U
Unregistered
Guest
We are beginning to hear rumors that CS is planning to surrender our pension fund to the government at the first of the year.
Has anyone heard anything on this matter?
Has anyone heard anything on this matter?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Really! Seems kinda funny to do this now instead of 2 years ago because 2 years ago the financials were actually worse than today. Oh they aren't glowing now by any means and those who know me know my position would be to walk away from everyone and let me have my own money (I don't trust the company or the union or any union for that fact when it comes to these matters) but that said I wonder the motivation behind your post "unregistered"?
Besides, the Senate has approved some pension law reforms yesterday with the House about to take on the matter as well. Don't know the complete specifics other than one element would be to "by law" compell employers to carry through with pension promises instead of walking away and leaving the gov't and pensioner to hold the bag. We'll see what the final outcome is but again what was your motive as in "was there really any rumor to begin with?"
Just get over the fact CS is here to stay and we will live or die with it. Plan on death and save accordingly and then if nothing happens you'll be ahead of the game. You want some pension reform that would really make a difference to let people bolt the farm early? You want an issue that would likely unite folks on all sides of pension beliefs? Then work and push to remove all work restrictions for retirees at all age levels. Do that and you'd likely have an army especially from the folks with 20 or more years in the bank. Get that in and a ton of folks will walk away, including me, and personally as much as UPS whines about us "ole timers" privately they want us around as long as they can get us because we are use to the old school tactics whereas the newbies aren't entrenched and would more likely park the truck and walk off rather than put up with the "beat ya to get ya" mentality. Management in the trenches also subjected to the same thing IMO so we have more in common with each other than we sometimes realize.
JMHO!
Besides, the Senate has approved some pension law reforms yesterday with the House about to take on the matter as well. Don't know the complete specifics other than one element would be to "by law" compell employers to carry through with pension promises instead of walking away and leaving the gov't and pensioner to hold the bag. We'll see what the final outcome is but again what was your motive as in "was there really any rumor to begin with?"
Just get over the fact CS is here to stay and we will live or die with it. Plan on death and save accordingly and then if nothing happens you'll be ahead of the game. You want some pension reform that would really make a difference to let people bolt the farm early? You want an issue that would likely unite folks on all sides of pension beliefs? Then work and push to remove all work restrictions for retirees at all age levels. Do that and you'd likely have an army especially from the folks with 20 or more years in the bank. Get that in and a ton of folks will walk away, including me, and personally as much as UPS whines about us "ole timers" privately they want us around as long as they can get us because we are use to the old school tactics whereas the newbies aren't entrenched and would more likely park the truck and walk off rather than put up with the "beat ya to get ya" mentality. Management in the trenches also subjected to the same thing IMO so we have more in common with each other than we sometimes realize.
JMHO!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Traveler,
What you said is likely true but the thrust of the news story I saw concerned employer controlled pensions so of course the reference to "compelling companies" was used. If you are concerned UPS will be held specifically liable for CS by law that fear although real may not be a result of the new law. Many, including UPS, has stated publically already using worst case scenarios as examples that in fact could find itself facing being liable for the CS situation if the nuclear option ever came forth. Whether in the end this is true or not is open to speculation but we'll have to wait and see how the legislation gets hammered out.
One thing is for sure and the gov't is getting pounded with claims so I'd look for Congress to shift some of that back to the employer's and away from taxpayers as quite frankly that is where it should be anyway. JMO.
What you said is likely true but the thrust of the news story I saw concerned employer controlled pensions so of course the reference to "compelling companies" was used. If you are concerned UPS will be held specifically liable for CS by law that fear although real may not be a result of the new law. Many, including UPS, has stated publically already using worst case scenarios as examples that in fact could find itself facing being liable for the CS situation if the nuclear option ever came forth. Whether in the end this is true or not is open to speculation but we'll have to wait and see how the legislation gets hammered out.
