The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
- Thread starter Hawfuh Sux
- Start date
Re: The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
If I remember correctly the TDU was opposed to this plan back in the 90s as was Andy (he was a reformer back then).
I thought that I answered it, but in case I didn't then my answer is yes, especially at a time when UPS is making record profits. When the plan was changed in the 90's existing retirees were given the option of staying on their current plan paying zero per month or moving to the new plan where they would receive dental insurance in addition to medical for $50 per month. All new retirees were required to be on the new plan.
If I remember correctly the TDU was opposed to this plan back in the 90s as was Andy (he was a reformer back then).
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
$50/month is not sustainable.
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
After getting all the information directly from the horses mouth this morning I am voting yes. I think its a good plan.
Today, Saturday Nov 9th, we had our meeting for the WR177 healthcare plan. I have a few points to make about the meeting, its contents and then an opinion on what to do at this point.
First, let me say that our local has thousands of UPSers, and this contract most likely is the tipping point for our future contracts, and yet, less than 70 people showed up for the meeting. This is a ginormous failure by the members. 100% complain, but everyone is too busy to get involved in the direction of our Union.
As for the content.
Andy M brought his powerpoint presentation and played it for those in attendance. I wil say that the presentation was infomative and gave details not previously given to us by our local officers.
The plan looks good and although Laguna Brown called it "the same", even Andy M admits, "its not the same". There are minor differences between what we had and major differences between how it is paid for.
Small changes like $5 dollar copays for all prescriptions unless you order through the mail, or employee's covering the difference in cost for brand name drugs via retail outlets. These are minor.
The coverages are good, and the retiree benefits appear ok at this point.
The cost of the plan to the employees is one difference that some members find disturbing. Diverting pension money to "build reserves" for the plan opens the door to larger diversions down the road should the plan fail to pay for itself, OR if the stock market tanks in the next 5 years. The stock market would have a greater impact on the plan should it crash like it did in the recession 2007/2009.
Overall, the plan is acceptable to me, however, the future is not so bright.
I had the opportunity to ask Andy M several questions from the floor and he answered them honestly. First, I asked him if he could guarantee that no more than the money he stated would be diverted from the pension (.50 cents the first year x 2080, and 1.00 the second and third years x 2080) would have to be diverted in the 4th and 5th years.
He stated, "i cannot guarantee that it wont". He stated that there are no absolutes, and it could cost us more in years 4 or 5, but at this point, it was impossible to predict what the plan and its finances would look like.
I then asked if he could guarantee that "we" wouldnt have to pay for the plan "out of pocket" starting with the next contract, and he again stated that "i cannot guarantee that you wont" and furthered with "you can bet that UPS will demand that you contribute towards your own health care in the next contract".
This "we" already know. ( my opinion ) As I stated before the contract was settled and sent out for ratification, I believe that the Teamsters agreed to taking over our health care plan back in 2008. I believe they thought we would agree to pay for it out of pocket and "we" voted that down forcing a change of direction.
Now, I believe that the teamsters have merely delayed making us pay for our healthcare "out of pocket" for 5 years and "we" can expect to do so in the next contract.
Andy himself said that the company will for sure present this in the next contract.
As for the coverage, there were no big surprises here, as Andy stated they simply had to "mirror" the enhanced C6 plan as provided in the addendum ( carve out language ), so no celebration was needed for negotiations. At the minimum, once the C6 plan was enhanced, the southwest had no choice but to "mirror" it.
There were a couple of improvements that go a long way for the members and this I can appreciate. Spousal coverage for retirees, and active members is something unexpected and worthy of note.
However, there are some down sides to this as well.
First, for now, we get to keep our providers ( blue cross, blue shield, kaiser) for one year. Then, next october during open enrollment, Andy M explained that other providers will be bidding for the contract, and we could LOSE these providers and have to select a new one.
Again, being asked if we could keep Blue shield/Blue Cross, for example, Andy stated " i cannot guarantee that, and you could find you will lose those providers and have to replace it with aetna, etc etc"... He indicated it depends on the bidding of the contract for services, but we would not know until later next year.
