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: 72694" data-attributes="member: 1356"><p>traveler, well, actually it isn't automatic, but yes is the normal recommendation or they would strike like in 97'.</p><p></p><p>As far as the disservice statement that would be a matter of opinion.</p><p></p><p>I would give that a yes and no.</p><p></p><p>I am far from enamored over the end results of many contractual issues over the course of my employment, but it <em>does</em> come down to two, rather than one, whether those of you on management's side want to admit it or not. "I know you may say the company is equally at fault".</p><p></p><p>Or are you supporting the them against us evil empire thing that tie and tie alone is always quoting?</p><p></p><p>Let's take management at their word that they are reasonable, that they care about and respect their employees and believe they deserve to have the best wage and benefit package in the industry, etc.</p><p></p><p>If that is so, then it isn't so much of the Teamsters wrestling every drop they get out of UPS, but rather UPS moderating exuberant demands to stay within viable business parameters.</p><p></p><p>If this is the case, then any results of negotiations involved two parties, not one.</p><p></p><p>So two parties should get credit where credit is due.</p><p></p><p>And the reverse.</p><p></p><p>You infer that UPS stands alone as a company representative with four out of business company representatives and that UPS has voted against most of these decisions, but has been outvoted.</p><p></p><p>I don't believe either to be the case.</p><p></p><p>Do you know the companies that the other four represent?</p><p></p><p>I haven't checked into that, but I would doubt by by-rule definition they would be from currently viable companies in the fund.</p><p></p><p>As far as the union knowing the pension fund's financial state and/or trends, one would certainly hope so.</p><p></p><p>Please keep in mind despite accidental or intentional mislabeling of the pension fund as run by the union or a pension fund of the Teamsters by some here, <strong>it is not</strong>.</p><p></p><p>Many just cannot seem to get this through their heads or don't want to get it through their heads.</p><p></p><p>The pension fund is a separate entity from the Teamsters.</p><p></p><p>It is a fully separate organization ran by an independent panel made up of 50 percent union appointed individuals and 50 percent representative company individuals.</p><p></p><p>The money that UPS and other companies contribute to the fund does <strong>NOT</strong> go to the Teamsters, but rather goes to these separate pension funds and are administered by these equally appointed panels.</p><p></p><p>So when the Teamsters are negotiating a contract they ask their representatives "how much" is needed.</p><p></p><p>Whether they get that much or whether the amount the pension union reps state is enough is correct is a whole 'nuther thing.</p><p></p><p>Frankly, it seems obvious to me that when the CSPF bumped our pension fifty percent in '97 to basically match the purposed company offer this was more of a political move than an economic or mathematical decision.</p><p></p><p>While I have strong reservations about complaining about an extra 1000 bucks a month for my thirty and out <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /> that occurred back then, it now appears that may have been a major factor along with all the rest of the issues ,stock market, companies going out of business, declining working population, insufficient contribution levels, etc. in hastening the fund's financial problems.</p><p></p><p>Another point, the fund is far from bankrupt. </p><p></p><p>Reviewing several of the latest publicly accessible document from the CSPF it appears the fund is currently averaging something like a 1/2 billion dollar deficit from paying out benefits versus contributions and stock market investments.</p><p></p><p>The stock market section is significant and totally variable, but if taken as a snap shot that would mean the fund with 18 plus billion dollars would continue to be able to pay out full retirement benefits for another 36 years without any fixes.</p><p></p><p>The figures used here as mentioned are in no way guaranteed to be a long term average and even though 36 years would be enough for many of us to not be worried about a pension fund cannot run on such a plan either morally or because of government regulations that demand a more long term viability.</p><p></p><p>My only point in this is to point out "bankruptcy" is certainly an innacurate term for where we are at.</p><p></p><p>There is no denying or disputing that pension funds across the USA, not limited to just Teamster or multi-employer funds are in serious long term financial condition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ok2bclever, post: 72694, member: 1356"] traveler, well, actually it isn't automatic, but yes is the normal recommendation or they would strike like in 97'. As far as the disservice statement that would be a matter of opinion. I would give that a yes and no. I am far from enamored over the end results of many contractual issues over the course of my employment, but it [I]does[/I] come down to two, rather than one, whether those of you on management's side want to admit it or not. "I know you may say the company is equally at fault". Or are you supporting the them against us evil empire thing that tie and tie alone is always quoting? Let's take management at their word that they are reasonable, that they care about and respect their employees and believe they deserve to have the best wage and benefit package in the industry, etc. If that is so, then it isn't so much of the Teamsters wrestling every drop they get out of UPS, but rather UPS moderating exuberant demands to stay within viable business parameters. If this is the case, then any results of negotiations involved two parties, not one. So two parties should get credit where credit is due. And the reverse. You infer that UPS stands alone as a company representative with four out of business company representatives and that UPS has voted against most of these decisions, but has been outvoted. I don't believe either to be the case. Do you know the companies that the other four represent? I haven't checked into that, but I would doubt by by-rule definition they would be from currently viable companies in the fund. As far as the union knowing the pension fund's financial state and/or trends, one would certainly hope so. Please keep in mind despite accidental or intentional mislabeling of the pension fund as run by the union or a pension fund of the Teamsters by some here, [B]it is not[/B]. Many just cannot seem to get this through their heads or don't want to get it through their heads. The pension fund is a separate entity from the Teamsters. It is a fully separate organization ran by an independent panel made up of 50 percent union appointed individuals and 50 percent representative company individuals. The money that UPS and other companies contribute to the fund does [B]NOT[/B] go to the Teamsters, but rather goes to these separate pension funds and are administered by these equally appointed panels. So when the Teamsters are negotiating a contract they ask their representatives "how much" is needed. Whether they get that much or whether the amount the pension union reps state is enough is correct is a whole 'nuther thing. Frankly, it seems obvious to me that when the CSPF bumped our pension fifty percent in '97 to basically match the purposed company offer this was more of a political move than an economic or mathematical decision. While I have strong reservations about complaining about an extra 1000 bucks a month for my thirty and out :D that occurred back then, it now appears that may have been a major factor along with all the rest of the issues ,stock market, companies going out of business, declining working population, insufficient contribution levels, etc. in hastening the fund's financial problems. Another point, the fund is far from bankrupt. Reviewing several of the latest publicly accessible document from the CSPF it appears the fund is currently averaging something like a 1/2 billion dollar deficit from paying out benefits versus contributions and stock market investments. The stock market section is significant and totally variable, but if taken as a snap shot that would mean the fund with 18 plus billion dollars would continue to be able to pay out full retirement benefits for another 36 years without any fixes. The figures used here as mentioned are in no way guaranteed to be a long term average and even though 36 years would be enough for many of us to not be worried about a pension fund cannot run on such a plan either morally or because of government regulations that demand a more long term viability. My only point in this is to point out "bankruptcy" is certainly an innacurate term for where we are at. There is no denying or disputing that pension funds across the USA, not limited to just Teamster or multi-employer funds are in serious long term financial condition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top