One thing is for sure and the gov't is getting pounded with claims so I'd look for Congress to shift some of that back to the employer's and away from taxpayers as quite frankly that is where it should be anyway. JMO.
tieguy
Banned
The problem with that liability is that UPS could end up paying a huge bill simply as their reward for being the last employer standing. UPS has paid into these retirement funds, met all their obligations and should not now be penalized simply because they are the only transportation company left with money in their pockets. Since UPS fullfilled their obligations to this fund I think the responsibility for any failures should fall squarely on the teamsters who did not invest this money wisely. If so then I think the teamsters may actually take more of an interest in the financial viablility of the companies they unionize. Perhaps the membership should sue the teamsters for lost or for substandard retirement results. As long as a union thinks they can blame the company for substandard retirement results they will not hold theirselves accountable. One thing that has to come out of the present pension crisis is a process of holding the union and pension trustees accountable for results. UPS pays way too much money into these funds for our people to be shortchanged. JMO
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Ah the old shift the blame crap.
UPS has numerically ten percent of the entire representation and control of decisions made regarding investments and policies of the Central States Pension Fund and company management has fifty percent of the control.
So the Teamsters have only a maximum of half the say on everything related to the Pension Fund.
So the company is as much to blaim as the Teamsters.
Still, you are missing the issue, it isn't a claim of bad investing, it's a statement that the companies do not pay a valid amount of money to fund the fund, nor to the PGBC in insurance premiums to fund that fund.
Pure and simple.
I know, they pay the amount they contractually negotiated.
So they are smarter than the Teamsters and continually outnegotiate them in both the wording and results of the contract.
Big surprise.
UPS has numerically ten percent of the entire representation and control of decisions made regarding investments and policies of the Central States Pension Fund and company management has fifty percent of the control.
So the Teamsters have only a maximum of half the say on everything related to the Pension Fund.
So the company is as much to blaim as the Teamsters.
Still, you are missing the issue, it isn't a claim of bad investing, it's a statement that the companies do not pay a valid amount of money to fund the fund, nor to the PGBC in insurance premiums to fund that fund.
Pure and simple.
I know, they pay the amount they contractually negotiated.
So they are smarter than the Teamsters and continually outnegotiate them in both the wording and results of the contract.
Big surprise.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
What company you talking about there Ok?
If UPS is only 10% of the governing body and the teamsters have 50%, then that leaves 40% that is management of other companies? What about them? What about their responsibility? Are they like ours, and represent companies that are long defunct? Like a board member that was management in a company that went belly up in the late 70’s/early 80's. So what the hell allows them to still sit on the board? D0 the math, the teamsters are five times more liable than UPS. So climb off your high horse.
As a practical matter, if one company contributes 80% of the money going into the coffers, they ought to have an 80% share of their 50% seats on the board.
In ours, we contribute 60% and until this year had none. We still do not have 60% of the representation, but two is better than none. And we now are seeing a few more decisions being made with UPS employees in mind.
As for the company out negotiating the union, “big surprise?” I have met and had negotiations that involved hall. Unless he is hiding something, I am not very impressed. And on several matters, he has proven himself to be a liar. And not to the company either.
Well maybe we do need to look at what the union is doing these days. They sure as heck are not interested in promoting getting FEDEX unionized. IF they really wanted it, they would allow the rank and file to help out. Not these little closet operations that they seem to love. Nothing like keeping things so secret no one can be critical of how your project is going.
The teamsters have lost the accountability to the rank and file. The no longer represent our interests first, they come second. First is their own well being and status.
Many decisions are made on the good ole boy, hell he supported my election, he donated money to me when I needed it, mentality. They are not made with the long term interests of the teamsters in mind. Take the folding up of one of the locals. Instead of allowing a nearby local(less than 20 miles away) that is very active and has a small territory to take in the new area, they allowed another nearly defunct local that is further away (almost 200 miles away) to take them in. One that makes getting real representation for the members much harder. On a side note, the smaller union was trying to get two large hospital systems organized (almost 10,000 employees) and the new local that took over was not interested in pursuing our leads. So instead of growing, this one too will fall by the wayside.
d
If UPS is only 10% of the governing body and the teamsters have 50%, then that leaves 40% that is management of other companies? What about them? What about their responsibility? Are they like ours, and represent companies that are long defunct? Like a board member that was management in a company that went belly up in the late 70’s/early 80's. So what the hell allows them to still sit on the board? D0 the math, the teamsters are five times more liable than UPS. So climb off your high horse.
As a practical matter, if one company contributes 80% of the money going into the coffers, they ought to have an 80% share of their 50% seats on the board.
