Archives

M

my2cents

Guest
I also agree with thedrooler. The proposals are awful and onerous. The whole purpose of these "proposals" is to keep the stanglehold on UPS. Gotta keep the protection racket going. In the long-run, this is destructive because it will impede the ability of the company to compete and remain profitable. I honestly hope the company rejects this set of proposals.
 
J

jcroche

Guest
By tdu on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:20 pm

"Drooler,

This is a UPS board and UPS employes more Teamsters than any other company in the world. This is a good place to get exposure to
the TDU issues. If you don't like it then don't read it. The only one whining here is you.

TDU"

tdu:

Yes, you are correct. This IS a UPS board and "UPS employes (sic) more Teamsters than any other company in the world..."

You are incorrect when you state, "...This is a good place to get exposure to the TDU issues...".

Take a good look around you.

How many "brothers" do you see posting on this BB?

What audience do you expect to reach with your "message"?
 
J

jcroche

Guest
tdu:

BTW:

Please enrich us with a little bit of your background when we "click" on your profile - currently all I get is a BLANK SCREEN when I try to access it.
 
T

thedrooler

Guest
TDU

If proposals like the ones that drip out of your pie hole are ever adopted, UPS will be employing a lot fewer teamsters in the future. Put your braincells to better use.

Drooler
 
H

hr

Guest
Can't we all just get along?

It's a good thing that we are all aware of TDU's point of view. Where else would you hear it?
 
M

michael

Guest
As a stockholder I would like nothing more than to see an agreement reached before customers start to divert their business . I also realize that negotiations must take place . Keeping in mind that each side will offer "proposals" and remembering that they are exactly that , should help us understand why each side will ask for much more than they will ultimately accept.


That is why it is sometimes better to keep what is said at the negotiations quiet.There will be proposals and counter proposals made sometimes daily and maybe even hourly. What may be said today , may not be true tomorrow because of a counter proposal. I agree that there are some things that do not have much room for negotiations and perhaps that would be the exception to the rule. In the next few months we are going to hear all kinds things about the contract negotiations how will we know what is fact and what is not ?

We all have our opinions about what we think should and/or should not happen in these negotiations . I know I do , but I will reserve my judgement and base my opinion on the final agreement when it comes to be . (hopefully in the near future)
 
M

my2cents

Guest
Michael,

I agree in part, although nobody knew what was going on last time when the fiasco occurred, so being informed is important. There was no final agreement reached when the old contract expired. My only real concern is how much of this bad language will end up in the final contract. After all, the company must bargain in "good faith." The so-called "labor peace" doctrine is a hoax.
 
Y

yellowcat2000

Guest
In my opionion,instead of fixing the injury rate at UPS, they rather spend their money on making contributions to stop OSHA from protecting our rights. And then when we do get hurt dispute the claim, blaming something else was the cause or it was in retailalation. Check out the link:

Just go to www.opensecrets.org and find out how much money is going to UPS lobbist.
 
L

lr1937

Guest
ANYONE KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS AND WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?

as attachmentinline text Prev | Next | Inbox
- Choose Folder -[New Folder]ATMBuilder NotesDec 8InvestmentsNickatartSave Email
Flag This Message Download Attachments
Printable View - Full Headers

From: "Wolff, Jamie [PVTC]" | Block Address | Add to Address Book

To: "Wolff, Jamie [PVTC]"

Subject: Overseas Partners Ltd.

