Right to Work,

[JonFrum]

Trouble is, for many, the money that UPS "put away" for their employees retirement was squandered supporting other non-UPS Teamsters...and didn't benefit UPS employees at all.

In that sense, "yes", I believe that UPS would have "put that money away for YOU" - and ONLY for"you", and not flushed down the toilet trying to buy off non-employees - if it had been given the opportunity. As for contractual agreements, I don't think UPS ever agreed to bail-out the entire Teamster pension fund scheme, nor did they agree to any proposal by the Teamsters to ignore organizing the competition and/or drive other employer/contributors to the multi-employer pension funds out of business. That's solely the union's doing.

Beyond that, remember the "memorandum of understanding" the Teamsters signed a few years back regarding the funding level of Central States? And remember how they simply failed to honor it? By that I mean that "yes", contracts are AGREED upon by both parties...but, when it came to pensions, the Teamsters have had a history of not honoring their side of the bargain.

Anyone can see how little UPS puts away for its people by examining the UPS Pension Plan. That's the plan that covers UPS part-timers in the Central States region. UPS runs the fund and has for decades. When it comes to providing for part-time retirees, the fund is pitiful.

More recently UPS created a new fund just for UPS full-timers in the Central States region. It's pension accrual rates are lower than any Teamster sponsored fund.

The Teamsters didn't fund (or underfund) Central States, employers, like UPS, did. All the Teamsters could do is try to negotiate higher contribution rates by companies like UPS. They can't make UPS agree to those higher rates. Besides, rather than shore up the fund, UPS, the largest employer, withdrew from Central States, thus further damageing the fund's financial health.

 

[satellitedriver]

Thats like saying that UPS "forces" me to pay $80 every 2 years for a drivers license. It is a condition of employment that I was made aware of and chose to accept prior to taking the job. If for whatever reason I decide that I no longer wish to pay that $80, I am free to resign and seek employment at a place where a drivers license is not required.

I did not even know, when I was hired by UPS, that the teamsters had anything to do with being able to work at UPS.
Guess what, they do not in Texas.
It was a sup that told me I should join IBT, after working for a month without a word from the union steward.
As far as "condition of employment", I met all the criteria to work for UPS.
I had a drivers license.
I was physically fit.
I had a clean criminal record.
I had a strong work ethic.
In right to work state's, one is not forced to pay dues, to have a job.
I have always had the right to resign, and the company always had the right to fire me.
When I quit IBT in 97', I dedicated the money formally given to the union towards children charities.
I have gladly given help and support to children that need the monetary help than to people that act like children.
The returns on investment I have received far exceeded paying "protection" money to have a job.

 

[satellitedriver]

. I kind of chuckled at that one remark you had posted about "thinking of maybe retiring next year". I knew the exact date I wanted to retire 25 years before hand. Peace

Cool,
I wish I had your "Karnack" abilities 25yrs ago.

Financially I could retire today, but with my little bout with colon cancer I am taking things day by day.
Each week I can work, I put back most of my paycheck back.
I have a simple goal.
That goal is to make sure that if I am no longer here my wife will not have to worry over money.
Mr. Chuckles,
to quote Liberace, "I am laughing all the way to the bank."

 

[satellitedriver]

Trick wrote this;
Unless things have changed recently, our famous union can tell you not only what you can do after you retire but how many hours a week you can do it. If you violate either of these they can withhold your pension.
Wanna have some fun?
Call the CS H,W and Pension plan and tell them you have some questions about working after you retire.
Think of some jobs you would like to do after retiring (nurse, teacher, bus driver, gravedigger, government worker....whatever)
They willl tell you which ones of these jobs you can do.
Now the fun........ask for a list of jobs you are allowed to do.
There isn't such a list. (what does that tell you?)
So......you really didn't "earn" X number of dollars to be paid at your retirement because it is conditional on what you do or don't do upon retiring.
Could you get your super attorney nephew to file a class action on this issue?

I will respond in black font, so that our communication is not confused.
Trick,
as usual, you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Part of the "agreement", when UPS gave Central States $6.1 billion, is that the only employment restriction in retirement is that one can not work for UPS and receive retirement benefits.
You forgot to mention that under the restrictive teamster plan that one can not work over 80 hr's a month at any job.
My nephew, and myself, have read the new retirement plan,
maybe you should before you mouth off nonsense.