In ours, we contribute 60% and until this year had none. We still do not have 60% of the representation, but two is better than none. And we now are seeing a few more decisions being made with UPS employees in mind.
As for the company out negotiating the union, “big surprise?” I have met and had negotiations that involved hall. Unless he is hiding something, I am not very impressed. And on several matters, he has proven himself to be a liar. And not to the company either.
Well maybe we do need to look at what the union is doing these days. They sure as heck are not interested in promoting getting FEDEX unionized. IF they really wanted it, they would allow the rank and file to help out. Not these little closet operations that they seem to love. Nothing like keeping things so secret no one can be critical of how your project is going.
The teamsters have lost the accountability to the rank and file. The no longer represent our interests first, they come second. First is their own well being and status.
Many decisions are made on the good ole boy, hell he supported my election, he donated money to me when I needed it, mentality. They are not made with the long term interests of the teamsters in mind. Take the folding up of one of the locals. Instead of allowing a nearby local(less than 20 miles away) that is very active and has a small territory to take in the new area, they allowed another nearly defunct local that is further away (almost 200 miles away) to take them in. One that makes getting real representation for the members much harder. On a side note, the smaller union was trying to get two large hospital systems organized (almost 10,000 employees) and the new local that took over was not interested in pursuing our leads. So instead of growing, this one too will fall by the wayside.
d
Last edited:
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
Danny,
Why wasn't the local that was "folding up" alllowed to vote as to which nearby local would absorb them?
Seems like that would be the democratic thing to do.
OOPS!....I said the "D word".
Why wasn't the local that was "folding up" alllowed to vote as to which nearby local would absorb them?
Seems like that would be the democratic thing to do.
OOPS!....I said the "D word".
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
dBoy said:
That rings a bell!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
ok2bclever said:
As for the PGBC not being paid proper level premiums, from what I've seen that is a very true statement more than people realize. Several months ago and sorry I don't remember specifically who did the piece but a media outlet did a cover of this very issue and they found over the many, many years that corps. via their lobbyists got breaks from the Congress and PGBC on the amount of premiums paid. From what I saw, the rooster has come home to roost and the current Washington leadeship allowed much to happened but what they did was not anything new but rather the same ole', same ole' that has gone on for years and years. If gov't is going to play insurance company which is obviously the case, then at least like any good insurance company. set the rules such as making sure companies do in fact place funds aside for proper future coverage, judge the risk and charge premiums based on that risk and also adjust premiums across the board to maintain proper levels.
I'm against gov't from doing this but at least do it right if you are. Corporations run PGBC and in the end we'll place our faith there only to be heart broken when the time comes that it's needed. JMO.
tieguy
Banned
"Ah the old shift the blame crap."
Do you really think so? Do you think UPS should be held liable for the failures of CS?
The teamsters want the best of both worlds. They want their multi employer pension system and have fought a UPSer only pension system even if co-administered by both company and union. But yet when the plan starts to fail they will expect UPS to come running in like Daddy Warbucks and save a pension system UPS have always vehemently rejected.
As such the pension responsibility has to be the teamsters if CS fails. UPS should not be penalized just because they are the last employer standing.
Do you really think so? Do you think UPS should be held liable for the failures of CS?
The teamsters want the best of both worlds. They want their multi employer pension system and have fought a UPSer only pension system even if co-administered by both company and union. But yet when the plan starts to fail they will expect UPS to come running in like Daddy Warbucks and save a pension system UPS have always vehemently rejected.
As such the pension responsibility has to be the teamsters if CS fails. UPS should not be penalized just because they are the last employer standing.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
Tie,
Doesn't matter if one thinks they should or should not. The way I understand the contractual agreement and the law is that in fact UPS would become liable even to the point of being the last employer standing. This very scenario is in fact just the example given publically by the company itself when talking on this issue. They themselves are selling this very fear as one reason and it's a very legit reason. I'd be concerned too if I were them and I am concerned "BUT!"
Is that fair, proper, right, etc.? Doesn't matter because UPS via contracts agreed to those conditions and as such was given a voice via it's employer representatives which at this very time UPS to my understanding is one such member of the pension trustee committee. Some will say "in 1997' UPS blah, blah, blah...." but I would ask one specific question about 97'. Did at any time in 1997' UPS mention as one reason or any reason that their desire to take over pension duties for UPSers was to save them from a future collaspe of the pension fund? To my knowledge nothing of a sort was stated on this matter but the demographics suggested this very real potential as trends started showing this in the very early 80's and only continued to grow (a fact now openly admitted by all) but again 15 years latter (circa 97') nothing of this sort was suggested by UPS. Now in fairness to UPS under the payouts of pre-97' contract retirement benefits the potential nuclear meltdown may not have been as apparent but as a company who could in the future be in a liable position you would think they would know that the Teamster's were not willing to give up the pension and would look at the potential impact of CS and other plans matching or attempting to match the UPS offer, which in fact is what happened. You would think someone would ask, "what will this have on these plans future viability if such a scenario does occur?" Did UPS again get caught up in the short term gain not looking at the longterm and planning for other varibles that could come into play? I can't answer that but you can bet I've got my opinion on it!
Tie, the fact is UPS never uttered a word of concern over the pension until this whole thing blew up a couple of years ago and in fairness neither has the IBT. Now I'll be the first one to admit this thing could have been seen from a long way off and I myself totally failed to even look as I errored in trusting those in trustee oversite, both companies and IBT. As members we utterly failed in looking out for our own interests and we do stand very guilty of that and are not blameless in this whole affair IMO. What's UPS's excuse however as their vested interest goes vastly farther than mine and if taken to the extreme could threaten the company itself? Why not a word until the balloon goes up? Some UPSers on the management side say "you had your chance in 97' so live with it" and you know there is some real validity to that point but is it when looking at the harder facts? Is that opinion without it's own real risks? Reality set in when some realized the anchor to the sinking ship was also welded to their boat and now they want someone to use the cutting torch to free them. Sure I'll be glad to do that as well as many others like me but we're still waiting to hear what's in it for us if we do. We control the torch the quickest and easiest in the longrun. It's coming down to economics and whether or not the problem is as vast as it's being painted. I'm watching UPS for that answer as you can bet that is if the situation gets worse and there's no hope by other means other than the UPS IBT membership of cutting that anchor, then we might see some real offers that really could mean something. Right now if UPS can wiggle out via action by law or other legal means then they wiggle out and I'm likely no worse than if they took it over at this point. If it stays the same as now I might come out OK as in some respects that has been a little improvement in CS's position. Also could answer why the hype from up the foodchain has seemed to calm down or they could have thet legal loophole in place already. Good for them if they do and it may be 08' when it get's played. I'd likely do the same if I were them.
If UPS takes over the pensions then my prior 24 years will have to come from CS which at this point would likely collapse and then I get the same as staying the course now. In other words it's a dead draw for folks like me IMO. Sure you can slice it a little this way or that but for the most part economically it's no different. Remember for people like me with 20 plus years we'd still have to look for CS or whatever is left for those years based on the various proposals I've seen being discussed as alternatives. If however the situation does in fact get worse and worse then economics may dictate a different course or plan of action by UPS and then the cost of giving me something for those earlier years of service may become more economically advantagous than telling me to just make due as taking care of me and the others like me is far cheaper than sitting back and taking it all on the chin from CS and other collasping multi-employer funds liabilities.
Is that right or wrong? Neither, it's business baby! UPS makes decisions everyday that in some cases may work against me but it's in the best interest of the larger company. That's life and the way it goes. Well now I see the shoe possiblly on the other foot and I have to make a decision that I believe better suits my business (my family and I) and until I'm shown something of better value and like UPS decides, returns a real return on investment then I see no value at this point to go in a different direction as my loss or gain is really no different. No matter what I also have other retirement vehicles in play so I can "risk a little" so to speak. I'm like a man on death row with nothing to loose and everything to gain at this point but for UPS that's multipled 1000's fold. Yeah I agree it totally sucks but the fact is this is where we are at right now!
JMHO.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
danny, It's all a conspiracy, the five other company representatives are all members, errr, former members of companies that no longer exist and twist the UPS representatives arms every which way, it ought to be a crime! 
tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business.
Now where have I heard that from before?
Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such.
"a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected"
Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric.
Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently.
I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension.
UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?
I feel your pain.
What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS.
I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either.
I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist.
Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects.
Yep, I bet that's it.
That I can understand.
As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit.
Call me selfish.
tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business.
Now where have I heard that from before?
Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such.
"a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected"
Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric.
Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently.
I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension.
UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?
I feel your pain.
What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS.
I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either.
I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization.
It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist.
Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects.
Yep, I bet that's it.
That I can understand.
As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit.
Call me selfish.
brett636
Well-Known Member
In regards to the original post- this message has been brought to you by the official APWA propoganda machine. If you wish to be fully indoctrinated please visit our web page, talk to our officials, and absolutly NEVER question us.
In regards to the issue at hand- There are good viable solutions to to solving the issues of CS. The main problem is getting everybody to agree on one. I don't want to see UPS left holding the CS bag, but what are the chances of that occurring?
Now, I am just a part-timer right now, but here is my take on the issue. I believe an exclusive UPS/teamster run pension is the best solution in the long run. I know some people on here are against UPS having control over the pension, but we are talking about profitable company with a long established history of success. Plus the fund wouldn't be exclusivly controlled by UPS so the chances of UPS raiding the fund would be nil. My biggest reason for saying all of this is that as a UPS employee I am adding to the UPS bottom line with my work. Why should money that I helped UPS make go pay for someone's retirement who never worked a day in their life for UPS. With the money UPS pays into CS, it should provide a much better retirement than it currently does, but how long are we going to have to wait for CS to get turned around? Is CS ever going to get turned around(no APWA comments please)?
Personally, I would love to see UPS do a matching 401k contribution for hourlys. Coupling that with a UPS/Teamster pension fund would mean one happy retirement for those that are involved.
In regards to the issue at hand- There are good viable solutions to to solving the issues of CS. The main problem is getting everybody to agree on one. I don't want to see UPS left holding the CS bag, but what are the chances of that occurring?
Now, I am just a part-timer right now, but here is my take on the issue. I believe an exclusive UPS/teamster run pension is the best solution in the long run. I know some people on here are against UPS having control over the pension, but we are talking about profitable company with a long established history of success. Plus the fund wouldn't be exclusivly controlled by UPS so the chances of UPS raiding the fund would be nil. My biggest reason for saying all of this is that as a UPS employee I am adding to the UPS bottom line with my work. Why should money that I helped UPS make go pay for someone's retirement who never worked a day in their life for UPS. With the money UPS pays into CS, it should provide a much better retirement than it currently does, but how long are we going to have to wait for CS to get turned around? Is CS ever going to get turned around(no APWA comments please)?
Personally, I would love to see UPS do a matching 401k contribution for hourlys. Coupling that with a UPS/Teamster pension fund would mean one happy retirement for those that are involved.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Coupling that with a UPS/Teamster pension fund would mean one happy retirement for those that are involved.
Im sure you would love that. Float a sinking boat AND match contributions to your defined contribution plan. No thanks.
Id personally rather liquidate assets and call it a day. I know others will disagree. Theyre the ones with futures that are up in the air though dont really know that Id take their concerns as Gospel.
Im sure you would love that. Float a sinking boat AND match contributions to your defined contribution plan. No thanks.
Id personally rather liquidate assets and call it a day. I know others will disagree. Theyre the ones with futures that are up in the air though dont really know that Id take their concerns as Gospel.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
Why would two feeder drivers form a union with the overview of a supposed "union busting law firm"?
They are either bold, brazen and cavalier and intend to sit on the beach in Cancun with all their ill gotten gains after they retire or they have done their research into the formation of their organization. Has anyone thought that a "union busting law firm" that is supposedly the heart of the APWA could be our best move? Think about it. If this law firm has, as some claim, busted all these unions, wouldn't they know the "ins and outs" of that type of activity and would assure that NO company would come after any labor union under the umbrella of the APWA?
Regarding the company controlling the pension....has anyone thought that AT SOME POINT the company would have put enough money into the pension fund that the interest earned would perpetuate and support it (with great benefits and retirement) then the company can spend the money they had been throwing at CS on wiser business decisions? What a thought!
Just thought I would toss these questions up for some civil and intelligent debate.
Some people believe that what we have now clearly isn't working.
They are either bold, brazen and cavalier and intend to sit on the beach in Cancun with all their ill gotten gains after they retire or they have done their research into the formation of their organization. Has anyone thought that a "union busting law firm" that is supposedly the heart of the APWA could be our best move? Think about it. If this law firm has, as some claim, busted all these unions, wouldn't they know the "ins and outs" of that type of activity and would assure that NO company would come after any labor union under the umbrella of the APWA?
Regarding the company controlling the pension....has anyone thought that AT SOME POINT the company would have put enough money into the pension fund that the interest earned would perpetuate and support it (with great benefits and retirement) then the company can spend the money they had been throwing at CS on wiser business decisions? What a thought!
Just thought I would toss these questions up for some civil and intelligent debate.
Some people believe that what we have now clearly isn't working.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Well, as far as the lawyers of a "union busting firm" being knowledgeable about the process, there is some truth.
Normally however, the ubf term really means the firm works at keeping unions out rather than actually being able to get rid of them after they are in, which is far, far harder.
So if we need someone to show us how to spread dissension, suspicion and untruths we would know where to go.
Trust them, uhhhhhh, no.
I would be all for a UPS employees only pension, just as long as it isn't UPS only as far as decisions go.
Of course, that doesn't even get into the consequences that it would no doubt hasten the collapse of the multi-employer pension fund that those of us of higher seniority have most of our years with which would not be beneficial to us.
The longer you have been with the company the more of a problem this would represent to you.
I have seen what UPS does to their own and wouldn't truly want them in sole charge of the decision making process on how much we get, when and why or under what terms they can reduce, change, take away or disqualify employees.
As far as them building up the coffers and happily ever after. . .
You are aware that single employer pension funds (that is what we would then have) have been and are failing at a far, far higher rate than multi-employer funds, so it obviously isn't a foolproof move.
Not to mention many of these corporations that have control of the pension fund change them from defined benefit to defined contribution making them glorified personal savings accounts where you have limited access and control and they decide how much goes in.
Many other seps claim bankruptcy and dump their employees on the government dole, yet continue in business making money so the loop holes for them appear myriad.
Unfortunately, nothing is simple, straightforward or "of course".
Normally however, the ubf term really means the firm works at keeping unions out rather than actually being able to get rid of them after they are in, which is far, far harder.
So if we need someone to show us how to spread dissension, suspicion and untruths we would know where to go.
Trust them, uhhhhhh, no.
I would be all for a UPS employees only pension, just as long as it isn't UPS only as far as decisions go.
Of course, that doesn't even get into the consequences that it would no doubt hasten the collapse of the multi-employer pension fund that those of us of higher seniority have most of our years with which would not be beneficial to us.
The longer you have been with the company the more of a problem this would represent to you.
I have seen what UPS does to their own and wouldn't truly want them in sole charge of the decision making process on how much we get, when and why or under what terms they can reduce, change, take away or disqualify employees.
As far as them building up the coffers and happily ever after. . .
You are aware that single employer pension funds (that is what we would then have) have been and are failing at a far, far higher rate than multi-employer funds, so it obviously isn't a foolproof move.
Not to mention many of these corporations that have control of the pension fund change them from defined benefit to defined contribution making them glorified personal savings accounts where you have limited access and control and they decide how much goes in.
Many other seps claim bankruptcy and dump their employees on the government dole, yet continue in business making money so the loop holes for them appear myriad.
Unfortunately, nothing is simple, straightforward or "of course".
Last edited:
U
Unregistered
Guest
"tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business."
So is getting this law changed. Just business.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business."
So is getting this law changed. Just business.
tieguy
Banned
tie, well, yes, actually I do believe UPS should be held liable, but then it really doesn't matter what I think, but the government and by law they are and will be held liable if CS fails.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business."
Agreed. It's also good business to work to change these laws that are draining our peoples pension. I'm not sure how you can defend such a flawed pension system.
"Now where have I heard that from before? "
Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such."
I can't speak to what you're referring to since I don't have the details. I have seen many instances where this company does take care of it's people above and beyond contractual requirements. We have people working around the district in jobs that were created to allow those people to work until retirement when they were unable to do their regular jobs due to failing health. I have personally seen how UPS has tried to help displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina. Moving them around the country so that they can continue working and providing them with financial aid including interest free loans. Perhaps you have also seen such concern on UPS's part?
"a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected"
Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric.
Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently."
