Contract news?

[mittam]

I agree Mike,however,all UPS has to do is to dangle a big signing bonus to part timers and the contract will fly like a soaring eagle,just my opinion,nothing personal Mike,God Bless,Dave

Yeah, they floated a signing bonus infront of us in '97 so much for that. At the time I would have taken it, I was in the process of buying a house, that would have been good then.

 

[Cole]

Quote:
When managements on the road do you see them grab an air conditioned package car?

There's none to grab! I got an idea though, why don't we cut cost and cut all the ac off in all the buildings!?

As far as OSHA, maybe it's time to have them take a look, thanks for the suggestion! How about the leaking trucks? Do the customers matter so little, that mangmnt can't put their money where their mouths are? How much time do you think is lost due to not having powersteering as well?

 

[30andout]

Really? So you think the last 2 contracts that he got for us was selling out to ups in order to save face? I know your a little bitter because you think he received a letter from you and hes now ignoring you by not responding to you. But how does that equal hes selling out? Look cs pension is a serious situation but dont throw that blame on hall, he only negotiates the pension contributions, he does not invest them on our behalf! Now everyone here knows im not a hoffa fan, but i do have a great deal of respect for hall.

A little bitter to say the least, they keep on taking my dues, but they don't want to do anything to represent me!!!!

 

[sawdusttv]

Their is no reason for any FULL TIME EMPOYEE to be concerned or alarmed with this upcoming contract,as you are aware part timers control the vote 3 to 1 to full timers,always was this way,always will be,think about it1

Actually guys,

This topic came up a few weeks ago and we had our division manager contact corporate and the numbers were surprising. They said that the part-timers held a slight margin over full-timers, about 53%.
I said no way, but then our manager explained. In large hubs part-timers out number full by a large margin but in your average center it is the opposite, and he used our center for an example. We have a little over 100 p-timers, and around 275 friend-timers, and there are a lot more centers than there are large Hubs across the nation.

 

[Fredless]

In the larger hubs, like the one I work at, it is about 50/50 now with the creation of so many 22.3 jobs.

Signing bonus my ass, if the gurantee is not at least 3.5 hours like it is now and at least a .50 raise across the board for the part timers, I will vote no.

 

[tieguy]

Quote:
When managements on the road do you see them grab an air conditioned package car?

There's none to grab! I got an idea though, why don't we cut cost and cut all the ac off in all the buildings!?

Cole i think it would be a great idea for your union to cut a/c and heating at the hall and stick the savings into the pension.

As far as OSHA, maybe it's time to have them take a look, thanks for the suggestion!

Ah I didn't suggest it cole what I basically said was that you have enough whining , crying , back stabbing brothers in the ranks that I'm sure the issue has already been called into OSHA many times. Therefore if we are violating osha standards then I'm sure its been addressed. Therefore it can't be a violation of OSHA as you stated.

How about the leaking trucks?

what about them? You forget how to fill out a DVIR?

Do the customers matter so little, that mangmnt can't put their money where their mouths are? How much time do you think is lost due to not having powersteering as well?

You keep trying to define service as driving up in a brand new package car. Service is also cost control. Service is also squeezing another 100 k miles out of a package car. Despite that I've never seen this company buy as many new tractors and package cars as they have the last few years. Every freaking car they put out has many of the newer safer features our drivers have requested. Perhaps we could also discuss the positives?

 

[Fullhouse]

You keep trying to define service as driving up in a brand new package car. Service is also cost control. Service is also squeezing another 100 k miles out of a package car. Despite that I've never seen this company buy as many new tractors and package cars as they have the last few years. Every freaking car they put out has many of the newer safer features our drivers have requested. Perhaps we could also discuss the positives?[/quote]
Yea my p700 has 450,000 miles and 11 yrs old and it and leaks like a sieve. And yes I do fill out a DVIR. I have so much silicone around the windows they have to paint it brown to match.

 

[Cole]

Rather than hijack this thread any further as I have I will start a new thread on the subject.

 

[705red]

I made a call about the ss penalty from the full time ups/teamster pension plan, and it hasnt been discussed for the fulltime pension(as of yet). Under the parttimers pensions that ups holds it does get effected. Ups is calling this proposal a multi-employer pension fund, now when asked about it ups did not give a list of other employers that would fall under it, be heres a few i can think of, ups logistics, menlo, upsco, ups freight and im sure ups has other companies that they own.

 

[sawdusttv]

I made a call about the ss penalty from the full time ups/teamster pension plan, and it hasnt been discussed for the fulltime pension(as of yet). Under the parttimers pensions that ups holds it does get effected. Ups is calling this proposal a multi-employer pension fund, now when asked about it ups did not give a list of other employers that would fall under it, be heres a few i can think of, ups logistics, menlo, upsco, ups freight and im sure ups has other companies that they own.

Good point RED,

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and can't trust the company or the union, so we better put our back in a corner and swing for the fences.

 

[JonFrum]

Multi- vs Multiple- . . . Not just semantics.

. . . Ups is calling this proposal a multi-employer pension fund, now when asked about it ups did not give a list of other employers that would fall under it, be heres a few i can think of, ups logistics, menlo, upsco, ups freight and im sure ups has other companies that they own.

