TDU in action at ups!

[PobreCarlos]

Inthegame;

Not saying it wasn't "prudent" at all; in fact, I thought the decision of the trustees was VERY prudent...but it was not indicative of a "win". The fact is, the union buckled, or "blinked", if you will. Beyond that, while the 6 billion might deal with part of the eventual problem, the fact is that missing $100, 000,000 did help set the path that Central States is on today...and calling that a "win" from a Teamster (or company) perspective would be a real stretch. As for the $6 billion itself, one can't help but think that, as the withdrawal liability UPS paid essentially for OTHER companies' employees, it represented a real shafting for UPS Teamsters...to the tune of about $133,000 OFF of each (then) UPS CDPF member's pension ( a sum which would have grown quite a bit, of course, before a members eventual retirement!)...to say nothing to what it did for their future employment/wage prospects. In causing business to be lost to the competition, there's little doubt that it cost tens of thousands of "could have been" UPS Teamster jobs...jobs that are now being filled by non-union workers at other firms, who also are now able to put quite a bit of pressure on Teamster wages. Not sure the union can absorb many "wins" like that.

Beyond that there's no "improvement of numbers" that will ever come close to making up for the losses UPS Teamsters eventually suffered in that "win"...just a record of money which was rightfully theirs being squandered on others by virtue of a failed power play.

 

[Inthegame]

Inthegame;

Not saying it wasn't "prudent" at all; in fact, I thought the decision of the trustees was VERY prudent...but it was not indicative of a "win". The fact is, the union buckled, or "blinked", if you will. Beyond that, while the 6 billion might deal with part of the eventual problem, the fact is that missing $100, 000,000 did help set the path that Central States is on today...and calling that a "win" from a Teamster (or company) perspective would be a real stretch. As for the $6 billion itself, one can't help but think that, as the withdrawal liability UPS paid essentially for OTHER companies' employees, it represented a real shafting for UPS Teamsters...to the tune of about $133,000 OFF of each (then) UPS CDPF member's pension ( a sum which would have grown quite a bit, of course, before a members eventual retirement!)...to say nothing to what it did for their future employment/wage prospects. In causing business to be lost to the competition, there's little doubt that it cost tens of thousands of "could have been" UPS Teamster jobs...jobs that are now being filled by non-union workers at other firms, who also are now able to put quite a bit of pressure on Teamster wages. Not sure the union can absorb many "wins" like that.

Beyond that there's no "improvement of numbers" that will ever come close to making up for the losses UPS Teamsters eventually suffered in that "win"...just a record of money which was rightfully theirs being squandered on others by virtue of a failed power play.

Now you have me questioning your numbers. Where did you come up with $133,000? The 100 million abatement or loss as you claim, divided by 42,000 UPS Teamsters equals less than $2500 each, an amount far less than the wage increase the Teamsters secured (see previous post). If you're suggesting UPS would have paid 6 billion as a bonus to all CS participants, you know a different company than I do. Had UPS left the CS plan in '97 how healthy would that plan have been for many more Teamsters than the minority of UPS participants? The withdrawal liability issue is contentious although in many cases other failed companies couldn't compete with UPS's expansions into non common carrier operations and became delinquent.
"Could have been" is a game you'll have to play alone. With your logic the Teamsters should roll over for any offer UPS proposes because it could affect future employment.
In any case, I don't believe anyone buckled or blinked, they just negotiated a settlement that could and should have been reached sooner.

 

[CharleyHustle]

"Could have been" is a game you'll have to play alone.

Actually, for trustees, fiduciaries and board members, "could have been", is a game they get paid very well to play. I think all the players knew very well what was at stake, and the effect of the numbers on the future.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Actually, for trustees, fiduciaries and board members, "could have been", is a game they get paid very well to play. I think all the players knew very well what was at stake, and the effect of the numbers on the future.

I don't think anyone could have predicted the economic downturn and the effect it would have on our pensions.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Inthegame;

If you'll read my post again, what I wrote was.....

"As for the $6 billion itself, one can't help but think that, as the withdrawal liability UPS paid essentially for OTHER companies' employees, it represented a real shafting for UPS Teamsters...to the tune of about $133,000 OFF of each...."

