero sum game. </p><p> </p><p>It isn't though and that is what I have been trying to get across. </p><p> </p><p>The fault isn't in the other Teamster companies. </p><p> </p><p>Here is my point . . . </p><p> </p><p>The fact is <em><u>the contribution level does not sustain the benefit level promised.</u></em> </p><p> </p><p>PERIOD. </p><p> </p><p>While it is bandied about that part of the problem is companies have gone out of business and that is part of the problem it isn't actually really true by itself. </p><p> </p><p>IF the businesses did not go out of business their workers would continue to accrue retirement benefits and would retire and the situation would actually be worse. </p><p> </p><p>The only way a company staying in business benefits the underfunding plan is if it grows the membership to move the ratio favorably from that 2:1 figure you mentioned earlier. </p><p> </p><p>Even UPS isn't really doing anything to speak of anymore as far as significant workforce growth to improve that ratio. </p><p> </p><p>With the baby boom generation just beginning to retire no company will be able to make much of a positive change in that ratio for the next couple of decades. </p><p> </p><p>That is just a straight demographic fact. </p><p> </p><p>Most companies still in business in this industry are not growing, not even holding their own, so they are actually losing ground for the plan by staying in business long enough to let their workers retire. </p><p> </p><p>Sounds ironic, but true. </p><p> </p><p>You used that lowball, outdated 13 million dollar figure again right after I gave you the most current one of almost 19 million, read slower. </p><p> </p><p>Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "that is all they need for eternity", quite the opposite. </p><p> </p><p>I have stated that what has been being put in from the beginning and even <em>to this date</em>, <u>even with interest</u> is not enough to support the benefits promised. </p><p> </p><p>My point is to correct erroneous statements that UPS is paying for the retirees from defunct companies. </p><p> </p><p>Not happening. </p><p> </p><p>UPS is contributing the amount they are supposed to for their own and incurring further liabilities from the plans underfunding <em>along with each and every other company still viable in the fund</em> due to the underfunding of the plan pure and simple. </p><p> </p><p>I also do not disagree that at this time a UPS only fund would be safer in theory for UPS workers. </p><p> </p><p>I just point out that the reality is UPS's trustworthiness regarding looking out for the shareholder/owner profit margin versus the worker would require far more than simple good faith and the fact that it would all hinge on UPS continuing to be a viable company (not a given if you listen to the company itself) <strong>and</strong> the more pertinent fact that switching would hasten, if not trigger the collapse of the underfunded Teamster plan that you and I have all our credit with. </p><p> </p><p>You stated earlier that you believe in the numero uno thing, well then you need to realize that if UPS could successfully walk away tomorrow, even if they established a replacement plan for us workers that does not save your or my numero uno butt. </p><p> </p><p>I am sure you are envisioning that when UPS switches out and if they then created a new UPS workers only retirement plan that you would have thirty plus years credit in it. </p><p> </p><p>Nada. </p><p> </p><p>You would be at "day one" in it when it was created and only have credit in it for every day you work into the future from the point of creation. </p><p> </p><p>At best UPS would agree to a receprocity agreement with the soon to be defunct (after the UPS pullout) CSPF. </p><p> </p><p>An example of what that would get you: </p><p> </p><p>Let's say UPS sets up a pension fund and promises us a top end $5000 a month after thirty five years of credit (not service). </p><p> </p><p>You worked another year and made it to thirty five years of service (not credit), you would get 1/35th (at best if UPS did not have some sort of <em>must work a minimum of five years under the new plan</em> loophole or whatever) from the "new" UPS plan which would equal $142.85 and 34/35ths from the former collapsed CSPF plan, which would be a maximum $1050 a month from the PBGC. </p><p> </p><p>Giving you a grand total absolute maximum best of $1192.50 a month and probably no medical. </p><p> </p><p>Whoooowhoooo! </p><p> </p><p>I agree that it would be great if we would get what we have been promised, but laying blame where it doesn't belong ain't the fix. </p><p> </p><p>Realize, I am not saying UPS is the fault. </p><p> </p><p>Heck, they didn't even have a representative on the CSPF until '98, but all the companies involved <strong>and</strong> the Teamster representatives had to have known they were underfunding the plan's promised benefits. </p><p> </p><p>They were either criminal or incompetent to do so, but we will be the ones that will live with the results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 54866"] gman, you really need to read slower. I just finished