Why vote yes on a supplement and no on the master?

UPSTeamster Pragmatist

Well-Known Member
I was advised by my local (NE) to vote no on the master and yes on the supplement. How does this make sense? If the master gets renegotiated, how can we know the supplement will still be effective? Seems politically motivated.
 

DirtySouth

Well-Known Member
I was advised by my local (NE) to vote no on the master and yes on the supplement. How does this make sense? If the master gets renegotiated, how can we know the supplement will still be effective? Seems politically motivated.

There are massive pension contributions that will help shore up critical funds (such as the NE Teamsters Fund) over the life of the supplement that are contingent on the supplement being passed on the first round.

This was UPS' response to 17/21 supplements being voted down last time and holding up the Master, but I think it's going to have a completely opposite effect wherein the master goes down in flames but the supplements with extra pension money sail through.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
I was advised by my local (NE) to vote no on the master and yes on the supplement. How does this make sense? If the master gets renegotiated, how can we know the supplement will still be effective? Seems politically motivated.

My thoughts exactly.

There are massive pension contributions that will help shore up critical funds (such as the NE Teamsters Fund) over the life of the supplement that are contingent on the supplement being passed on the first round.

Is that true? I didn't know that, may have to reconsider my vote. Haven't even opened the ballot envelope yet...
 

llamainmypocket

Well-Known Member
I'm still a no vote on master and supplement with a yes on local. Western region here. They need to address 22.4 language in the supplement in the event that the master goes through or doesn't.
 

opie

Well-Known Member
There are massive pension contributions that will help shore up critical funds (such as the NE Teamsters Fund) over the life of the supplement that are contingent on the supplement being passed on the first round.

This was UPS' response to 17/21 supplements being voted down last time and holding up the Master, but I think it's going to have a completely opposite effect wherein the master goes down in flames but the supplements with extra pension money sail through.

Probably just a scare tactic. If a supplement gets voted down. Why come back with a worse offer? Will just get voted down again.
 

DELACROIX

In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
There are massive pension contributions that will help shore up critical funds (such as the NE Teamsters Fund) over the life of the supplement that are contingent on the supplement being passed on the first round.

This was UPS' response to 17/21 supplements being voted down last time and holding up the Master, but I think it's going to have a completely opposite effect wherein the master goes down in flames but the supplements with extra pension money sail through.

The NE Teamster's fund is currently underfunded by 1.6 billion, I believe that UPS paid out of it in 2012 (1.2 Billion) and created a Hybrid Plan similar to what they did in the Central back in 2008. Your liability issue is fixable and you should vote your Supplement in if it is a plus.

The remaining problem would be the Massive Central with it's 17.2 billion future liabilities. The PBGC federal insurance program is projected to run out of funds in 2025..The Central is projected to collapse around the same time or sooner.

Currently the markets are going bananas just look at your 401k plan. All pension trusts are invested in the markets and other securities if this trend continues it will help every pension plan nationwide. Even with that the Central is still in a "Dead Man Walking" situation, unless somehow the Feds can figure out a deal.

Nobody (the Union, UPS and the PBGC) wants to be holding the bag and being responsible, it is that big of an issue and problem..
 
Top