* If UPS pension becomes a "single employer pension" it will not be covered by the Taft-Hartley Act, which protects only multi-employer pensions. It would be eligible to make a "lump sum" payment of pension rather than a monthly annuity. The pension plan can make that decision without pensioners agreeing to the sum.
The most convincible lie is the one that wrapped with a bit of truth, which we have a good example of here. It is true that an APWA pension would not be covered by the Taft-Hartley Act. Payment options would be defined within the charter/constitution. As the current APWA constitution by-laws read, pension benefits can be disbursed through two options to be chosen by the retiree:
1. The entire balance is paid on a monthly annuity with the balance at death paid out to the retiree's designee
2. At the discretion of the retiree, a partial lump payout can be made; the remainder of the balance would be paid in a recalculated monthly annuity to reflect the new principle balance
Changes to these benefit payment options can only be made by amendments to the by-laws which requires approval of 60% of the membership. APWA’s primary role is to serve the interest of the membership, and changes to payout plans will only be made at the request of the membership. Thus, the argument that the fund can make a “lump sum payment without membership agreement” is false.
An additional benefit of moving to a single employer plan is the improvement in insurance provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. As a participant in a multi-employer plan, if CS folds we would only get around $1200 per month at best. But if we move to a single employer plan, that security increases to $4,000 a month. SOURCE
* The APWA cannot just takeover the $50 billion now in Teamster pension plans just because it may represent UPS workers. There would be a withdrawal fee that would likely be in the billions of dollars. Who could afford that amount? Certainly not the newly formed APWA. UPS was willing and able to pay the withdrawl fee in '97. What would stop the APWA from cutting a deal with UPS and the Teamsters that would be in the benefit of both of them and allow UPS to take over the pension?
If the APWA were successful in executing a change in unions, there would be no withdrawal fee to be paid by anyone. Here is why. The purpose of the withdrawal fee is to cover pension liabilities that a party agreed to subsidize. If APWA were to be certified and were to assume its role as CBA on Jan 1, 2008, UPS would still be responsible for vested pensions promised to employees hired on or before Dec 31, 2007. This change in unions would not obviate or excuse UPS from those liabilities. All hires on or after Jan 1 would be handled by APWA and benefits for old hires would begin to accumulate after Jan 1 under the APWA as well. Bottom line here is UPS will still be responsible for pension benefits employees earned before the CBA change. If UPS would like to be excused from those liabilities, then a withdrawal fee would be imposed. And the way Judge Moran actually wrote his memorandum and order on November 17, 2003 to CS, there isn't even a voluntary exit available for UPS corporate to exercise, even if they did pay a withdrawal fee. The only legal exit from the plan is a change of unions executed by the membership.
The APWA cannot just takeover the $50 billion now in Teamster pension plans just because it may represent UPS workers.
UPS did not contribute 100% of the Teamsters fund nor do we stake claim to 100%. APWA could only stake claim to the portion of the funds attributable to contributions and accrued interest made on behalf of UPS members. This claim is described in the 1st Circuit US Court of Appeals decision in the NETTIPF argument in 1993 where the court said "The employees can automatically entitle themselves to a share of fund assets should the matter become so critically important to them that they take the drastic step of changing collective bargaining representatives (i.e., of leaving the Teamsters)." (pg23)
* With the new rules instituted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 many Teamster pension are only 60% funded. How could the APWA suddenly have enough money to make a pension plan that would be able to increase pensions for more UPSers than are currently vested?
When you go to the APWA’s website, read the print in ALL CAPS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. APWA has made it quite clear that any APWA benefits paid out to members with 20 or more years in a Teamster plan is in addition to the payout they would receive from the IBT plan. The earliest that APWA would begin cutting checks would be five years after being declared CBA. ONLY UPS employees who have worked under the APWA plan for at least 30 years will be eligible for the $7,000/month at any age.
* Since the APWA does not have the structure of locals that the Teamsters has, how do they propose to have more than one collective bargaining agreement (contract)? A national contract without suppliments is something UPS has wanted.
* How do they intend to enforce a CBA without locals? Can you imaging the chaos of trying to appoint/elect an entire union structure across the United States?
Who’s to say that this infrastructure isn’t already in place? In fact the national organizational chart and voting rules are already in writing. People are preparing to serve as BA, stewards, and regional managers. But this is just a side note to your question. To answer your question, the APWA will be pushing UPS for a national contract that raises everyone’s working standards and removes the need for local supplements. If the guy in NJ is good enough to get 30mins of paid break time a day, why shouldn’t a guy on the other side of the country, in the same job, not get paid for that break time? The supplements will not be disregarded, but rather the national contract will provide these same perks to the rest of the membership. And if you have a solitary national contract, this makes it easier for everyone to play by the rules—both UPS and the union.
One way to improve the uniformity of contract enforcement across the country is to archive precedent setting grievance resolutions on a server for other locals to review. By providing this database of information on how similar grievances were settled, APWA business agents will maintain a uniform enforcement of the contract across the entire country and can resolve local cases more quickly by relying on precedent already established elsewhere.
Im working on a nice reply and will make sure your buddy Denver Brown and gets a copy. Any other questions you want to throw on so I can knock 'em all out at once??? Whatever works best for you.