If you reread my quote which you responded to you will see that I said "pension system". You responded with pension. A typo or omission on your part? UPS has always been vehemently opposed to the multi-employer pension system. UPS is not opposed to your having a pension. I can't speak to why you are excluded from this type of information. Perhaps because you respond with sarcasm as you did in this post? Even if you are excluded from this type of information I would think that UPS's efforts to change the pension system in 97 and our present efforts to fix this mess through legislation should at least be a strong indication to you that we have serious concerns about the multi employer pension system?
I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension."
Sarcasm no response required.
"UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?"
Your question would appear to indicate that you feel this issue should be one in which one of us loses our pension. I think a good fix to this pension mess could probably help both of us. I have to warn you though defending this pension mess is not a fix for it.
"I feel your pain. "
You're a steward? Why not try feeling the pain of the people who's best interest you are supposed to represent. See if you can help them fix this pension mess so they don't have to feel any pain at all.
"What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS."
A pension is a benefit. If you don't take the blinders off and figure out this one needs fixing then you may end up losing that benefit.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 70's.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 80's.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Definitely one you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's. The offer was there if they had chosen to present it to you.
"UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either."
Again an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's.
"I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Again an issue you should discuss with your teamster leaders. Though at this point the cost is prohibitive due to changes in the laws.
"It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist."
Another typo or omission? UPS does not reject our people having a pension they do reject the multi employer pension system. I can't speak to the fact that you feel you have not been privy to this information. UPS has clearly shown in its actions that it has strong feelings against the multi employer pension system. UPS actually presented an offer for a jointly administered single employer pension plan.in 97. If you were not aware of this then either your union local hid this information from you or you have not been paying attention. Its really up to you to determine which is the reason.
"Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects."
Perhaps. Perhaps its the fact our people are not getting what they paid for. Perhaps its the concern that 11 of 21 multi employer plans were at less than 70 percent funded that concerned them. CS and a couple more pension funds folding could easily put UPS into bankruptcy. Who will be liable then?
"Yep, I bet that's it.
That I can understand."
No I really don't think you do. Your pension plans have serious issues. They need legitimate fixes. Our people including you deserve the full benifit of what UPS pays for them. As long as continue to defend this system which is draining what our people have worked for you do your brothers and sisters in the union a disservice. They really are entitled to more from you as a steward. Playing the us against them card muddies the waters and fixes nothing. The same mindset you present here is what cost your brothers and sisters a permanent pension fix in 97. I don't mind your disagreeing with me on these issues. I do think you should perhaps change your tactics and propose whatever fixes you think are needed. Defending the present system and helping to deny your brothers and sisters a decent pension is intolerable.
"As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit."
And again it appears your playing the adversarial angle in this discussion. The fact is UPS has paid billions into these pensions so that you would have your "secure" pension. The fact is you should have your pension and UPS should be able to continue making billions and should be able to continue paying towards future UPSers getting their just rewards. But this pension system which your union struck to defend is now not only threatening your "secure" pension but also the future of UPS. Your issue is with your union and the pension trustees. Your blind defense of this pension system is inexcusable. You can do better. You should do more for your people then simply defend this burning wreck of a pension system. Stop making excuses and do your damn job steward.
This isn't about what's right or fair, it's just business."
Agreed. It's also good business to work to change these laws that are draining our peoples pension. I'm not sure how you can defend such a flawed pension system.
"Now where have I heard that from before? "
Oh yeah, from the company whenever they stop paying benefits for someone who got unlucky enough to get to sick to work for an extended time and such."
I can't speak to what you're referring to since I don't have the details. I have seen many instances where this company does take care of it's people above and beyond contractual requirements. We have people working around the district in jobs that were created to allow those people to work until retirement when they were unable to do their regular jobs due to failing health. I have personally seen how UPS has tried to help displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina. Moving them around the country so that they can continue working and providing them with financial aid including interest free loans. Perhaps you have also seen such concern on UPS's part?
"a pension system UPS has always vehemently rejected"
Wow! Now there is some strong rhetoric.
Actually, I have never heard UPS reject the pension, let alone vehemently."
If you reread my quote which you responded to you will see that I said "pension system". You responded with pension. A typo or omission on your part? UPS has always been vehemently opposed to the multi-employer pension system. UPS is not opposed to your having a pension. I can't speak to why you are excluded from this type of information. Perhaps because you respond with sarcasm as you did in this post? Even if you are excluded from this type of information I would think that UPS's efforts to change the pension system in 97 and our present efforts to fix this mess through legislation should at least be a strong indication to you that we have serious concerns about the multi employer pension system?