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:17:41 -0500





> Dear UPS Shareholder,
>
> If you are also a shareholder of Overseas Partners Ltd., this information
> will be meaningful.
>
> As you know, in his letter to shareholders dated February 13th, 2002,
> Robert J. Clanin Chairman of the Board of OPL attached a press release
> "which describes the decision made by OPL's Board of Directors to stop
> writing new reinsurance business in Bermuda, find a buyer for OPUS Re, and
> begin running off its reinsurance reserves. As described in the release,
> this decision recognized the desire of many of our shareholders to have
> greater liquidity for their investment in OPL. The Board and its advisors
> are considering means to provide shareholders both near term and longer
> term liquidity, and will provide further communications as soon as
> possible. However, due to the regulated nature of the reinsurance business
> and other business reasons, including current market conditions and the
> structure of OPL's remaining real estate portfolio, it could take many
> years to complete the runoff of OPL's businesses and fully return share
> capital."
>
> Mr. Clanin also advised in his February 13th letter to shareholders that
> "at its most recent Board meeting, the Board of Directors determined that
> the fair value price per share would be $11.07 (book value at December 31,
> 2001), effective February 13th, 2002. The Board also determined that no
> dividend would be paid at this time." See Robert J. Clanin February 13th
> 2002 letter to shareholders, and OPL Press Release dated February 13th,
> 2002.
>
> As you may not know, significant information concerning the possibility of
> U.S. shareholders suffering adverse tax consequences has been disclosed by
> OPL in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For
> instance, OPL disclosed in their April 2, 2001, 10-K405:
>
> "During the second quarter of 2000, OPL was advised by the IRS of the
> existence of an internal IRS memorandum that concludes that the shipper's
> risk premiums, which OPL received in years before 2000, were not income of
> OPL and that the associated investment income was not 'active income' for
> purposes of the [Passive Foreign Investment Company] rules. The IRS
> memorandum is expressly not binding on IRS auditing agents. However,
> based upon certain assumptions and conclusions therein, the IRS could seek
> to impose the [Passive Foreign Investment Company] rules against OPL's
> U.S. shareowners who owned OPL stock in one or more of the past years. It
> is not known at this time whether the IRS will attempt to do so." See
> OPL's 10-K405, filed with the SEC on April 2, 2001.
>
> "If OPL were found to be a [Passive Foreign Investment Company] in any
> year, those U.S. shareowners who held OPL shares in that year would suffer
> adverse tax consequences under the rules ..." See OPL's 10-K405, filed
> with the SEC on April 2, 2001.
>
> Considering the magnitude of the information disclosed in OPL's SEC
> filings, I have compiled two reference volumes in connection with OPL's
> SEC filings from November 14, 2000 through June 28, 2001. For you and
> your attorney's convenience, my reference volumes highlight and flag
> significant text in connection with OPL's shareholder repurchase program,
> the IRS memorandum, references associated with [Passive Foreign Investment
> Company] rules, net deferred income tax liability, and information
> concerning the adverse tax consequences U.S. shareholders would suffer.
>
> If you would like to learn more about the information resources now
> available to Class A shareholders, or receive a free copy of the OPL
> reference volumes that I compiled, I would be pleased to ship information
> to you. My phone number is 212-603-6174.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jamie Wolff
> First Vice-President-Investments
> Private Client Group Services for Founding Families
>
>
> Private Client Group Services for Founding Families provides advisory
> services through Salomon Smith Barney Inc. Jamie Wolff is a licensed
> Financial Consultant now employed by Salomon Smith Barney Inc. Member
> SIPC. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. is a member of Citigroup. The
> information set forth was obtained from sources which we believe are
> reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy, and such information may
> be incomplete or condensed. Neither the information nor any opinion
> expressed constitutes a solicitation by us of the purchase or sale of any
> securities. The opinions in this publication are for general information
> only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations
> for any individual. Neither Salomon Smith Barney, nor its Financial
> Consultants, offer tax or legal advice. We suggest that you consult your
> accountant, tax advisor, and/or legal advisor with regard to your
> individual situation.
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reminder: E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure.
Do not use e-mail to send us confidential information
such as credit card numbers, changes of address, PIN
numbers, passwords, or other important information.
Do not e-mail orders to buy or sell securities, transfer
funds, or send time sensitive instructions. We will not
accept such orders or instructions. This e-mail is not
an official trade confirmation for transactions executed
for your account. Your e-mail message is not private in
that it is subject to review by the Firm, its officers,
agents and employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click a to send an instant message to an online friend = Online, = Offline
 
H

hubiebrown

Guest
Yellowcat2000,

Your post seems to give a different purpose for OSHA than I've heard ascribed to it before. Isn't OSHA supposed to regulate work place heatlth and safety issues?