Don't divide $100 million by 42,000, but rather divide ****$6 BILLION **** (and I used 45,000 instead of 42,000; using your figure, the amount would be higher still!!!)

That's all money that could have gone to UPS Teamsters' pension. Instead, it went toward propping-up a declining entity that's STILL flirting with failure today.

Remember, this is a UPS board; it's not the company's concern as "how healthy would that plan have been for many more Teamsters than the minority of UPS participants"...and it should NOT have been a concern for those Teamster officials who claimed to be bargaining on the behalf of ALL the members of the ***UPS bargaining unit**** (not the Teamsters at large nor, for that matter, just Teamsters within the bargaining unit...but rather the ENTIRE bargaining unit!). The fact is that the Teamsters themselves "screwed the pooch" in terms of Central States by driving all the contributing employers out of business. Why should UPS - and UPS employees - be punished for what they had nothing to do with?

Anyway, in this case, "yes", the UPS Teamsters would have been MUCH better off if they had just "rolled over" for the initial UPS proposal....instead of being "ROLLED-over" by the eventual concession proposed by the union that led to their betrayal.

 

[Inthegame]

Inthegame;
Anyway, in this case, "yes", the UPS Teamsters would have been MUCH better off if they had just "rolled over" for the initial UPS proposal....instead of being "ROLLED-over" by the eventual concession proposed by the union that led to their betrayal.

The eventual concession that led to whose betrayal? If you're imagining the 2008 financial collapse was in the minds of the '97 negotiating team, put down the pipe. One would do well to remember the financial times of the 1990's. Market returns are the prime factor in Pension Fund growth, not contributions. The Dow was through the charts. In the prior contract the Dow increased more than 128%. From Feb through July of '97 the Dow increased by 1000 pts. In the next three years the Dow went up another 3000 pts. Market returns were between 20%-25% in Pension Funds. UPS's '97 abatement represented approximately 2.5% of the annualized returns in CS in '97.
With this front and center the UPS Teamster negotiators should have left CS for a unknown company offer?

It's real easy to have answers after the fact.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Inthegame,

Don't waste your time with this turd.

His screen name on Teamster.net is scb

"Wanna Be" Union buster.

Some Union person took his lunch money.... years ago.

Now, all he does.... is wield his anti-union light saber. You know what I mean ?



-Bug-

 

[CharleyHustle]

I don't think anyone could have predicted the economic downturn and the effect it would have on our pensions.

There were maybe a few who could have predicted a down turn but many who would know what effect a downturn would have on pensions, especially CSPF. Central States and its funding and liabilities were in question long before '97. The question you have to ask is why did UPS risk a nation wide strike to try to get out?

 

[Catatonic]

Inthegame,

Don't waste your time with this turd.

His screen name on Teamster.net is scb

"Wanna Be" Union buster.

Some Union person took his lunch money.... years ago.

Now, all he does.... is wield his anti-union light saber. You know what I mean ?



-Bug-

More importantly, don't listen to his logic and factual arguments.
I don't know who he is but I have learned a good bit from the dialogues between him and others on here.

 

[Catatonic]

There were maybe a few who could have predicted a down turn but many who would know what effect a downturn would have on pensions, especially CSPF. Central States and its funding and liabilities were in question long before '97. The question you have to ask is why did UPS risk a nation wide strike to try to get out?

That's why ... UPS was on the hook for CS because it's pension was a Multi-employer Pension Fund.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I have learned a good bit from the dialogues between him and others on here.

PobreCarlos.... Really did say....

"The fact is that the Teamsters themselves "screwed the pooch" in terms of Central States by driving all the contributing employers out of business."

Hoax,

If you are "learning" something by *statements* like this.... All I have to say is.... Wow



-Bug-

 

[Catatonic]

PobreCarlos.... Really did say....

"The fact is that the Teamsters themselves "screwed the pooch" in terms of Central States by driving all the contributing employers out of business."

Hoax,

If you are "learning" something by *statements* like this.... All I have to say is.... Wow



-Bug-

If this was the only thing he had posted, then I would tend to agree.
If this was your only post, I would think much less of you too!