I know they made a bid to take it over in 97' so they could control all that money, errr, I mean save their fondly thought of employees, but even then I didn't hear anything about vehemently rejecting the pension."
Sarcasm no response required.
"UPS is hardly the last company standing, although I do believe if it came to that UPS would win that title handily as profitable as it is, but then that would endanger your pension as well instead of just ours wouldn't it?"
Your question would appear to indicate that you feel this issue should be one in which one of us loses our pension. I think a good fix to this pension mess could probably help both of us. I have to warn you though defending this pension mess is not a fix for it.
"I feel your pain. "
You're a steward? Why not try feeling the pain of the people who's best interest you are supposed to represent. See if you can help them fix this pension mess so they don't have to feel any pain at all.
"What I know is I have worked for UPS for 32 years and from the beginning UPS advertised the pension as a major plus for working at UPS."
A pension is a benefit. If you don't take the blinders off and figure out this one needs fixing then you may end up losing that benefit.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1970's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 70's.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1980's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Sounds like an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 80's.
"I was never offered a choice in the 1990's on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Definitely one you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's. The offer was there if they had chosen to present it to you.
"UPS distributed a flyer at the last minute while we were out on strike in 1997 as one small part of a contract offering and when UPS and the Teamsters came to agreement on a contract offering I voted yes, but then the pension choice was apparently not part of that contract either."
Again an issue you need to discuss with the teamster leadership of the 90's.
"I have not been offered a choice in the 2000's yet on whether I wanted the pension to be held by UPS or a multi-employer organization."
Again an issue you should discuss with your teamster leaders. Though at this point the cost is prohibitive due to changes in the laws.
"It is strange if UPS has vehemently rejected this pension all these decades as I don't know of anything that UPS vehemently rejects that they allow to exist."
Another typo or omission? UPS does not reject our people having a pension they do reject the multi employer pension system. I can't speak to the fact that you feel you have not been privy to this information. UPS has clearly shown in its actions that it has strong feelings against the multi employer pension system. UPS actually presented an offer for a jointly administered single employer pension plan.in 97. If you were not aware of this then either your union local hid this information from you or you have not been paying attention. Its really up to you to determine which is the reason.
"Perhaps it is the idea of having to pay a lot more money for their employees if the pension fund fails that UPS vehemently rejects."
Perhaps. Perhaps its the fact our people are not getting what they paid for. Perhaps its the concern that 11 of 21 multi employer plans were at less than 70 percent funded that concerned them. CS and a couple more pension funds folding could easily put UPS into bankruptcy. Who will be liable then?
"Yep, I bet that's it.
That I can understand."
No I really don't think you do. Your pension plans have serious issues. They need legitimate fixes. Our people including you deserve the full benifit of what UPS pays for them. As long as continue to defend this system which is draining what our people have worked for you do your brothers and sisters in the union a disservice. They really are entitled to more from you as a steward. Playing the us against them card muddies the waters and fixes nothing. The same mindset you present here is what cost your brothers and sisters a permanent pension fix in 97. I don't mind your disagreeing with me on these issues. I do think you should perhaps change your tactics and propose whatever fixes you think are needed. Defending the present system and helping to deny your brothers and sisters a decent pension is intolerable.
"As I vehemently reject the idea that I worked for UPS all these decades under the promise of a secure pension and now find myself likely to end up on the doles of the government without medical insurance getting one third of the retirement money I was led to believe my employment at UPS had earned me while UPS continues to make billions of dollars of profit."
And again it appears your playing the adversarial angle in this discussion. The fact is UPS has paid billions into these pensions so that you would have your "secure" pension. The fact is you should have your pension and UPS should be able to continue making billions and should be able to continue paying towards future UPSers getting their just rewards. But this pension system which your union struck to defend is now not only threatening your "secure" pension but also the future of UPS. Your issue is with your union and the pension trustees. Your blind defense of this pension system is inexcusable. You can do better. You should do more for your people then simply defend this burning wreck of a pension system. Stop making excuses and do your damn job steward.
Last edited:
