396 meeting Sunday June 2, 2013

[realbrown1]

Wow you really sound intelligent with those childhood responses.
Try reading what I said again but slowly and absorbing it in stead of jumping to conclusions. (This is chess not checkers). Maybe then you can answer the question like an adult.

Not my fault you take a thousand words to say nothing. Grow a set. Say what you mean in fewer words. Stop just rambling on and on. If you are in favor of this TA, just say it. Give your reasons why. But to sit there and say we need to be carefull or we really need to think about this is insulting every person on here.

 

[stink219]

Wow you really sound intelligent with those childhood responses.
Try reading what I said again but slowly and absorbing it in stead of jumping to conclusions. (This is chess not checkers). Maybe then you can answer the question like an adult.

Not my fault you take a thousand words to say nothing. Grow a set. Say what you mean in fewer words. Stop just rambling on and on. If you are in favor of this TA, just say it. Give your reasons why. But to sit there and say we need to be carefull or we really need to think about this is insulting every person on here.

You performing TDU method #276. Insult the person for their opinion.

 

[104Feeder]

Brother Laguna,

What I found striking about your post is the "reliance" upon voting for a contract "blind" and hoping you will come out on the good end later down the road. First, the carrot is being dangled in our faces ( the west is going to find a better plan) and some are buying into it. I am not sure you have gven this enough thought .

Creating "our own plan" means alot of things. First, you spoke about the MOU as if it strenthens our position in the west. To that extent, IT DOES NOT. I hear people in the west talking about the MOU as if that alone is the safety net we can rely upon, but in actuality, its the MOU that we should be AFRAID of.

As was pointed out to brother Marshall at the meeting, one sentence in the MOU is the most dangerous. "NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL PRECLUDE THE CSH&W FROM CHANGING EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LEVELS".

This says it all. NOTHING will STOP the central states from changing the benefit levels for the employees of the C6 plan. Why would this be placed into the agreement if "change" wasnt inevitable? brother Marshall AGREED with the point the steward made by saying "yes, this is dangerous language"..quote Andy M.

Now, how can we apply this? Well, for starters, the current C6 plan has been "enhanced" to make it attractive to those members in the west who are taking a step down in coverage. Members may say to themselves that "this isnt so bad" and accept the deal. THEN, the central states TRUSTEES wait a period of time for the ink to dry and then call a meeting and vote to "un-enhance" the southwest members down to the current C6 benefit levels. A simple vote by the trustees and its done. They dont have to come to US for approval. They dont have to consult with UPS or our locals. The CSH&W have all the control.

Brother Marshall confirmed this to the steward who asked the question. By voting YES to this contract with these conditions, we are "WAVING" our control over our healthcare to the Trustees of the CSH&W.

Now, on the other hand, those same people are saying that the MOU is somehow going to get us a better plan, but here, Both I and Brother Marshall disagree with you. The MOU is very CLEAR about what is to be created. It says NOTHING about finding a health care plan that "MATCHES" our current plan or benefits. In FACT, its says the opposite. What is "required" is that the west need only find a plan that MATCHES the current C6 plan or exceeds it, BUT, the west cannot spend more money on a plan than is spent or allocated by the CENTRAL STATES.

In other words, YES, a better plan could be out there, and I am sure there is, BUT, the west is PROHIBITED from spending more money on a plan than is allocated by the central states. It says so in BLACK and WHITE. So, even if Brother Marshall could find a plan that "matches" our current UPS benefits, HE CANT BUY IT unless it costs the same as the central states is spending on their plan.

Now, I ask you, "WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY ARE GOING TO FIND A PLAN, better then the C6 for the same money for less employees ? "

Lets look further into this concept. The west will only have the allocation of monies that cover the employees of the southern region ( 10 locals ) plus local 177. They have to hire an actuary to calculate NOT ONLY the cost of a plan, BUT the COST to administrate it. This is where the idea kills itself. Money has to be taken out of the pot that was going to pay for a plan, and used to create a whole NEW administration office. That means staffing, building, office furniture, salaries and benies, computers and the like and a board of trustees. Once you take out that money, whatever is left goes to pay for the plan. Now its pretty simple to calculate that this means LESS money leftover to pay for a plan.

What would be the cost of this? Nobody knows right now, but the union would like you to vote yes in the meantime and you can find out in november that they couldnt make it happen, so here's your "enhanced" C6 plan. At that point, then you have to FEAR the MOU and the sentence that was asked of Brother Marshall at the meeting.

This whole wait till november thing is nothing more than "political cover" for the principle officers of the locals in the west and Brother Marshall. They fight the good fight, convince us all to vote YES, and then in november when we cant do anything about it, come to us and say that they couldnt make it happen, but heck "we fought for you".

As Brother Marshall said himself "you are voting on the C6 plan, because either way, all your going to get is the benefits of the enhanced C6 plan whether from central states or our own run plan" quote Andy M.

Now, you said that "WE" made a big deal out of carving out of the health care plan and then rejected it, but last time I checked, NOBODY from our local ASKED us if we wanted our healthcare plan tabled nationally. What "WE" would prefer as members, is to leave our healthcare ALONE. The company made enough profits to cover our insurance and "WE" would be willing to take less towards raises and the rest applied to maintaning our current plans. "WE" were never consulted about any of this, and the locals in the west made horrible decisions for us in these negotiations.

Unfortunately, "WE" have to fight with our own local who appears to have a loyalty with the hierarchy of the teamsters rather than to the members who elected them. This is clear.

What I think you are misunderstanding, is that "WE" are already "STUCK" with the C6 plan and there will be nothing better coming down the road. If you would like to believe otherwise, well thats your right.

I would suggest you re read the MOU's and see if what I state is accurate. Tell me if you see in the MOU's, anything that says you will have matching benefits to our current plan, OR tell me if you see in the MOU something that says the WEST can spend what it wants on a better plan. We all know everything cost money, and you cant buy the same with less money.

If you listened carefully to what Brother Marshall said at the meeting, you would understand that the best you are going to get is the "enhanced" benefits of the C6 plan and nothing more. He repeated it twice "you are voting on the C6 plan".

You can pin your hopes on "maybe's".... "possibly's".. or..."could be's", but that isnt prudent thinking. What "WE" need are absolutes.

What about this...??

Why not delay the vote until November 15th and work without a contract? Why not extend the period from July 31st to november 15th until the work is done and we see what kind of insurance the west can come up with? Then, once we see ALL our options, we vote. Straight up or down.

This will never happen of course, because thats not what "they" want at the international or the west.

Bottom line is, UPS outplayed the teamsters and what we are seeing is the begining of the end of our benefits. To give up our current healthcare plan without a fight is to de legitimize our efforts in 1997 when we went on strike to protect them.

Just giving them away for a promise that "maybe"... "possibly" we could have a better plan is just foolish.

Hope this helps you with your decision.

Peace

TOS

It was also said that come Jan 1st 2014 UPS has to report their healthcare costs, including projecting those out for retirees, on their balance sheet. This could have a significant affect on their portfolio. I can only fantasize that this motivates Scott Davis et. al. to take us private again should the TA fail and they agree to reinstate our benefits as is. A man can dream can't he?

 

[The Other Side]

Everyone wants the same old contract, apparently it did kick ass. But you are right the new language about article 14 section 3 can be bad.

I would agree with you that "everyone" would like the "same old" contract vs the one presently in front of us. But, that has nothing to do with the strength of the last contract and more do to with knowing the devil your sleeping with.

The last contract was still a joke in many respects.

In our locals jurisdiction, despite the locals claims, over 55 people were discharged for GPS related issues. Most were overturned in arbitrations and such, but the company took a good run at using article 6 to take people out. I was the first at both the contract hearing in 2008 and in the yards to recommend a NO VOTE on this issue and it was brother Phillips who stood in front of this membership to tell everyone that I was wrong and the new article 6 language and technology was only going to be used for "SAFETY PURPOSES". That was what the company told them, and thats what "they" believed at the time.

We saw otherwise over the last 8 years. The company did its trial run with article 6 and found that it lacked clarity and they were losing cases. As they attempted to perfect their use of the language over the 8 years, they ran into problem after problem. The company introduced "production violations" into the article 6 language. Using things like "SPARKS".. "GPS".... "MAPPING"..."TELEMETRY" and the good ole' "IN THE HOLE" standards to write people up all the way to discharge solely based on technology.

Now, in this new contract, the union conceeded to the companys demands for a "REWRITE". They removed four words ( on a first offense ) and replaced that with five words ( any intentional act or ommision) .

Any intention act? Do you know how many package drivers will open an air stop at 10:29am with one minute to go and close it on the wrong street because they have to go 2 blocks? This happens ALL THE TIME and by using todays GPS mapping, the company can see this immediately.

Now, of course, no one should be doing this, but it happens. Now, lets say we have such a driver and when he gets back in, they talk to him and ask him if he got his air done on time. He says yes, they ask, did you have any problems? he says No. They ask, so everything came off ok? he says YEAH.

Well, under this new article 6 language, they got him on both counts. "An intentional act" and an "ommission" for lying about the delivieries. In arbitration, this would seal this drivers fate. Under the current contract, he would have been protected by the "first offense" wording but not anymore. The company by inserting these two factors have made it easier to prove dishonesty.

Now, we dont know where we will end up, as getting people to vote is the hardest thing of all. I speak to people in several yards everyday, and the apathy is ridiculous. Most want everyone else to do the work.

Time will tell if our voices fell on deaf ears.

Peace

TOS

 

[Catatonic]

Ok thanks!

Peace

TOS

No Thanks for me? ... but I fixed it for you!

 

[The Other Side]

No Thanks for me? ... but I fixed it for you!

Thanks!

 

[rpoz11]

396 meeting this Sunday

TOS
Great work!
Thanks for your open opinions.
You just did more for me than I had yet.

I have a question for you :
Will the Teamsters be receiving any Tax Exemptions from the Feds for getting this passed?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

396 meeting this Sunday

What kind of exemptions?

 

[browned out]

brother laguna,

what i found striking about your post is the "reliance" upon voting for a contract "blind" and hoping you will come out on the good end later down the road. First, the carrot is being dangled in our faces ( the west is going to find a better plan) and some are buying into it. I am not sure you have gven this enough thought .

Creating "our own plan" means alot of things. First, you spoke about the mou as if it strenthens our position in the west. To that extent, it does not. I hear people in the west talking about the mou as if that alone is the safety net we can rely upon, but in actuality, its the mou that we should be afraid of.

As was pointed out to brother marshall at the meeting, one sentence in the mou is the most dangerous. "nothing in this agreement shall preclude the csh&w from changing employee benefit levels".

This says it all. Nothing will stop the central states from changing the benefit levels for the employees of the c6 plan. Why would this be placed into the agreement if "change" wasnt inevitable? Brother marshall agreed with the point the steward made by saying "yes, this is dangerous language"..quote Andy M.

now, how can we apply this? Well, for starters, the current c6 plan has been "enhanced" to make it attractive to those members in the west who are taking a step down in coverage. Members may say to themselves that "this isnt so bad" and accept the deal. Then, the central states trustees wait a period of time for the ink to dry and then call a meeting and vote to "un-enhance" the southwest members down to the current c6 benefit levels. A simple vote by the trustees and its done. They dont have to come to us for approval. They dont have to consult with ups or our locals. The csh&w have all the control.

Brother marshall confirmed this to the steward who asked the question. By voting yes to this contract with these conditions, we are "waving" our control over our healthcare to the trustees of the csh&w.

Now, on the other hand, those same people are saying that the mou is somehow going to get us a better plan, but here, both i and brother marshall disagree with you. The mou is very clear about what is to be created. It says nothing about finding a health care plan that "matches" our current plan or benefits. In fact, its says the opposite. What is "required" is that the west need only find a plan that matches the current c6 plan or exceeds it, but, the west cannot spend more money on a plan than is spent or allocated by the central states.

In other words, yes, a better plan could be out there, and i am sure there is, but, the west is prohibited from spending more money on a plan than is allocated by the central states. It says so in black and white. So, even if brother marshall could find a plan that "matches" our current ups benefits, he cant buy it unless it costs the same as the central states is spending on their plan.

Now, i ask you, "where do you think they are going to find a plan, better then the c6 for the same money for less employees ? "

lets look further into this concept. The west will only have the allocation of monies that cover the employees of the southern region ( 10 locals ) plus local 177. They have to hire an actuary to calculate not only the cost of a plan, but the cost to administrate it. This is where the idea kills itself. Money has to be taken out of the pot that was going to pay for a plan, and used to create a whole new administration office. That means staffing, building, office furniture, salaries and benies, computers and the like and a board of trustees. Once you take out that money, whatever is left goes to pay for the plan. Now its pretty simple to calculate that this means less money leftover to pay for a plan.

What would be the cost of this? Nobody knows right now, but the union would like you to vote yes in the meantime and you can find out in november that they couldnt make it happen, so here's your "enhanced" c6 plan. At that point, then you have to fear the mou and the sentence that was asked of brother marshall at the meeting.

This whole wait till november thing is nothing more than "political cover" for the principle officers of the locals in the west and brother marshall. They fight the good fight, convince us all to vote yes, and then in november when we cant do anything about it, come to us and say that they couldnt make it happen, but heck "we fought for you".

As brother marshall said himself "you are voting on the c6 plan, because either way, all your going to get is the benefits of the enhanced c6 plan whether from central states or our own run plan" quote Andy M.

Now, you said that "we" made a big deal out of carving out of the health care plan and then rejected it, but last time i checked, nobody from our local asked us if we wanted our healthcare plan tabled nationally. What "we" would prefer as members, is to leave our healthcare alone. The company made enough profits to cover our insurance and "we" would be willing to take less towards raises and the rest applied to maintaning our current plans. "we" were never consulted about any of this, and the locals in the west made horrible decisions for us in these negotiations.

Unfortunately, "we" have to fight with our own local who appears to have a loyalty with the hierarchy of the teamsters rather than to the members who elected them. This is clear.

What i think you are misunderstanding, is that "we" are already "stuck" with the c6 plan and there will be nothing better coming down the road. If you would like to believe otherwise, well thats your right.

I would suggest you re read the mou's and see if what i state is accurate. Tell me if you see in the mou's, anything that says you will have matching benefits to our current plan, or tell me if you see in the mou something that says the west can spend what it wants on a better plan. We all know everything cost money, and you cant buy the same with less money.

If you listened carefully to what brother marshall said at the meeting, you would understand that the best you are going to get is the "enhanced" benefits of the c6 plan and nothing more. He repeated it twice "you are voting on the c6 plan".

You can pin your hopes on "maybe's".... "possibly's".. Or..."could be's", but that isnt prudent thinking. What "we" need are absolutes.

What about this...??

Why not delay the vote until november 15th and work without a contract? Why not extend the period from july 31st to november 15th until the work is done and we see what kind of insurance the west can come up with? Then, once we see all our options, we vote. Straight up or down.

This will never happen of course, because thats not what "they" want at the international or the west.

Bottom line is, ups outplayed the teamsters and what we are seeing is the begining of the end of our benefits. To give up our current healthcare plan without a fight is to de legitimize our efforts in 1997 when we went on strike to protect them.

Just giving them away for a promise that "maybe"... "possibly" we could have a better plan is just foolish.

Hope this helps you with your decision.

Peace

tos

great post. Very well written. teamsters and/or ups should post the entire health care package on line or mail it to every union employee. I would say trying to force a vote thru without transparency lacks integrity. What a piece of garbage our reps have accepted. Vote no until we see the entire health care plan. Ask your local for a maintainance of benefit levels artcle. Unreal

 

[Evil]

Have you guys seen what Andy M has done with the finances of Local 104 and Joint Council 3?

 

[The Other Side]

Ya know, funny story today. Our division manager came up to me and we spoke candidly about the contract. At the end, he asks me "does Ron H expect to get re elected after this contract passes?"

We both laugh. Even the company knows he is doomed by this contract.

Peace

TOS

 

[brostalss]

I'd rather have hot needles stuck in my eyes than goto a Union meeting. I've got better things to do.

 

[The Other Side]

I'd rather have hot needles stuck in my eyes than goto a Union meeting. I've got better things to do.

Well, maybe you dont understand that YOU are their employer? In force, we can direct the officers of the local to represent our best interests, but when nobody shows up, they can unilaterally make decisions that suit "THEM" and not us because they see that people like you dont care enough to get involved.

Yes, meetings can be a hassle, but collectively, we can change that by being unified and in charge.

Peace

TOS

 

[104Feeder]

Have you guys seen what Andy M has done with the finances of Local 104 and Joint Council 3?

Yes, we put them up on the overhead each monthly meeting and can question them line by line. Finances look great. We recently tried to raise our strike fund assessment but non-UPS Teamsters voted it down. Are you just hinting at impropriety without any proof?

 

[LagunaBrown]

Just giving them away for a promise that "maybe"... "possibly" we could have a better plan is just foolish.

Hope this helps you with your decision.

Peace

TOS

.

True that is a downside i can not argue but it is just as foolish to cut any chance at a west plan off. If you want to lead the charge to possible layoffs and volume drops when you have a guaranteed 80/20 plan, pension, and 3.90 cent raises NO one in the country will feel sorry for us... Not even our central states brothers. So be careful of what you call foolish. There are high points and low points to a yes and a no vote. I can not tell anyone what to choose but everyone must know the consequences of their vote. The reason I posted on this thread was cause pickle we are in. I am equally unhappy to loose anything we currently have in the West but if Andy M can't make guarantees how are yours any different? That is not meant in a jerk way either. I'm just being realistic cause we in the same boat. And to get this ship on course we need unity. .

 

[Anonymous 10]

.

True that is a downside i can not argue but it is just as foolish to cut any chance at a west plan off. If you want to lead the charge to possible layoffs and volume drops when you have a guaranteed 80/20 plan, pension, and 3.90 cent raises NO one in the country will feel sorry for us... Not even our central states brothers. So be careful of what you call foolish. There are high points and low points to a yes and a no vote. I can not tell anyone what to choose but everyone must know the consequences of their vote. The reason I posted on this thread was cause pickle we are in. I am equally unhappy to loose anything we currently have in the West but if Andy M can't make guarantees how are yours any different? That is not meant in a jerk way either. I'm just being realistic cause we in the same boat. And to get this ship on course we need unity. .

+1,000,000. That's common sense right here.

 

[The Other Side]

.

True that is a downside i can not argue but it is just as foolish to cut any chance at a west plan off. If you want to lead the charge to possible layoffs and volume drops when you have a guaranteed 80/20 plan, pension, and 3.90 cent raises NO one in the country will feel sorry for us... Not even our central states brothers. So be careful of what you call foolish. There are high points and low points to a yes and a no vote. I can not tell anyone what to choose but everyone must know the consequences of their vote. The reason I posted on this thread was cause pickle we are in. I am equally unhappy to loose anything we currently have in the West but if Andy M can't make guarantees how are yours any different? That is not meant in a jerk way either. I'm just being realistic cause we in the same boat. And to get this ship on course we need unity. .

Brother Brown,

Its all about perspective bro. We can agree that we are looking at a downhill slope with respect to insurance. The difference between you and I is the "speed" that we travel down that slope. You "suggest" that we just get to the bottom and "I" suggest we stay at the top of the hill and figure out if we need to go down the slope at all.

When we went on strike in 1997, we went on strike to protect these benefits. TO just hand them over to the company without a fight de-legitimizes our efforts on the strike line.

Brother Carey wouldnt stand for this in 1997. There is something FISHY going on with this contract. While let me be absolutely clear, I HAVE NO PROOF, but I suspect there was a deal struck in 2008 with the company to take away our company health care.

Back in 1997, Ron Carey in association with our local at the time ( Raul Lopez) called a meeting that was held at East Los Angeles college. Over 2000 396 UPS teamsters were at that meeting to hear brother Carey speak. He pulled no punches. He told us how he would never sell us out on health care. He told us how we needed to understand that there would be "pain" on both sides if we ended up on strike, and we did.

People got layed off, companys left, volume dropped, but we kept our benefits and wages remained high.

Compare that with todays negotiations. Here we have MAJOR concessions going to the company for the second contract in a row. With us in the WEST, we are being sacrificed for the rest of the country and NOT the other way around as you see it. But the real question is?.....

WHERE IS HOFFA? WHERE IS hall?

Where is the advanced scheduled meeting at a location that could house all our members and promoted weeks in advance so people could attend? Why isnt HOFFA here explaining this to us?

Instead, Ron H Skips out of having to answer for any of this, and he brings in a surrogate to answer questions "HE" should know the answers to. Then, that surrogate comes and admits the insurance sucks and that we will end up paying out of pocket thousands of dollars depending on circumstances.

He also doesnt RECOMMEND a YES VOTE, and rather, simply tells us that he was there only to give us information and not whether we should vote yes or no.

WTF?

Ron Carey was clear in 1997. HE TOLD US that WE were not going to accept what the company was offering.

Will there be pain if the contract process is stopped? YES, you bet your rear end. There will be pain on both sides. But when did we stop fighting?

AS I said in the begining, you want to get down that hill as quickly as possible as your own risk. If you get wiped out at the bottom, then you can blame yourself and not the process.

Brother Marshall made no guarantees to find us better insurance, and if you are pinning your hopes on words like "IF" ... "maybe".. "could be".... "possibly"... then you are missing brother Marshalls point.

He made it clear, WE ARE VOTING ON THE C6 PLAN.

THe only thing you have to wait for to find out, is the passage of time. The time for quiet negotiations is OVER.

Its time for us to get strong and FIGHT for what is right. Its time for us to include all our brothers and sisters working for UPS into the same health coverage. Its time for "THEM" to stand with us to improve their plans and not to stand at the curb watching other members leave them behind.

Nobody wants a strike, but if the only thing UPS understands is PAIN COMPLIANCE, then sobeit.

Peace

TOS

 

[Catatonic]

There is something FISHY going on with this contract. While let me be absolutely clear, I HAVE NO PROOF, but I suspect there was a deal struck in 2008 with the company to take away our company health care.

I know UPS has being trying to get healthcare costs under control for decades.
The tried and true method to do this is shared premium cost, co-pays and increased cost for Brand drugs ... all which encourage responsible healthcare choices.
This has to occur at some point ... the question is when.

I think Obamacare is a factor with it's unknown impact on costs to the payor of healthcare but in the least, it adds credibility on the timing.

 

[Evil]

Yes, we put them up on the overhead each monthly meeting and can question them line by line. Finances look great. We recently tried to raise our strike fund assessment but non-UPS Teamsters voted it down. Are you just hinting at impropriety without any proof?

Andy M has spent more money as Secretary-Treasurer of Local 104 and Joint Council 3 than he's brought in. That doesn't include his multiple salaries and multiple pension contributions he receives from the IBT, Local 104 and Joint Council 3.

 

[104Feeder]

Andy M has spent more money as Secretary-Treasurer of Local 104 and Joint Council 3 than he's brought in. That doesn't include his multiple salaries and multiple pension contributions he receives from the IBT, Local 104 and Joint Council 3.

Tell the whole story, if you know so much. Lets see some proof too. I think you don't have it.