After all was said and done, I find myself having to vote YES on this contract proposal, as i do not see there being any room for improvement. At this point, Andy made it clear that a NO vote could find its way to the National negotiating committee and they will vote to approve it without our consent.
All other issues in the contract are mute, as Andy stated that the National was a done deal and they were not going to reopen any other issues we may have with the contract as a whole.
This is unfortunate, but it does clear the air for the members unhappy with the other portions of the contract that they are unhappy with. In five years, the members will get to see how the new language in the national master affects them or their co workers and then decide if "we" can afford having the same people negotiating a THIRD contract in five years.
So to be clear, I am recommending a YES vote at this junction of negotiations, and NOT because of the strength of the insurance, but for the weakness in the position for change.
At least for the next five years, we know how much this will cost each of us personally. Year 5 has the begining of the deductible cycles and you can bet in the next contract they will be even higher.
This is only the begining.
TOS.
First, let me say that our local has thousands of UPSers, and this contract most likely is the tipping point for our future contracts, and yet, less than 70 people showed up for the meeting. This is a ginormous failure by the members. 100% complain, but everyone is too busy to get involved in the direction of our Union.
As for the content.
Andy M brought his powerpoint presentation and played it for those in attendance. I wil say that the presentation was infomative and gave details not previously given to us by our local officers.
The plan looks good and although Laguna Brown called it "the same", even Andy M admits, "its not the same". There are minor differences between what we had and major differences between how it is paid for.
Small changes like $5 dollar copays for all prescriptions unless you order through the mail, or employee's covering the difference in cost for brand name drugs via retail outlets. These are minor.
The coverages are good, and the retiree benefits appear ok at this point.
The cost of the plan to the employees is one difference that some members find disturbing. Diverting pension money to "build reserves" for the plan opens the door to larger diversions down the road should the plan fail to pay for itself, OR if the stock market tanks in the next 5 years. The stock market would have a greater impact on the plan should it crash like it did in the recession 2007/2009.
Overall, the plan is acceptable to me, however, the future is not so bright.
I had the opportunity to ask Andy M several questions from the floor and he answered them honestly. First, I asked him if he could guarantee that no more than the money he stated would be diverted from the pension (.50 cents the first year x 2080, and 1.00 the second and third years x 2080) would have to be diverted in the 4th and 5th years.
He stated, "i cannot guarantee that it wont". He stated that there are no absolutes, and it could cost us more in years 4 or 5, but at this point, it was impossible to predict what the plan and its finances would look like.
I then asked if he could guarantee that "we" wouldnt have to pay for the plan "out of pocket" starting with the next contract, and he again stated that "i cannot guarantee that you wont" and furthered with "you can bet that UPS will demand that you contribute towards your own health care in the next contract".
This "we" already know. ( my opinion ) As I stated before the contract was settled and sent out for ratification, I believe that the Teamsters agreed to taking over our health care plan back in 2008. I believe they thought we would agree to pay for it out of pocket and "we" voted that down forcing a change of direction.
Now, I believe that the teamsters have merely delayed making us pay for our healthcare "out of pocket" for 5 years and "we" can expect to do so in the next contract.
Andy himself said that the company will for sure present this in the next contract.
As for the coverage, there were no big surprises here, as Andy stated they simply had to "mirror" the enhanced C6 plan as provided in the addendum ( carve out language ), so no celebration was needed for negotiations. At the minimum, once the C6 plan was enhanced, the southwest had no choice but to "mirror" it.
There were a couple of improvements that go a long way for the members and this I can appreciate. Spousal coverage for retirees, and active members is something unexpected and worthy of note.
However, there are some down sides to this as well.
First, for now, we get to keep our providers ( blue cross, blue shield, kaiser) for one year. Then, next october during open enrollment, Andy M explained that other providers will be bidding for the contract, and we could LOSE these providers and have to select a new one.
