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 Union Issues
The Media are Calling You Liars!
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="my2cents" data-source="post: 256644" data-attributes="member: 1287"><p>Liberty Bear,</p><p></p><p>You can rant and rave all you want about the corporate media, but I believe this contract is weak because of the sorry state of the multi-employer pensions. This issue alone put the IBT behind the 8 ball right from the get-go, thus putting them in a weak bargaining position. Below is an exercise I performed earlier this year, which was to calculate the funding ratios for the Teamster multi-employer plans UPS contributes to. There are 21 plans, although I don't know the names of all of them.</p><p></p><p>I performed this exercise around February of this year, so I used the latest available Form 5500 data at the time. My source for the data for performing the calculations was found by searching the database on <a href="http://freeerisa.benefitspro.com/" target="_blank">http://freeerisa.benefitspro.com/</a>. The method for the calculation follows the one employed in <em>Trucking: The Less-than-Truckload (LTL) Industry and Pension, Safety, and Security Issues</em>, Congressional Research Service Report RL32257, April 19, 2004. The Total Assets figure is derived from Schedule H, Part 1, Line 1df(b). The Current Liability uses the RPA 94 figure from Schedule B, Part 1, Line 1d(2)(a). Assets were divided into liabilities to obtain the funding ratio.</p><p></p><p>Central States - 56%</p><p>Western Conference - 99%</p><p>New England Fund - 52%</p><p>NYS Teamsters - 59%</p><p>Local 804 IBT & 447 IAM - 53%</p><p>Local 177 - 57%</p><p>Central Penn. Teamsters - 66%</p><p>Western Penn. Teamsters - 61%</p><p>Trust Fund of Phil. & Vicinity - 62%</p><p>Local 639 - 100%</p><p>Locals 175 & 505 - 65%</p><p>Joint Council No. 83 - 73%</p><p>Local 705 - 73%</p><p>Local 710 - 89%</p><p>Milwaukee Drivers - 70%</p><p>Teamsters Negotiated - 70%</p><p>IAM National - 119%</p><p></p><p>An attachment to this post can be found on this thread: <a href="http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/ups-subsidizing-non-ups-pensions.27725/" target="_blank">http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/ups-subsidizing-non-ups-pensions.27725/</a> which provides more detail than the above summary. Just for the record, I'm a participant in the New England Fund, which has a funding ratio similar to Central States. I'm not crazy about this contract, but its only a matter of time before this slow motion train wreck becomes fully realized, thus the dose of bad medicine in this contract.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="my2cents, post: 256644, member: 1287"] Liberty Bear, You can rant and rave all you want about the corporate media, but I believe this contract is weak because of the sorry state of the multi-employer pensions. This issue alone put the IBT behind the 8 ball right from the get-go, thus putting them in a weak bargaining position. Below is an exercise I performed earlier this year, which was to calculate the funding ratios for the Teamster multi-employer plans UPS contributes to. There are 21 plans, although I don't know the names of all of them. I performed this exercise around February of this year, so I used the latest available Form 5500 data at the time. My source for the data for performing the calculations was found by searching the database on [URL]http://freeerisa.benefitspro.com/[/URL]. The method for the calculation follows the one employed in [I]Trucking: The Less-than-Truckload (LTL) Industry and Pension, Safety, and Security Issues[/I], Congressional Research Service Report RL32257, April 19, 2004. The Total Assets figure is derived from Schedule H, Part 1, Line 1df(b). The Current Liability uses the RPA 94 figure from Schedule B, Part 1, Line 1d(2)(a). Assets were divided into liabilities to obtain the funding ratio. Central States - 56% Western Conference - 99% New England Fund - 52% NYS Teamsters - 59% Local 804 IBT & 447 IAM - 53% Local 177 - 57% Central Penn. Teamsters - 66% Western Penn. Teamsters - 61% Trust Fund of Phil. & Vicinity - 62% Local 639 - 100% Locals 175 & 505 - 65% Joint Council No. 83 - 73% Local 705 - 73% Local 710 - 89% Milwaukee Drivers - 70% Teamsters Negotiated - 70% IAM National - 119% An attachment to this post can be found on this thread: [URL]http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/ups-subsidizing-non-ups-pensions.27725/[/URL] which provides more detail than the above summary. Just for the record, I'm a participant in the New England Fund, which has a funding ratio similar to Central States. I'm not crazy about this contract, but its only a matter of time before this slow motion train wreck becomes fully realized, thus the dose of bad medicine in this contract. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Media are Calling You Liars!
Top