brownIEman
Well-Known Member
Um, could you try that in English?
Tensions at UPS are brewing between leadership and unionized drivers as the new CEO doubles down on drivers who make deliveries in their own cars
- Thread starter cheryl
- Start date
Um, could you try that in English?
DELACROIX
In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
I am talking from experience, even with Union representation and a couple of tokens union officials on the board of trustees the company would cut benefits to their union employees and pad their own pension trusts if they got control back in “97”. No kool aid here, remember we have clear history of previous company proposals on our pension and health and welfare.
Est.1998
Well-Known Member
I think this is what he meant.
Kind of like what they're doing to management right now?
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
The proposal back in 97 was for a plan with equal numbers of trustees from both the company and union. Not just a couple 'token union trustees. Any reduction in benefits would have required a renegotiation in the contract anyway, not even a unanimous vote of trustees has that authority. Any movement of funds to pad anything would have required at least one union trustee to come over to the company side to break the deadlock.
I you're speaking from experience you're speaking from the experience of drinking IBT propaganda.
BTW, I'm not really defending the company plan from back then. It actually would have been better for the UPSers, but would have absolutely effed the orphans in the multi plans, like with no lube. There was no way the IBT could agree to it back then. But rather than be honest about why they could not accept it, they convinced you the company was just trying to take it over to draw it down and steal the money.
FYI, comparing it to what they are doing with the management plan misses a major point. Had they succeeded in '97, they would still need to get the IBT to agree to the kind of changes they are making to that plan.
Have your pensions been frozen? New participant's locked out? Remember, in '07 or '08 UPS basically got what it had been asking for in 97 for about $4 billion more and organizing of overnight/ups freight.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
Ah.
That may be the eventual goal. Stick with the b to b and air volume and let Amazon and usps have the resi ground. maybe the pvds are stop gap to reduce the cost of the low profit margin packages until they can be jettisoned all together?
That would be ironic if that happens, at that point UPS would basically become what FedEx and RPS were when they merged in '97... Except they'd be paying a better, negotiated compensation to teamsters.
Wouldn't be the worst thing ever.
DELACROIX
In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
The company’s “97” pension proposal paid 50 dollars per service year for your part time years and 100 dollars for every full time year..stopped at 35 years service. The vested time that you had under the Central States plan counted on day one at your retirement, it was not formulated at age 65. There was no mention of a withdraw penalty similar to the 8 billion in 2007, if the company did succeed in getting the pension back in “97” it would of further damaged the rest of the participants or companies by not contributing, there was no language protection in case of a default. If UPS was so concerned about it’s Union employees losing their benefits why did they not want to cover the pre-2008 retirees, the intent has always been to save costs without any consideration in whether it was the right thing to do.
The padding mentioned is related to the contributions going into a separate plan, your UPS Retirement Plan, it had nothing to do with the Union’s pension. An good example of how things would of went under UPS control just study the meager benefit levels for the part time retirees since “97”.
Considering the opposition that the Union leadership to creating a separate pension plan, what kind of power would the union trustees really have to protect benefit reductions no matter how many are on the pension board, they would still be tokens.
The timing of the sale of the UPS freight branch, the elimination of further funding and vesting into the UPS Retirement Plan, Hoffa’s retirement and the bailout of the Central corresponding around the 2023 contract is very interesting. We shall see down the road.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
Actually, you are wrong that their was no mention of a withdrawal penalty in '97. UPS was offering $2B at that time. What they wound up paying was just north of $6B, not 8 when they did leave in '07. The plan included attempts to take care of the UPSers left in the plan. Remember, their was a provision for UPS to give a "make-up" payment to any former UPSers in the plan who wound up with a lower benefit than what the UPS plan was offering due to any possible shortfall in the Central States plan fund. The Teamsters tried to screw UPS with that one by proposing a bail out for central states that would basically pay everyone else first, then leave UPS on the hook for a larger make up.
It was a plan to both save costs, and do the right thing for UPSers. It was not a plan to "take control" of the pension as it never did that. The plan was equally controlled by UPS and the teamsters.
