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
Right to Work,
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: 815491" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 815491, member: 16651"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Right to Work,
Top