Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
In our webinar last night...
"The number one concern was for raises..."
Not sure who ever said, "I'd like a raise, and I'll take it at the expense if my pension..." but it wasn't anyone I know...
The New Contract And Future Pension Contributions: Are We Ok. Or Are We Robbing Peter To Pay Paul?
- Thread starter Wally
- Start date
"The number one concern was for raises..."
Not sure who ever said, "I'd like a raise, and I'll take it at the expense if my pension..." but it wasn't anyone I know...
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
I missed it. How did the ol razzler dazzler do?
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Well...the good news is we understood the language clearly...the bad news is that he confirmed we understood the language clearly.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Yep, the west has to give up something so that everyone else can come up. So remember the next time you travel outside the west and see a UPSer. Make sure to tell them "you're welcome." Lord knows they wouldn't survive without us.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Actually it's all over, from what I understand. Literally every hourly contribution has been slashed across the country to make up for the raises and the New England pension. PrettyYep, the west has to give up something so that everyone else can come up. So remember the next time you travel outside the west and see a UPSer. Make sure to tell them "you're welcome." Lord knows they wouldn't survive without us.
ing lame.Contribution *increases* have been slashed.
Last edited:
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
No contributions for any pension plans have been reduced at all, that's just not true.Actually it's all over, from what I understand. Literally every hourly contribution has been slashed across the country to make up for the raises and the New England pension. Pretty
Some are not getting additional contributions, but none are being "slashed" as you put it.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Contribution increases*
Which I've been careful to define in each post, you caught my mistake. Disclaimer- I might make another one at some point. Please be sure to be there to point it out.
Last edited:
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Anyone in the green didn't get the $.50. Any plan like new England that is failing had to continue to get the $1 because of the rules of the bail out. But I doubt they would have taken their $.50 even if they could.Actually it's all over, from what I understand. Literally every hourly contribution has been slashed across the country to make up for the raises and the New England pension. Pretty
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
I'll concentrate on the glaring mistakes, like that one.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
I'm sure he'd just be fine with a thank you.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Up In Smoke
Well-Known Member
Our contributions were reduced by 50%. Multipayer pensions in the green were affected the most. Our E-board is pushing way too hard for a yes vote. Something is rotten.Actually it's all over, from what I understand. Literally every hourly contribution has been slashed across the country to make up for the raises and the New England pension. Pretty
Contribution *increases* have been slashed.
The same money today isn't worth the same money tomorrow or the next decade
Look I have nothing but respect for you
But with no pension contribution increases I really can't endorse that
What's up being said if I got an extra 10 or 20 dollars a month increase on my pension payout is going to change the day I retire
But we are selling out the future of our younger members
Just my two cents worth
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
It's because they see the writing on the wall if they don't push the yes vote.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Since you added to your post, I'll add as well.
Only funds that require increases are getting them, as defined by their "bailout" terms. The rest of the money is going to "historic" raises and another holiday.
Here's the thing, to keep that $.50 increase to all other FT pensions would've cost around $400M. When you brag and pound your chest over a $30B deal, you look like a real dick when you reduce pensions in the process. I understand, there is no "direct" reduction, but when you reduce the rate of growth (via inflation or otherwise), it's a reduction in pension.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
I'm not asking you to endorse anything, instead only challenging the notion that no increase in contributions is in reality a reduction.
...because it isnt, it's cost neutral.
In the end I feel sorry (not really) for those who are depending on their pension to maintain their standard of living in retirement and believe the Company has any further responsibility for pension levels after they separate.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
You would.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
It's not a lot of work, as they tend to jump off of the page.
So they couldn't kick in a couple nickels every year .
The new employees are in for a rude awakening
Similar threads
- Poll