Again, yes UPS could have done to that plan what they are now doing to the management plan, but only if the IBT agreed to such in contract negotiations. You seem to be missing that simple point. I have read enough of your posts to know you cannot be missing that simple point because you are simple (you clearly are not). So, my only possible conclusion is that you have swallowed the line sold to you by the IBT on that whole score. Their propaganda was very good, but it was not entirely truthful.
DELACROIX
In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
The 8 billion quoted was the sum of the 6 billion withdrawal penalty and roughly 2 billion to start up and fund the new IBT/UPS pension plan.
I did not remember a withdraw charge of 2 billion on the SPD proposal back in “97”. . it has been 24 years ago...have to dig through my old papers
out of curiosity.
You did admit that eventually UPS would try to eliminate further funding for it’s collective bargaining employees similar to what they will be doing with management in 2023. Their final goal was to save rising pension costs by offering a matched 401k to supplement the offset or loss of
Monetary Benefits.
I expect that this coming contract will be mostly about pensions.. that UPS Pension Plan for the part timers will be targeted, just not a lot of part timers staying over 5 years to justify it’s existence, most of them would jump on a healthy
matched 401k. Those part timers primarily in the Western Conferences will not be effected, most would probably end up getting a retirement benefit similar to the full timers under the IBT/UPS plan.
I did not remember a withdraw charge of 2 billion on the SPD proposal back in “97”. . it has been 24 years ago...have to dig through my old papers
out of curiosity.
You did admit that eventually UPS would try to eliminate further funding for it’s collective bargaining employees similar to what they will be doing with management in 2023. Their final goal was to save rising pension costs by offering a matched 401k to supplement the offset or loss of
Monetary Benefits.
I expect that this coming contract will be mostly about pensions.. that UPS Pension Plan for the part timers will be targeted, just not a lot of part timers staying over 5 years to justify it’s existence, most of them would jump on a healthy
matched 401k. Those part timers primarily in the Western Conferences will not be effected, most would probably end up getting a retirement benefit similar to the full timers under the IBT/UPS plan.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
They are going to have to try to reduce the costs of the pensions. It's simple math. The pension calculations have always been based on growth, always having more active employees paying in than retirees drawing out. The growth slows or stops and the funds will fail.
That was not my point.
The union told you that they asked to move from the multi employer plans to single employer UPS plan because they wanted to destroy the pension and would do so as soon as they got 'control'.
Well, they did get the single employer plan on 2007, and they did not immediately destroy it. Why not? Out of the kindness of their little corporate hearts?
No, because they could not without renegotiating and getting the teamsters to agree. UPS never got 'control' of the pensions. They never would have gotten control back in '97 either, that was never part of the proposal. Your union lied to you about that to get your fired up and keep you in the fight.
That was not my point.
The union told you that they asked to move from the multi employer plans to single employer UPS plan because they wanted to destroy the pension and would do so as soon as they got 'control'.
Well, they did get the single employer plan on 2007, and they did not immediately destroy it. Why not? Out of the kindness of their little corporate hearts?
No, because they could not without renegotiating and getting the teamsters to agree. UPS never got 'control' of the pensions. They never would have gotten control back in '97 either, that was never part of the proposal. Your union lied to you about that to get your fired up and keep you in the fight.
What'dyabringmetoday???
Well-Known Member
You beat me to it.
Lineandinitial
Legio patria nostra
What about the principle that the same people interacting with UPS at home are the same ones making decisions at work?
Starting from zero, the “Shipping department” has to start with an impression and usually a preference.
It doesn’t always end with lowest cost.
The appearance of the vehicles, people and corporation plays into that.
FedEx Ground, USPS delivery people and vehicles does not emit a vibe of efficiency and professionalism, such as the PC Driver does.
Not in my experience.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
That principal is important, but only goes for so far against price. UPS after 97 switched from a marketing strategy of competing largely on price to trying to differentiate on service and professionalism, with mixed results.
Seems over the past few years the professionalism has slipped as well. Tight rules geared toward giving a professional impression, clean shaven, hair cuts, tattoos, etc have all been relaxed the past few years.
There's a lot in play. I know there are folks at Amazon logistics who think they can start doing pickups from other companies and compete directly with UPS as a common carrier as opposed to just Amazon packages. Those people are fooling themselves. They are still a long way from that capability.
Last edited:
