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 Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
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="ok2bclever" data-source="post: 72603" data-attributes="member: 1356"><p>Sorry if you don't understand a term of "this pension" as meaning the current pension system.</p><p></p><p>Actually, I know you understood, just typical misdirection to try to cloud the issue.</p><p></p><p>"our peoples pension" is so USP lingo, and yet, the only thing I see UPS doing legally or politically is working to limit their exposure and liability, nothing directly for "our people".</p><p></p><p>I have stated repeatedly that I would be in favor of changes, including to a UPS only pension.</p><p></p><p>The part that I am sure you have a problem with is my pointing out the cold fact of life that trusting UPS (or any corporation) without significant safeguards, limitations of power and monitoring installed would not be an improvement.</p><p></p><p>Oh, now it's down to "serious concerns"?</p><p></p><p>Well now that is a reasonable term, why didn't you use that initially instead of the theatrical "vehemently rejecting" lie ?</p><p></p><p>Let's see, you with a solid supervisor pension, versus me with a pension being discussed by the country as about to fail and being discussed by UPS as how they can get out from under it. . .</p><p></p><p>Yep, I certainly emphasize with the workforce's pain as I am part of it and I am doing what I can which is to continue to try to inform the membership of the situation and to stay up to date in what the politicians and UPS (and friends) lobbyists are doing.</p><p></p><p>Read this next sentence slowly as you keep seeming to conveniently miss it.</p><p></p><p>I am not defending the current pension, just disagreeing with simplistic accusations that the Teamsters are the only ones at fault in it's problems.</p><p></p><p>That way every one will know it will be just a simple lie the next time you issue your repetitive and convenient mistatements of what I believe.</p><p></p><p>It is amazing how ineffective UPS, normally extremely efficient at making sure we know exactly what finger to have the key on, etc. has been on this alledgedly vehemently rejected pension <em>system </em>(just for you) in the last three decades.</p><p></p><p>Appears more like hindsight to me.</p><p></p><p>Neither the Teamsters, nor UPS is in the habit of "sharing" most of the negotiations of all these contracts.</p><p></p><p>If there was a way to force them to be open and public I would do so immediately as I know both sides would be against letting the workforce into the discussions.</p><p></p><p>tie, remember, this should be the last time you misstate that I am defending this pension system or you will just be lying.</p><p></p><p>If I could make changes what would they be?</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Blue">UPS retirees would be in a classification of their own.</span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">Employees of out of business companies to this point would drop out of the pension system to the government safety net.</span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">That UPS and all companies would have to up their payments to both the fund and the government safety net organization to real support levels rather than negotiated pretend levels.</span></p><p></p><p>The amount contributed to the pension fund and to the PBGC by companies all these years is inadequate for the promised benefits and upping it to adequate levels (to be determined by qualified economists rather than UPS management or Teamster politicians) would cost the companies more money, but stabilize the promises they have been touting of this benefit for decades.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, if the levels had always been right the necessary amount of money for employees who worked long enough to qualify for a pension from out of business companies would already have enough financial support, but the levels were artificially negotiated too low and so that is not the case.</p><p></p><p>So they would have to suffer the consequences of that fact and that their company no longer exists.</p><p></p><p>If UPS had it's own classification level the contributions and benefits could be customized to reflect UPS's great concern and appreciation for us without any additional problems or burden to the rest of the pension fund.</p><p></p><p>Keeping it a multi-employer and union controlled/overseen pension system would prevent any one company to be able to manipulate the benefits and qualifications of the beneficiaries which is a significant concern even with a stable pension system.</p><p></p><p>This would work, but is unlikely to occur as the companies will naturally balk at having to increase any expenses to their bottom line that they are not forced into and the fact that they are the ones with the well financed lobbyist groups taking the politicians to lunch and tropical vacations, etc pretty well guarantees they will get watered down fixes for us at best.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 72603, member: 1356"] Sorry if you don't understand a term of "this pension" as meaning the current pension system. Actually, I know you understood, just typical misdirection to try to cloud the issue. "our peoples pension" is so USP lingo, and yet, the only thing I see UPS doing legally or politically is working to limit their exposure and liability, nothing directly for "our people". I have stated repeatedly that I would be in favor of changes, including to a UPS only pension. The part that I am sure you have a problem with is my pointing out the cold fact of life that trusting UPS (or any corporation) without significant safeguards, limitations of power and monitoring installed would not be an improvement. Oh, now it's down to "serious concerns"? Well now that is a reasonable term, why didn't you use that initially instead of the theatrical "vehemently rejecting" lie ? Let's see, you with a solid supervisor pension, versus me with a pension being discussed by the country as about to fail and being discussed by UPS as how they can get out from under it. . . Yep, I certainly emphasize with the workforce's pain as I am part of it and I am doing what I can which is to continue to try to inform the membership of the situation and to stay up to date in what the politicians and UPS (and friends) lobbyists are doing. Read this next sentence slowly as you keep seeming to conveniently miss it. I am not defending the current pension, just disagreeing with simplistic accusations that the Teamsters are the only ones at fault in it's problems. That way every one will know it will be just a simple lie the next time you issue your repetitive and convenient mistatements of what I believe. It is amazing how ineffective UPS, normally extremely efficient at making sure we know exactly what finger to have the key on, etc. has been on this alledgedly vehemently rejected pension [I]system [/I](just for you) in the last three decades. Appears more like hindsight to me. Neither the Teamsters, nor UPS is in the habit of "sharing" most of the negotiations of all these contracts. If there was a way to force them to be open and public I would do so immediately as I know both sides would be against letting the workforce into the discussions. tie, remember, this should be the last time you misstate that I am defending this pension system or you will just be lying. If I could make changes what would they be? [COLOR="Blue"]UPS retirees would be in a classification of their own. Employees of out of business companies to this point would drop out of the pension system to the government safety net. That UPS and all companies would have to up their payments to both the fund and the government safety net organization to real support levels rather than negotiated pretend levels.[/COLOR] The amount contributed to the pension fund and to the PBGC by companies all these years is inadequate for the promised benefits and upping it to adequate levels (to be determined by qualified economists rather than UPS management or Teamster politicians) would cost the companies more money, but stabilize the promises they have been touting of this benefit for decades. Unfortunately, if the levels had always been right the necessary amount of money for employees who worked long enough to qualify for a pension from out of business companies would already have enough financial support, but the levels were artificially negotiated too low and so that is not the case. So they would have to suffer the consequences of that fact and that their company no longer exists. If UPS had it's own classification level the contributions and benefits could be customized to reflect UPS's great concern and appreciation for us without any additional problems or burden to the rest of the pension fund. Keeping it a multi-employer and union controlled/overseen pension system would prevent any one company to be able to manipulate the benefits and qualifications of the beneficiaries which is a significant concern even with a stable pension system. This would work, but is unlikely to occur as the companies will naturally balk at having to increase any expenses to their bottom line that they are not forced into and the fact that they are the ones with the well financed lobbyist groups taking the politicians to lunch and tropical vacations, etc pretty well guarantees they will get watered down fixes for us at best. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top