As far as I know OSHA has nothing to do with rights. It is simply a government regulatory agency, part of the executive branch. OSHA has duties and responsibilities. It imposes regulations. It enforces the regulations it imposes. It does not bestow rights. The distinction is not a small one.

Just wondering; What does this have to do with investing in UPS? Are the company's lobbying attempts damaging the stock value? Perhaps you would be good enough to link the purpose of your post to investing in UPS.
 
H

hubiebrown

Guest
Sounds like he's a SSB sales rep/broker fishing for new business. There's nothing new or exciting in the post. If you like I'll ask around and see what I can find out about him. I know a couple of folks at SSB. How did he contact you? Was it directly via email? Do you want on or off the mailing list?
 
M

my2cents

Guest
From what I understand the first set of proposed ergonomic standards were vague and ill-defined because of a lack of objective scientific data. I can understand the company's position because if poor standards are adopted, there will be all sorts of potentially bogus claims against it. I really haven't been following this issue too closely, although I'm aware the DOL is studying the issue. Not sure what the latest findings are.
 
R

robonono

Guest
I received the same email from Jamie Wolff on March 1, and have been attempting to learn the meaning.
 
M

michael

Guest
my2cents

Point taken .. Some information is necessary to be passed along, even if it is vague in content. Perhaps just the status of how things are going. (i.e.. talks are progressing well or there are some stumbling blocks etc...) Along with that, an explanation as to why more specific details cannot and should not be passed on. The more we all understand how and why, the less confusion and misunderstanding there will be. This will take a "leap of faith" on both sides, to accept the vague answers and believe that both side are working towards the same goal. This is not an easy thing to ask of those that have had "bad" experiences in the past.


We can only hope that both sides learned from the last "fiasco" and that they will work towards an early agreement and avoid any such nonsense. In this time of "There are two sides to every story, and then there is the truth" That may be asking too much. Only time will tell.

Michael
 
M

my2cents

Guest
Michael,

I generally agree, although past experience is telling me to keep my awareness level high and my guard up. The projected probabilities may be low, but there is always a wild card in the mix.
 
M

my2cents

Guest
It appears there is still plenty of debate on the subject. The first set of proposals to the DOL, if I'm not mistaken, came from the AFL-CIO, about 2-3 years ago.
 
L

lr1937

Guest
Hubie
This is about the 3rd email from the same guy. I am curious as to what he is up to. I would think he is fishing for business. I am not sure about the tax implications, that he is suggesting for the individual investor, is all about. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Could hubiebrown be related to the sea1?
 
R

robonono

Guest
I just read the article "Driven to the Table..." in the San Francisco Chronicle that is posted on BrownCafe.

The following quote from Jimmy Hoffa deeply concerns me:

"UPS is the goose that laid the golden egg," Hoffa added. "Thanks to the strength of our unity, we will grab that goose by the neck and get every one of those golden eggs."

I hope he realizes that by choking the goose to get every one of the eggs, that the goose will die, and there will not be any eggs in the future.

I know that he has to project the image of a tough negotiator to the rank and file members, but this seems a bit drastic to me.
 
G

gsx1990

Guest
robono,

AMEN! It seems the teamsters management wants it ALL or nothing. No wonder FDX pasted us in price today....

gsx90
 
R

robonono

Guest
I'm not at all concerned that FDX share price is moving ahead of UPS's today. I am glad that as FDX has moved up, it is dragging UPS along as well.

I am VERY CONCERNED about our contract negotiations with the IBT, and Hoffa's comments only heighten these concerns.
 
Top