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 Discussions
Strike or no strike
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="westsideworma" data-source="post: 212531"><p>I see where you are coming from Red but I also see where some APWA people are coming from.</p><p></p><p>Multi employer: sustains other non contributing companies in addition to our own. 60% of our money goes to fund other peoples pensions...40% goes to us (roughly, from sources I've see online and here). I believe THAT is what a lot of APWA people have a problem with. if a majority went to us they may have less to gripe about, but fact is that isn't so.</p><p></p><p>single (APWA plan): ONLY UPSers. We get all of our contributions and as a result a much better pension. 100% UPS contribution to UPS workers. That is what many people will see. I understand your argument about what if UPS is no longer, etc. However in my opinion it would take an act of god before they'd let that happen.</p><p></p><p>On UPS' side. Why should UPS have to pay the CS screwup? UPS was not administering it. Because they have the most money? I can definitely see why they are reluctant to stay in it. I think I need more info here and maybe you can help, but I just don't see why UPS has to contribute more to a pension fund that they did nothing (least that I know of, again asking for more details here) to sink.</p><p></p><p>However I don't really trust UPS' hand in our pensions either...I feel if allowed they'd cut them the second they don't meet numbers for a few consecutive quarters or claim volume loss. If this is legally feasible I'm not sure, but to be honest I wouldn't trust any big business with my well-being, they're in it for #1 and that isn't you or I.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="westsideworma, post: 212531"] I see where you are coming from Red but I also see where some APWA people are coming from. Multi employer: sustains other non contributing companies in addition to our own. 60% of our money goes to fund other peoples pensions...40% goes to us (roughly, from sources I've see online and here). I believe THAT is what a lot of APWA people have a problem with. if a majority went to us they may have less to gripe about, but fact is that isn't so. single (APWA plan): ONLY UPSers. We get all of our contributions and as a result a much better pension. 100% UPS contribution to UPS workers. That is what many people will see. I understand your argument about what if UPS is no longer, etc. However in my opinion it would take an act of god before they'd let that happen. On UPS' side. Why should UPS have to pay the CS screwup? UPS was not administering it. Because they have the most money? I can definitely see why they are reluctant to stay in it. I think I need more info here and maybe you can help, but I just don't see why UPS has to contribute more to a pension fund that they did nothing (least that I know of, again asking for more details here) to sink. However I don't really trust UPS' hand in our pensions either...I feel if allowed they'd cut them the second they don't meet numbers for a few consecutive quarters or claim volume loss. If this is legally feasible I'm not sure, but to be honest I wouldn't trust any big business with my well-being, they're in it for #1 and that isn't you or I. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Strike or no strike
Top