stating I am a Teamster. I have probably been one longer than you. I became a Teamster in the oil industry in 1969. I became a UPS Teamster in 1973. I do believe most of your statements are simply misunderstanding me and the situation. For instance: "As for retirement benefits, those that have closed up are no longer paying in, right" You seem to think that proves something you are saying. It doesn't. That statement is correct, but not taken far enough. Those that have closed up, their workers no longer receive any further retirement credit. So by itself, that [b]should[/b] be a zero sum game. It isn't though and that is what I have been trying to get across. The fault isn't in the other Teamster companies. Here is my point . . . The fact is [i]<u>the contribution level does not sustain the benefit level promised.</u>[/i] PERIOD. While it is bandied about that part of the problem is companies have gone out of business and that is part of the problem it isn't actually really true by itself. IF the businesses did not go out of business their workers would continue to accrue retirement benefits and would retire and the situation would actually be worse. The only way a company staying in business benefits the underfunding plan is if it grows the membership to move the ratio favorably from that 2:1 figure you mentioned earlier. Even UPS isn't really doing anything to speak of anymore as far as significant workforce growth to improve that ratio. With the baby boom generation just beginning to retire no company will be able to make much of a positive change in that ratio for the next couple of decades. That is just a straight demographic fact. Most companies still in business in this industry are not growing, not even holding their own, so they are actually losing ground for the plan by staying in business long enough to let their workers retire. Sounds ironic, but true. You used that lowball, outdated 13 million dollar figure again right after I gave you the most current one of almost 19 million, read slower. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "that is all they need for eternity", quite the opposite. I have stated that what has been being put in from the beginning and even [i]to this date[/i], <u>even with interest</u> is not enough to support the benefits promised. My point is to correct erroneous statements that UPS is paying for the retirees from defunct companies. Not happening. UPS is contributing the amount they are supposed to for their own and incurring further liabilities from the plans underfunding [i]along with each and every other company still viable in the fund[/i] due to the underfunding of the plan pure and simple. I also do not disagree that at this time a UPS only fund would be safer in theory for UPS workers. I just point out that the reality is UPS's trustworthiness regarding looking out for the shareholder/owner profit margin versus the worker would require far more than simple good faith and the fact that it would all hinge on UPS continuing to be a viable company (not a given if you listen to the company itself) [b]and[/b] the more pertinent fact that switching would hasten, if not trigger the collapse of the underfunded Teamster plan that you and I have all our credit with. You stated earlier that you believe in the numero uno thing, well then you need to realize that if UPS could successfully walk away tomorrow, even if they established a replacement plan for us workers that does not save your or my numero uno butt. I am sure you are envisioning that when UPS switches out and if they then created a new UPS workers only retirement plan that you would have thirty plus years credit in it. Nada. You would be at "day one" in it when it was created and only have credit in it for every day you work into the future from the point of creation. At best UPS would agree to a receprocity agreement with the soon to be defunct (after the UPS pullout) CSPF. An example of what that would get you: Let's say UPS sets up a pension fund and promises us a top end $5000 a month after thirty five years of credit (not service). You worked another year and made it to thirty five years of service (not credit), you would get 1/35th (at best if UPS did not have some sort of [i]must work a minimum of five years under the new plan[/i] loophole or whatever) from the "new" UPS plan which would equal $142.85 and 34/35ths from the former collapsed CSPF plan, which would be a maximum $1050 a month from the PBGC. Giving you a grand total absolute maximum best of $1192.50 a month and probably no medical. Whoooowhoooo! I agree that it would be great if we would get what we have been promised, but laying blame where it doesn't belong ain't the fix. Realize, I am not saying UPS is the fault. Heck, they didn't even have a representative on the CSPF until '98, but all the companies involved [b]and[/b] the Teamster representatives had to have known they were underfunding the plan's promised benefits. They were either criminal or incompetent to do so, but we will be the ones that will live with the results. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Question for Central Staters
Top