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: 816520" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>JonFrom;</p><p></p><p>Your argument seems all good and well...except for the fact that your forgot a few things.</p><p></p><p>(1) The Teamsters union had an obligation to see that the funding they negotiated WAS sufficient to cover the funds obligations, if through no other way than by agreeing to reduce payouts, as necessary. And that sufficiency was NOT to be obtained solely by jacking up rates on a limited few contributors, but by making sure ALL the contributors had a means of competing and being able to pay those rates. There, the Teamsters failed miserably.</p><p></p><p>(2) The memorandum regarding CSPF which the Teamsters signed the contract PRIOR to UPS's pullout, in which UPS agreed to stay in the fund, while the Teamsters agreed to attempt to achieve full-funding, as exemplified by the Western States fund (which was specifically mentioned in the memorandum). UPS held up its end of that bargain; the Teamsters didn't.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, I find your whole thrust of the problem as being one of UPS's responsibility somewhat comparable to saying that a parent, who co-signed on a student loan for his child, is totally "responsible" for that child's defaulting on the loan after he's an adult, out of school, and has a decent job to boot. Legally, you may be right; the parent shares a legal responsibility for making good the loan. The parent, however, is not the one that's MORALLY responsible, nor the party that caused the loan to be bad.</p><p></p><p>As for the and "trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons", well perhaps you don't remember when UPS rang its victory bell at corporate headquarters in Manhattan (and then Greenwich) every time a new operating authority was granted...and how much time, effort, and money (at EVERY level - driver to CEO) was expended in obtaining those authorities. Or how the value of those operating authorities plummeted to nothing overnight with the coming of deregulation. In that, UPS had more to lose via deregulation (having the largest expanse of operating authority) than any other union firm out there...but it survived, while 98% of the "union" truckers then in existence either went out of business, or found a way to go NON-union. Yeah, they went out of business for "a lot of reasons", alright...and every one of 'em involved the burden imposed upon them by the Teamsters. And how many of them - firms which for "a lot of reasons" went out of business, but would NOT have gone out of business if the union hadn't been so blind - would have continued contributing to the pension trusts? And, for that matter, have been equally liable for underfunding as UPS?</p><p></p><p>Lastly, as one who - in a minor way, at least - helped UPS grow throughout the years, I take umbrage with your "800 pound gorilla" comment. You seem to indicate that UPS was always an immense shadow over the industry, apparently forgetting that it wasn't THAT long ago (early 1970's, say) when UPS was a relatively small firm - even compared to other trucking companies, such as Yellow and Roadway. Or that it was known as "the company that takes the freight no one else wants". Perhaps you weren't one of those the UPSers who the drivers from the "big" trucking firms would make fun of as you worked harder than they picking up small packages on docks...packages which the claimed were too small and unprofitable to bother with. And perhaps you weren't one who, as a driver, went out on your own time (along with scads of other drivers) to obtain signatures from customers on petitions asking that UPS be granted operating authority in a far-off state simply because you wished to secure your own job as well as that of others. And perhaps you don't remember the articles in "The Big Idea" which showed that bell being rung as the efforts of yourself and hundreds like you finally bore fruit. And perhaps you don't feel the sense of betrayal those of us who did put forth that effort for our company, feel when those of OTHER companies - union members who used to make fun of our work ethic - come to us for a handout in terms of covering the liability of employers THEY put out of business.</p><p></p><p>There are, however, those of us who remember those "old days". And we're quite aware of what caused the Teamsters pension underfunding problem, thank you.....and we aren't all that inclined to simply pass off their irresponsibility as something we should be held liable for.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 816520, member: 16651"] JonFrom; Your argument seems all good and well...except for the fact that your forgot a few things. (1) The Teamsters union had an obligation to see that the funding they negotiated WAS sufficient to cover the funds obligations, if through no other way than by agreeing to reduce payouts, as necessary. And that sufficiency was NOT to be obtained solely by jacking up rates on a limited few contributors, but by making sure ALL the contributors had a means of competing and being able to pay those rates. There, the Teamsters failed miserably. (2) The memorandum regarding CSPF which the Teamsters signed the contract PRIOR to UPS's pullout, in which UPS agreed to stay in the fund, while the Teamsters agreed to attempt to achieve full-funding, as exemplified by the Western States fund (which was specifically mentioned in the memorandum). UPS held up its end of that bargain; the Teamsters didn't. Lastly, I find your whole thrust of the problem as being one of UPS's responsibility somewhat comparable to saying that a parent, who co-signed on a student loan for his child, is totally "responsible" for that child's defaulting on the loan after he's an adult, out of school, and has a decent job to boot. Legally, you may be right; the parent shares a legal responsibility for making good the loan. The parent, however, is not the one that's MORALLY responsible, nor the party that caused the loan to be bad. As for the and "trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons", well perhaps you don't remember when UPS rang its victory bell at corporate headquarters in Manhattan (and then Greenwich) every time a new operating authority was granted...and how much time, effort, and money (at EVERY level - driver to CEO) was expended in obtaining those authorities. Or how the value of those operating authorities plummeted to nothing overnight with the coming of deregulation. In that, UPS had more to lose via deregulation (having the largest expanse of operating authority) than any other union firm out there...but it survived, while 98% of the "union" truckers then in existence either went out of business, or found a way to go NON-union. Yeah, they went out of business for "a lot of reasons", alright...and every one of 'em involved the burden imposed upon them by the Teamsters. And how many of them - firms which for "a lot of reasons" went out of business, but would NOT have gone out of business if the union hadn't been so blind - would have continued contributing to the pension trusts? And, for that matter, have been equally liable for underfunding as UPS? Lastly, as one who - in a minor way, at least - helped UPS grow throughout the years, I take umbrage with your "800 pound gorilla" comment. You seem to indicate that UPS was always an immense shadow over the industry, apparently forgetting that it wasn't THAT long ago (early 1970's, say) when UPS was a relatively small firm - even compared to other trucking companies, such as Yellow and Roadway. Or that it was known as "the company that takes the freight no one else wants". Perhaps you weren't one of those the UPSers who the drivers from the "big" trucking firms would make fun of as you worked harder than they picking up small packages on docks...packages which the claimed were too small and unprofitable to bother with. And perhaps you weren't one who, as a driver, went out on your own time (along with scads of other drivers) to obtain signatures from customers on petitions asking that UPS be granted operating authority in a far-off state simply because you wished to secure your own job as well as that of others. And perhaps you don't remember the articles in "The Big Idea" which showed that bell being rung as the efforts of yourself and hundreds like you finally bore fruit. And perhaps you don't feel the sense of betrayal those of us who did put forth that effort for our company, feel when those of OTHER companies - union members who used to make fun of our work ethic - come to us for a handout in terms of covering the liability of employers THEY put out of business. There are, however, those of us who remember those "old days". And we're quite aware of what caused the Teamsters pension underfunding problem, thank you.....and we aren't all that inclined to simply pass off their irresponsibility as something we should be held liable for. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Right to Work,
Top