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: 816577" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jon;</p><p></p><p>You just keep on spinnin', don't ya'? [smile] For example, your claim that "The Teamsters do not control the pension funds; the pension fund trustees do" sounds real cute...until one realizes that a full HALF the trustees in funds such as Cen. States are appointed by - and serve at the pleasure of - the Teamster's union, while the remaining half of the trusteeship is SPLIT among ALL the contributing employers. Think it's real hard for the Teamsters to find one shaky minor employer board member willing to let his vote be swayed in return for a sweetheart deal of some sort,, do ya'? Think it's never happened? Think ABF is just spittin' in the wind now because they FEEL like it? Or that ABF and/or an "independent" trustee board voted to extend pension contribution forgiveness to YRCW WITHOUT the </p><p>Teamsters controlling the process? REALLY?</p><p></p><p></p><p>As for your claim that...</p><p></p><p>"The Teamsters Union can't order the Board of Trustees to do anything"</p><p></p><p>...did you read "Sprague v. CSPF", and note the common admissions of CSPF, the Teamsters, and the company? What? Did the 1997 settlement NOT happen??</p><p></p><p>Also, I'm curious; just how could UPS...</p><p></p><p>"see fit to contribute the $6.1 billion to Central States in a way that would have earned a decade of Pension Credits for its covered employees, instead of paying it in the form of a Withdrawal Liability Payment, which accrued UPSers no additional Pension Credits whatsoever, and cut adrift all allready[sp] seperated[sp] and retired UPSers in the process."</p><p></p><p>...in that just how was there supposed to be an "accrual" with an entity that was essentially broke EVEN WITH a six billion dollar enhancement?!? (which, BTW, was NOT the actual liability amount, but rather represents a sizable contribution on the part of UPS beyond the legal liability to assure at least some continuing coverage of its employees under the C.S. plan). Do you think that UPS should hold itself out to cover for the screw-ups of all Teamsters, at all locations, for all eternity, no matter who they may have worked for or when? Do you realize how badly the Teamsters had already screwed over their UPS employee brothers by squandering so much that had been contributed in THEIR names on OTHER, less-deserving Teamsters? You know...those Teamsters who's employers "went out of business for a lot of reasons"[grin...s.u.r.e.!]</p><p></p><p>In truth, you're entire spiel seems somewhat on the order of some street bum blaming the lottery commission for his poverty because they didn't shovel the sweepstakes winnings his way. You seem to think that UPS owes the Teamsters a "free lunch" for frittering away untold wealth. Sorry...I'm not buying that.</p><p></p><p>No, the Teamsters aren't SOLELY responsible for the market turn downs (although, as "heavies" in the financial sector, they most assuredly bear at least a degree of responsibility. And, through their contributions to a political party that pushed entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the foreground, a fairly large degree at that) However, they *ARE* responsible for there being substantially more eligible recipients in the funds than there are members who's employers are making contributions in their names. I.e. - it wasn't any "market down turn" that caused the funds to turn topsy-turvy in terms of the employee/pensioner ratio. Don't see a problem with 3-4 times as many pensioners as contributing workers? Think any market upturn is going to correct THAT situation? Think again.</p><p></p><p>As so many Teamsters, you seem to want to keep your head buried in the sand. With you guys, it's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem to fix. Meanwhile, your union is becoming toast, the members pension are being being frittered away, and the membership's remaining viable employers are folding under non-union competitive pressure because you guys are too darned lazy to get off your duffs and face reality.</p><p></p><p>Question. Do you plan on giving the same excuses to the remaining million or so Teamsters when they all lose THEIR jobs that you've given to the million and a half who have already lost theirs? That "responsible" labor organization, is it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 816577, member: 16651"] Jon; You just keep on spinnin', don't ya'? [smile] For example, your claim that "The Teamsters do not control the pension funds; the pension fund trustees do" sounds real cute...until one realizes that a full HALF the trustees in funds such as Cen. States are appointed by - and serve at the pleasure of - the Teamster's union, while the remaining half of the trusteeship is SPLIT among ALL the contributing employers. Think it's real hard for the Teamsters to find one shaky minor employer board member willing to let his vote be swayed in return for a sweetheart deal of some sort,, do ya'? Think it's never happened? Think ABF is just spittin' in the wind now because they FEEL like it? Or that ABF and/or an "independent" trustee board voted to extend pension contribution forgiveness to YRCW WITHOUT the Teamsters controlling the process? REALLY? As for your claim that... "The Teamsters Union can't order the Board of Trustees to do anything" ...did you read "Sprague v. CSPF", and note the common admissions of CSPF, the Teamsters, and the company? What? Did the 1997 settlement NOT happen?? Also, I'm curious; just how could UPS... "see fit to contribute the $6.1 billion to Central States in a way that would have earned a decade of Pension Credits for its covered employees, instead of paying it in the form of a Withdrawal Liability Payment, which accrued UPSers no additional Pension Credits whatsoever, and cut adrift all allready[sp] seperated[sp] and retired UPSers in the process." ...in that just how was there supposed to be an "accrual" with an entity that was essentially broke EVEN WITH a six billion dollar enhancement?!? (which, BTW, was NOT the actual liability amount, but rather represents a sizable contribution on the part of UPS beyond the legal liability to assure at least some continuing coverage of its employees under the C.S. plan). Do you think that UPS should hold itself out to cover for the screw-ups of all Teamsters, at all locations, for all eternity, no matter who they may have worked for or when? Do you realize how badly the Teamsters had already screwed over their UPS employee brothers by squandering so much that had been contributed in THEIR names on OTHER, less-deserving Teamsters? You know...those Teamsters who's employers "went out of business for a lot of reasons"[grin...s.u.r.e.!] In truth, you're entire spiel seems somewhat on the order of some street bum blaming the lottery commission for his poverty because they didn't shovel the sweepstakes winnings his way. You seem to think that UPS owes the Teamsters a "free lunch" for frittering away untold wealth. Sorry...I'm not buying that. No, the Teamsters aren't SOLELY responsible for the market turn downs (although, as "heavies" in the financial sector, they most assuredly bear at least a degree of responsibility. And, through their contributions to a political party that pushed entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the foreground, a fairly large degree at that) However, they *ARE* responsible for there being substantially more eligible recipients in the funds than there are members who's employers are making contributions in their names. I.e. - it wasn't any "market down turn" that caused the funds to turn topsy-turvy in terms of the employee/pensioner ratio. Don't see a problem with 3-4 times as many pensioners as contributing workers? Think any market upturn is going to correct THAT situation? Think again. As so many Teamsters, you seem to want to keep your head buried in the sand. With you guys, it's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem to fix. Meanwhile, your union is becoming toast, the members pension are being being frittered away, and the membership's remaining viable employers are folding under non-union competitive pressure because you guys are too darned lazy to get off your duffs and face reality. Question. Do you plan on giving the same excuses to the remaining million or so Teamsters when they all lose THEIR jobs that you've given to the million and a half who have already lost theirs? That "responsible" labor organization, is it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Right to Work,
Top