 

[satellitedriver]

Anyone can see how little UPS puts away for its people by examining the UPS Pension Plan. .

UPS puts $285 a week into my pension plan and that ain't little, but I am full time.

 

[trickpony1]

Satellitedriver-
I believe I said, "unless things have changed recently........."
Apparently things have changed recently.
I appreciate your political correctness.
Thanks again.

 

[JonFrum]

UPS puts $285 a week into my pension plan and that ain't little, but I am full time.

SatelliteDriver, you seemed to say you are now in the new UPS/IBT Full-time Employee Pension Plan. If so, I wasn't aware it was funded with weekly contributions of $285 a week (or the hourly or monthly equivalent thereof.) Since I'm not in the fund myself, I don't have access to its plan documents. Could you quote the clause where it says UPS contributes $285 per week? Thanks.

 

[satellitedriver]

SatelliteDriver, you seemed to say you are now in the new UPS/IBT Full-time Employee Pension Plan. If so, I wasn't aware it was funded with weekly contributions of $285 a week (or the hourly or monthly equivalent thereof.) Since I'm not in the fund myself, I don't have access to its plan documents. Could you quote the clause where it says UPS contributes $285 per week? Thanks.

I am in the new UPS/IBT pension plan.
I can not quote the clause, sorry.
I got that info in a letter when I did a retirement benefit request while I was on medical disability these past few months.
Right now it is in a folder jumbled up with all my medical records, insurance forms and disability forms ect...
Personally, I was amazed at that number.

 

[22.3?]

I live in RTW state, and I can tell you there is no difference. I live in a very RED state, and I bet our dues paying membership is above 80%. One thing you have to remember, is that UPS has not willing given you the hourly rate of pay, pension payments, and benefits you get now. They've agreed to it because we, as Teamsters, have collectively bargained for it. In my local, we don't treat non-dues paying members any differently. We do, however, ask them if they don't think our representation was worth their monthly dues in the future, after they've gotten in hot water. I, personally, agree with other posts in this thread. It should be your choice as to whether or not you want to join the union. But, I will say this, the saying, "no man is an island", has never been more true than at UPS. Collective bargaining is displayed at it's finest at UPS, and it doesn't matter whether you're a closed shop or RTW, this is evident. Sooner or later, non paying members come around and see this.

 

[22.3?]

Satellilitedriver, you have an illness, no one can do right by you. You are harboring this feeling that you were lied to in '97, 13 years ago. I am sure that your wife has lied to you more recently than that. At least you have health insurance to help with your illness, a lot of people don't even have that now.

 

[menotyou]

You should play nice.

 

[PobreCarlos]

No, employers (per se) did NOT "underfund Central States"; rather, they paid their negotiated contributions....UNLESS they were put out of business by the Teamsters (which, for example, was the case with 90% or more of the LTL employers) and were no longer able to pay into the funds. Or afford the withdrawal fee, for that matter.

What did the Teamsters do in reaction to these employers going out of business and leaving liabilities behind? Did they reduce the pension payouts? Did they organize new employers to keep up the contribution level? Nope...they did neither, counting on the remaining employers to make good THEIR (the Teamsters) screw-up.

Lastly, as "pitiful" as the UPS pension fund for the part-timers is (pension accrual rates or whatever), it has to be immeasurably better than "nothing", which appears to be what plans such as Cen. States will have to offer. Nor do the majority of the p/t'er - those who DON'T plan on retiring from UPS - have to look at the monies that are gathered in THEIR name being handed off to a Teamster plan from which they'll NEVER derive any benefit. 'Course, the Teamster plans like the idea because (1) they collect the funds based on the employee while (2) realizing it's more than likely the employee in question will never vest any earnings from those contributions.

As for your claim that "ll the Teamsters could do is try to negotiate higher contribution rates", that's absolute B.S. They could have done a myriad of different things to correctly alter the situation. First off, they could have stopped being so damned greedy, and behaved in such a manner that employers could stay in business and/or not go out of business simply to avoid being infested by them. That, of course, goes hand in hand with organizing new employers to replace the ones they cast aside. That, however, is difficult when the Teamsters created for themselves a reputation in which companies quite literally see "organization" by the Teamsters as 'the kiss of death" (and, given history, that view is quite justifiable). Lastly, they could have reduce payouts to match income...but that would have antagonized those who see things like you apparently do; i.e. - that's there's an inexhaustible supply of OTHERS wealth available to pay the bill.