Again, being asked if we could keep Blue shield/Blue Cross, for example, Andy stated " i cannot guarantee that, and you could find you will lose those providers and have to replace it with aetna, etc etc"... He indicated it depends on the bidding of the contract for services, but we would not know until later next year.
After all was said and done, I find myself having to vote YES on this contract proposal, as i do not see there being any room for improvement. At this point, Andy made it clear that a NO vote could find its way to the National negotiating committee and they will vote to approve it without our consent.
All other issues in the contract are mute, as Andy stated that the National was a done deal and they were not going to reopen any other issues we may have with the contract as a whole.
This is unfortunate, but it does clear the air for the members unhappy with the other portions of the contract that they are unhappy with. In five years, the members will get to see how the new language in the national master affects them or their co workers and then decide if "we" can afford having the same people negotiating a THIRD contract in five years.
So to be clear, I am recommending a YES vote at this junction of negotiations, and NOT because of the strength of the insurance, but for the weakness in the position for change.
At least for the next five years, we know how much this will cost each of us personally. Year 5 has the begining of the deductible cycles and you can bet in the next contract they will be even higher.
This is only the begining.
TOS.
doolittle95
Active Member
can anyone post number and code for this sat nov,9?, i didnt have a chance to write down
m please:
All the info on new plan benefits can be found here: http://www.wr177healthcare.com/
Its a good healthcare plan. What can't be found here is information on how this plan is being funded.
Specifically Teamsters with diversions from our pension contributions. For example out west I paid for the last 5 years of my kick ass healthcare with $1 of my bargained pension increase going to cover healthcare costs instead. That's $2080/year * 5years=$10,400.00. One of many reasons I voted NO on the last contract. And enough of a reason for me to vote NO on this contract alone.
Anyway, if this contract approved then the $1/hour diversion continues (out west at least) plus additional monies from the newly negotiated pension increases, and the door is open (again) to monies being diverted from the GWI. It adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars in diverted funds that should b going to shore up our pension. ( I know the fund is GREEN now so don't worry...right?)
Additionally, a yes vote will directly affect retirees as they will be paying up to $3600/year more out of pocket for insurance (in years 3,4,5 I believe?) Its important to me to protect retirees as I plan to be one someday.
So your choice is vote NO and hope for a better deal before a third vote.(Most BA's will tell you this is a fairytale...I don't know)
Or vote YES and live to fight another day, if you choose this option you better get off your A@@ and fight.
East coast navy
Veteran
I'm with you brother.
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
As much as TOS spins things he may be beginning to see the light.... For us in the West the 2018 contract will be the big one..... We will have contractual leverage acquired from this agreement to help us next time if only more members get involved (got to union meetings), organize (members at work) and prepare (saving) we will create better results.
Laguna,
We have gained NO contractual advantage with this healthcare plan or the language in the National Master. What we have done is lost any advantage in negotiations by agreeing to givebacks.
Andy himself says that in the next contract, the company will insist that we pay for our healthcare upfront, and with the givebacks in these last two contracts, I guarantee you the teamsters will come at us for out of pocket costs.
There is no spin necessary.
In the next contract, the teamsters will cave further and instead of simply taking a buck out of pension contributions, they will just take it out of our pockets upfront.
There is nothing in this contract to suggest that the Teamsters "got one over" on the company. So far, the company has been in the drivers seat ( by the teamsters own admission) and they will do further damage to us in the next contract if we dont see effective change in the players running the negotiations.
I saw the "light" long ago Laguna. There are no guarantees with this healthcare plan. This Andy admits himself.
Things may change, spouses may be dropped in the future. "WHO KNOWS what the future may bring"... ~Andy M.
The results will only change if the people doing the negotiations change. Keeping the same people and expecting different results is foolish at best.
At this point, a YES vote should be the action of the members as there is NO prospect of effective change by voting NO.
We are not on the same side with the teamsters. They are negotiating for "their" best interests and not ours.
The scraps that are left over is what we are settling on.
Should pension money be diverted to our healthcare plan? NO. A backdoor fund straight out of our pension money is not the optimal option when the company just doubled its profits in the 3rd quarter.
Despite Andy's claim that he wasnt defending UPS, he still does with his explanations about Amazon and profits.
While the plan is acceptable, its coverages close to what we have today, and its limited out of pocket expense for these next 5 years, we can only hope the members get involved and effect the only change that it can by voting OUT the principle officers of their respective locals and replace them with officers NOT in "the deal" already cut with the company.
Again, a YES vote is the best option at this point.
TOS
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
Seriously TOS save it...... You can try to justify why you flip flopped to a yes vote all you want but when you bashed it soooo much and what would be the point? Reality finally sunk in and you know your demands were not attainable. Now you may fool yourself again with babble just to please your ego but it's not working on us.
Seriously TOS save it...... You can try to justify why you flip flopped to a yes vote all you want but when you bashed it soooo much and what would be the point? Reality finally sunk in and you know your demands were not attainable. Now you may fool yourself again with babble just to please your ego but it's not working on us.
Re: The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
I never said to vote NO on this proposal. I stated that Prior to yesterday, we did not have ANY details about this plan. Did you mis read what I wrote? After consideration of all the NOW facts of our situation, I can see no purpose in voting NO.
There is nothing to gain.
We already lost a superior plan. To define superior, so you can understand it, a plan that "we" did not have to pay for whether out of our pension or front pockets.
We lost, in the fact that five years from now, we will have to pay for it.
We lost, in that we have no control over the direction the teamsters will take in negotiations. They have clearly negotiated for themselves and not us.
The only thing "we" as members can control is our future destiny by replacing the "negotiators" before the next contract expires. Some locals have already done so, and others are about to. Those that skated by and won reelection by 38 points will face re election again before the next contract, and hopefully, the opposition will coordinate with each other and run ONE slate in order to defeat the incumbents.
This WR177 isnt a victory for UPS teamsters, and only the first step to larger out of pocket expenses come the next contract.
For guys like you Laguna, your the typical shirt tailer, devoid of the larger issues at hand. Your expertise on donut dispensing hardly qualifies you as an expert on negotiations.
I on the other hand, can examine all options and weigh out whats best for me.
TOS
I never said to vote NO on this proposal. I stated that Prior to yesterday, we did not have ANY details about this plan. Did you mis read what I wrote? After consideration of all the NOW facts of our situation, I can see no purpose in voting NO.
There is nothing to gain.
We already lost a superior plan. To define superior, so you can understand it, a plan that "we" did not have to pay for whether out of our pension or front pockets.
We lost, in the fact that five years from now, we will have to pay for it.
We lost, in that we have no control over the direction the teamsters will take in negotiations. They have clearly negotiated for themselves and not us.
The only thing "we" as members can control is our future destiny by replacing the "negotiators" before the next contract expires. Some locals have already done so, and others are about to. Those that skated by and won reelection by 38 points will face re election again before the next contract, and hopefully, the opposition will coordinate with each other and run ONE slate in order to defeat the incumbents.
This WR177 isnt a victory for UPS teamsters, and only the first step to larger out of pocket expenses come the next contract.
For guys like you Laguna, your the typical shirt tailer, devoid of the larger issues at hand. Your expertise on donut dispensing hardly qualifies you as an expert on negotiations.
I on the other hand, can examine all options and weigh out whats best for me.
TOS
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
TOS...... Once again let me school you on reality. Go look up what the difference of total compensation between UPS and Fedex is. Now of you actually got pay raises for part timers, the same pension contributions, a $3.90 cent raise, UPS to pay baby boomer retiree's (and only charge 50 bucks for family coverage) plus them to foot health care you are only creating a greater gap. You tell me at what point will we out price ourselves out of jobs? FedEx would be operating for $20 + dollars less an hour per driver at a minimum. That is per hour our per driver!
TOS...... Once again let me school you on reality. Go look up what the difference of total compensation between UPS and Fedex is. Now of you actually got pay raises for part timers, the same pension contributions, a $3.90 cent raise, UPS to pay baby boomer retiree's (and only charge 50 bucks for family coverage) plus them to foot health care you are only creating a greater gap. You tell me at what point will we out price ourselves out of jobs? FedEx would be operating for $20 + dollars less an hour per driver at a minimum. That is per hour our per driver!
Re: The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
FedEx
FedEx is your argument?
Try focusing on your own drivers and not the competition.
Customers want our service, just not at the price that our corporate officials ask;
Especially if it is to take a salary cut.
I am fully aware of your efforts here.
If the corporate side would stop raising fees to prevent their wage cuts, stock sharing, performance reviews, and job positions,
Then we wouldn't sacrifice customer satisfaction at the expense of a competitor.
FedEx
FedEx is your argument?
Try focusing on your own drivers and not the competition.
Customers want our service, just not at the price that our corporate officials ask;
Especially if it is to take a salary cut.
I am fully aware of your efforts here.
If the corporate side would stop raising fees to prevent their wage cuts, stock sharing, performance reviews, and job positions,
Then we wouldn't sacrifice customer satisfaction at the expense of a competitor.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Re: The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
The primary (over 70%) reason UPS raises rates is to pay for Union employee compensation.
If you really care about cutting rate increases then definitely "Try focusing on your own drivers."
Geez, that is funny! LMAO!
The primary (over 70%) reason UPS raises rates is to pay for Union employee compensation.
If you really care about cutting rate increases then definitely "Try focusing on your own drivers."
Geez, that is funny! LMAO!
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
Correction let me school TOS and rpoz11.......
Correction let me school TOS and rpoz11.......
Re: The Western Conference and Local 177 H&W DISASTER!
pm
I dont care about Fedex. They cannot handle our volume and the measly parcels they take hardly dents the business. They only take the business UPS is willing to "GIVE AWAY". When i see fedex drivers delivering at 9pm, Ill start worrying about them taking our work. Unfortunately, what I do see, is fedex using independent contractors working for peanuts, delivering on saturdays with their children in their trucks riding shotgun.
What I see, is fedex drivers being forced to take 2/3 hour unpaid lunches waiting for pickups to begin watching a movie while Im humping my ash off. What I see is fedex turning over their employees at high rates, one of the highest in the industry and simply replacing them with cheaper dumber drivers.
This is hardly the business model that will put UPS out of business.
Maybe UPS needs to eliminate the Industrial Engineers who are killing the UPS business model and wasting more money, miles and hours than in years past.
What YOU should worry about is the Teamsters giving back all that has been gained over the last 30 years in just two contracts. IN a third contract, it may be all gone.
This current contract negotiation was only a wedge that the company intended to drive between the members and the International and local officers.
I think we can agree that they were successful. Look how we treated each other during the last 4 months.
TOS
pm
I dont care about Fedex. They cannot handle our volume and the measly parcels they take hardly dents the business. They only take the business UPS is willing to "GIVE AWAY". When i see fedex drivers delivering at 9pm, Ill start worrying about them taking our work. Unfortunately, what I do see, is fedex using independent contractors working for peanuts, delivering on saturdays with their children in their trucks riding shotgun.
What I see, is fedex drivers being forced to take 2/3 hour unpaid lunches waiting for pickups to begin watching a movie while Im humping my ash off. What I see is fedex turning over their employees at high rates, one of the highest in the industry and simply replacing them with cheaper dumber drivers.
This is hardly the business model that will put UPS out of business.
Maybe UPS needs to eliminate the Industrial Engineers who are killing the UPS business model and wasting more money, miles and hours than in years past.
What YOU should worry about is the Teamsters giving back all that has been gained over the last 30 years in just two contracts. IN a third contract, it may be all gone.
This current contract negotiation was only a wedge that the company intended to drive between the members and the International and local officers.
I think we can agree that they were successful. Look how we treated each other during the last 4 months.
TOS
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
TOS, I think you are seriously underestimating the impact Ground has had on our volume.
And there is much more where that came from.
The Milkman
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
