UPS claims proposed Central States benefit reductions illegal

[cheryl]

UPS claims proposed Central States benefit reductions illegal - Business Insurance

The company, which withdrew from the $17.8 billion pension fund as part of a collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters at the end of 2007, might also be required to pay between $3.2 billion and $3.8 billion in benefit payments if the benefit reduction is approved by the Treasury Department.

A “backstop agreement” in that CBA stated that in the event “at some point in the future if Central States ever lawfully cut benefits to that group, UPS would provide a supplemental retiree benefit,” UPS spokesman Steve Gaut said. “As a result of that backstop agreement now, we are potentially liable for a future payment to those (UPS) employees that are retirees that are eligible, associated with what that benefit cut turns out to be,” Mr. Gaut said.

 

[realbrown1]

UPS claims proposed Central States benefit reductions illegal - Business Insurance

The company, which withdrew from the $17.8 billion pension fund as part of a collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters at the end of 2007, might also be required to pay between $3.2 billion and $3.8 billion in benefit payments if the benefit reduction is approved by the Treasury Department.

A “backstop agreement” in that CBA stated that in the event “at some point in the future if Central States ever lawfully cut benefits to that group, UPS would provide a supplemental retiree benefit,” UPS spokesman Steve Gaut said. “As a result of that backstop agreement now, we are potentially liable for a future payment to those (UPS) employees that are retirees that are eligible, associated with what that benefit cut turns out to be,” Mr. Gaut said.

If they agrred to make up for the shortfal, then how is that illegal?

 

[By The Book]

Cheryl, I'm sorry and I apologize for our members inability to ask you a legal question.lol

 

[Boulevard859710]

Sounds to me that UPS is on the side of the people who face benefit reduction. That's the way wording reads to me anyway.

 

[scooby0048]

Well it would have been interesting to read if I didn't have to sign up.

 

[upschuck]

If they agrred to make up for the shortfal, then how is that illegal?

Because they are trying to cut more than what they think it should be for UPS people, and that UPS paid for UPS retirees, and not other company's retirees.

 

[realbrown1]

Sounds to me that UPS is on the side of the people who face benefit reduction. That's the way wording reads to me anyway.

On some of those UPS retirees, UPS has make up the difference.

UPS isn't looking out for any retirees.

UPS is looking out for UPS.

 

[PT Car Washer]

On some of those UPS retirees, UPS has make up the difference.

UPS isn't looking out for any retirees.

UPS is looking out for UPS.

UPS retirees are taking a much larger reduction in their pensions then other retirees because UPS guaranteed to make up the difference. UPS says that is illegal.

 

[Boulevard859710]

I understand the wording now. Thanks for explaining. [emoji3]

 

[realbrown1]

UPS retirees are taking a much larger reduction in their pensions then other retirees because UPS guaranteed to make up the difference. UPS says that is illegal.

That does sound illegal.

If that is what is being proposed.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

UPS retirees are taking a much larger reduction in their pensions then other retirees because UPS guaranteed to make up the difference. UPS says that is illegal.

...and if this is indeed the case they would be right...

 

[silenze]

Ups paid 100% of its share already. The other companies retirees should take the cuts

 

[trickpony1]

Here's a question:
A co-worker said the company didn't say anything about making up the difference when the last contract was "passed".

Where is it in writing that the company will make up the losses and for how long? Will/can the company, in 2018, just up and say, ...."you're out of luck retirees....we're done"?

The company would like the public and the government to think they are taking care of the retirees but are they really?

 

[upschuck]

Here's a question:
A co-worker said the company didn't say anything about making up the difference when the last contract was "passed".

Where is it in writing that the company will make up the losses and for how long? Will/can the company, in 2018, just up and say, ...."you're out of luck retirees....we're done"?

The company would like the public and the government to think they are taking care of the retirees but are they really?

Page 218-219 of the Central Region Supplement.

And yes, the company can try and take that language out of the next contract, but we have to approve any and all changes.

 

[trickpony1]

And yes, the company can try and take that language out of the next contract, but we have to approve any and all changes.

That's all well and good but the company has rammed contracts down our throats in the past and it wouldn't be unlike them to conceal the language you refer to and get a "landslide" yes vote on the proposals.

Besides......who is gonna remember this in 2018?

 

[upschuck]

That's all well and good but the company has rammed contracts down our throats in the past and it wouldn't be unlike them to conceal the language you refer to and get a "landslide" yes vote on the proposals.

Besides......who is gonna remember this in 2018?

All changes are highlighted, we will know what has changed. We can only do, what we can do.

 

[rod]

Page 218-219 of the Central Region Supplement.

And yes, the company can try and take that language out of the next contract, but we have to approve any and all changes.

All it takes is some crappy legislation snuck through like what is happening to those of us who retired before 2009 and everyone would be in the same boat as we are. Eventually ALL pensions will disappear.