Beyond that, there was simply no way for UPS to "shore up the fund"; that would have been like trying to mop us the sea. The six billion or so that was paid is, by all "fairness" means, an outrageous fine to pay for the transgression of being involved with the Teamsters. As for the withdrawal itself, one saw the writing on that wall with the resolution of the '97 strike, in which Central States and the Teamsters "blinked" to end the standoff by agreeing to the $100,000,000 concession to UPS in order to avoid bankrupting the fund at a much earlier date.

Anyway, in terms of what "anyone can see", there IS a lot for "anyone to see"...but they're going to actually have to use their OWN eyes, instead of looking through the rose-colored lenses the Teamsters have set in front of them for decades now.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

No, employers (per se) did NOT "underfund Central States"; rather, they paid their negotiated contributions....UNLESS they were put out of business by the Teamsters (which, for example, was the case with 90% or more of the LTL employers) and were no longer able to pay into the funds.

Really....???? The Teamsters put 90% of the LTL carriers out of business ??

Did you ever hear about the de-regulation of the industry ??


-Bug-

 

[PobreCarlos]

Bug;

Yeah, I heard of it...and I'm not aware that deregulation, per se, put any LTL carrier out of business. Can you name one that it did? As I recall, they all pretty much went out of business due to their failure to compete. And one wonders....just what was the reason behind their inability to compete effectively?

I am aware, however, that deregulation opened up a competitive environment - an environment in which only the most efficient and cost-effective could succeed. Now, the carriers existing prior to "deregulation" (primarily "union") had a leg up in that regard, in that they had already had their capitalization, their physical plant, and their workforce in place....while the start-ups had to play catch-up big time in order to match those advantages held by the "senior" firms. They, themselves, however, had one big advantage; i.e. - they were primarily non-union.

Now the union which had organized the existing firms could have made the decision to become competitive itself; to make sure that its members offered the most efficient, most cost-effective labor alternative available. Did it do so? No....no way! Instead, in its recalcitrance, it simply threw their members jobs away, apparently thinking that, just because they were "union", the world owed them a living without their having to earn it.

Result? While the industry as a whole thrived, the Teamster-organized firms bit the dust, one by one....to the point that it's at today, where there are virtually no NMFA LTL Teamsters left. Or, for that matter, outside of UPS, hardly a significant percentage of transportation industry Teamster workers around either.

So "yes", I have heard "about the de-regulation of the industry"...and I've also heard it being used as the justification the Teamsters use for their own inadequacies for decades now. In a very real sense, it's at the root of their denial of reality. And, seemingly, their ignorance as well; do so many Teamsters not realize that "regulation" was just a form of welfare? And that in maintaining that "deregulation" is the basis of their doing poorly now, they're essentially saying that they HAVE TO HAVE WELFARE to exist? Or do they suppose that the employers and public at large - the entities they depend upon to make their living - are so stupid as to NOT recognize welfare where it exists or existed?

The Teamsters could have adapted to "de-regulation", and they had every opportunity to do so. Instead, they buried their heads in the sand. And one see the consequences of that head burial today.

 

[Mr Ken]

Florida is a Right to Work State: What a Joke!!! This law was passed in the 50's durring Boom Town Days. It was ment to allow local people the chance to work. Construction Companies would come down and not hire any "Locals". The 50's and 60's are over. I work with people who choose not to join the Union. I wonder if they realize what the job would be like with No Union!! I think we would be still wearing Ralph Cramden Bus Driver hats and Bow ties! Making a whopping Minimun wage with No Benifits. No job Security, No retirement, No Health Insurance etc.. Yes the Union is to represent them, but just how well? They maybe there at a local hearing, but believe me they don't do much. You might think all this stuff you hear happening to others won't happen to you, but it will!! I remember years back I did a route that I did 17 to 18 stops an hour on. I was treated very well. Same route today is close to 30 Stops an hour !! What changed? Oh some Driver who skips Lunch and Runs all Day. Just imagine giving back 1 hour a day, how much that costs you each year. Trust me when I say No Union= No Job.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The Teamsters could have adapted to "de-regulation

You're right.

The Teamsters could have re-negotiated all the contracts so the workers

were all paid less, no health care, and given a part-time pension.

Just like all the non-union LTL carriers today.

And the companies put all the money in their pocket. Bonus !



I stand corrected.



-Bug-

 

[PobreCarlos]

My gosh...a route that you ran "years ago" and "what changed" since then has solely been "some Driver who skips Lunch and Runs all Day" covering it accounting for the increased sph?

Heck, I'm reminded of a route that I ran "years ago" in which I ran about 10 sph...and now in terms of the total stops delivered within the confines of that area, the rate is probably on the order of 300 sph. Of course, there are now 8 - 10 areas which have been cut-in from the one, and the density is much, much higher, plus drivers usually don't have to get signatures on residentials, etc., etc. But why ruin a silly comparison?

Not sure about your presumptions about "what the job would be like with NO UNION"; kinda' hard to say without there being any experience in the matter, isn't it? (like the guy in Kentucky who kept snapping his fingers to keep the wild tigers at bay; as far as he was concerned, it was working!) Then again, perhaps one could look at the "union" experience of other trucking companies? Seems to me, "minimum wage" would be a giant step UP from "no wage at all"...which is what most of them organized by the Teamsters have had to offer over the last few decades. CFWY paying well, are they? How about Red Star? DHL? Etc., etc.

On the other hand, your statements about the representation the union provides ("believe me they don't do much") speaks volumes about the integrity of your union, and directly to the consequences of an entity - ANY entity - forcing its so-called "representation" on individuals who want to be recognized on their OWN merits and NOT be lumped with the mediocre when it comes to treatment and compensation.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Bug;

Maybe you think the companies would have "put all the money in their pockets"...but the fact that they would have stayed in business would have meant that at least SOME of the money went into Teamster members' pockets. As it stands, they get NO "money in their pockets" from them at all; NO contributions to their pensions, NO health benefits, etc. NOTHING WHATSOEVER! That a "good" thing in your view? Think all those past CFWY employees are happy with the "union" wage, benefits, and pensions they "maintained" (sarcasm) following that Labor Day debacle? Did the disappearance of their employer from the scene help OTHER Teamsters? By that I mean, did it increase Teamster density in the industry as a whole? Did it help the status of their pension plans? Did it help keep CSPF "in the black" a bit longer, for example?

Meanwhile, in light of the Teamsters history of "protecting" its members jobs, do you see a large percentage of the workers at the "non-union LTL carriers" queuing-up to become part of that heritage of job loss? Think they're anxious to become part of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of individuals who sacrificed their means of making a livelihood to their union?

Pays your money and takes your choice, I guess. If Teamsters like you want to piss in the very canteens they drink from, guess there's stopping 'em!

 

[brownmonster]

Bug;

Maybe you think the companies would have "put all the money in their pockets"...but the fact that they would have stayed in business would have meant that at least SOME of the money went into Teamster members' pockets. As it stands, they get NO "money in their pockets" from them at all; NO contributions to their pensions, NO health benefits, etc. NOTHING WHATSOEVER! That a "good" thing in your view? Think all those past CFWY employees are happy with the "union" wage, benefits, and pensions they "maintained" (sarcasm) following that Labor Day debacle? Did the disappearance of their employer from the scene help OTHER Teamsters? By that I mean, did it increase Teamster density in the industry as a whole? Did it help the status of their pension plans? Did it help keep CSPF "in the black" a bit longer, for example?

Meanwhile, in light of the Teamsters history of "protecting" its members jobs, do you see a large percentage of the workers at the "non-union LTL carriers" queuing-up to become part of that heritage of job loss? Think they're anxious to become part of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of individuals who sacrificed their means of making a livelihood to their union?

Pays your money and takes your choice, I guess. If Teamsters like you want to piss in the very canteens they drink from, guess there's stopping 'em!

Come on man. People are lining up to become Teamsters. They just organized 12 school bus drivers in Butte Montana.

 

[over9five]

Come on man. People are lining up to become Teamsters. They just organized 12 school bus drivers in Butte Montana.

Lol, and 5 of them had voted "no".