705red,
Can you find out for sure if the "other" employers are companies controlled by UPS? If the employers are unrelated, then it's called a multi-employer fund. If related, then it's called a multiple-employer fund. There is a big difference. Central States full-timers need to be alert to this distinction.

 

[705red]

Re: Multi- vs Multiple- . . . Not just semantics.

705red,
Can you find out for sure if the "other" employers are companies controlled by UPS? If the employers are unrelated, then it's called a multi-employer fund. If related, then it's called a multiple-employer fund. There is a big difference. Central States full-timers need to be alert to this distinction.

As soon as i hear anything i will post it. The rumor was today was the deadline has anyone heard anything on the ups buyout of the cs plan? God only if tnet was up im sure the insiders would be reporting!

 

[GuyinBrown]

Why would UPS create a multi-employer pension fund and subject itself to the same rules and regulations that it's been trying to get out from under? Don't you remember UPS complaining about it being unfair when Congress gave some type of relief or rule change ( I really don't recall the specifics ) to single employer funds?

 

[JonFrum]

When UPS failed to get out of the Teamsters' multi-employer pension plans in 1997, they then wanted to at least Partition them. (I thought the funds were largely partitioned already, because your benefit was proportionately based on your personal work history and company contribution level.) UPS believed 60% of UPS contributions were going to non-UPSers. They wanted 100% of UPS contributions going to UPSers. APWA true believers took this 60% figure as gospel and have created a cult following around it, who look East, to where their oracles reside and walk amongst us still. Oddly, the 60% figure never changes from year to year, or from one pension plan to another, regardless of stock market ups and downs.

So now UPS proposes to buy its way out of Central States by paying its legally owed Withdrawal Liability. But the $4 billion-plus Withdrawal Liability payments do not earn Central States UPSers any new pension credits. In fact, most everyone is a bit worse off as the result of loosing any non-contributory Past Service Credit they were granted, and forfeiting any pension credit milestones they were working toward. Plus, UPSers will start from zero, with no years of vesting, in any new pension plan.

Withdrawal Liability is a debt owed by UPS to the Central States fund generally. The payment is *not* made on behalf of UPSers, like regular monthly contribution are. Only a portion of it, say 40%, will ultimately find its way into UPSers' future pension checks. This seems to go against everything UPS has been saying.

In addition, although Withdrawal Liability is strictly a corporate UPS debt, look for UPS to try to claim that it is part of our compensation, and that we should accept a lower pay and benefit package to offset the huge expense. Let's remember, the proposed idea of withdrawing from Central States is a UPS idea; and the debt is owed by UPS, not UPSers. In effect, UPS contracted with Central States to hold their pension contributions and invest them until UPSers retired. UPS "buys" retirement services for its full-timers from the Central States Trustees, just as it buys uniforms and uniform cleaning services for its automotive people from outside vendors. UPS either chose its pension provider/investor unwisely, or is the victim of bad luck in the stock market, take your pick. Either way, it's not the responsibility of rank and file UPSers to pay the debt in any way. Don't let them, or Teamsters negotiators, make you feel you are responsible. In a Defined Benefit plan, your promised pension isn't yours until you actually are approved for a pension by the trustees and start receiving your first monthly check. Until then it's UPS' responsibility.

 

[tieguy]

When UPS failed to get out of the Teamsters' multi-employer pension plans in 1997, they then wanted to at least Partition them. (I thought the funds were largely partitioned already, because your benefit was proportionately based on your personal work history and company contribution level.) UPS believed 60% of UPS contributions were going to non-UPSers. They wanted 100% of UPS contributions going to UPSers. APWA true believers took this 60% figure as gospel and have created a cult following around it, who look East, to where their oracles reside and walk amongst us still. Oddly, the 60% figure never changes from year to year, or from one pension plan to another, regardless of stock market ups and downs.

So now UPS proposes to buy its way out of Central States by paying its legally owed Withdrawal Liability. But the $4 billion-plus Withdrawal Liability payments do not earn Central States UPSers any new pension credits. In fact, most everyone is a bit worse off as the result of loosing any non-contributory Past Service Credit they were granted, and forfeiting any pension credit milestones they were working toward. Plus, UPSers will start from zero, with no years of vesting, in any new pension plan.

Withdrawal Liability is a debt owed by UPS to the Central States fund generally. The payment is *not* made on behalf of UPSers, like regular monthly contribution are. Only a portion of it, say 40%, will ultimately find its way into UPSers' future pension checks. This seems to go against everything UPS has been saying.

In addition, although Withdrawal Liability is strictly a corporate UPS debt, look for UPS to try to claim that it is part of our compensation, and that we should accept a lower pay and benefit package to offset the huge expense. Let's remember, the proposed idea of withdrawing from Central States is a UPS idea; and the debt is owed by UPS, not UPSers. In effect, UPS contracted with Central States to hold their pension contributions and invest them until UPSers retired. UPS "buys" retirement services for its full-timers from the Central States Trustees, just as it buys uniforms and uniform cleaning services for its automotive people from outside vendors. UPS either chose its pension provider/investor unwisely, or is the victim of bad luck in the stock market, take your pick. Either way, it's not the responsibility of rank and file UPSers to pay the debt in any way. Don't let them, or Teamsters negotiators, make you feel you are responsible. In a Defined Benefit plan, your promised pension isn't yours until you actually are approved for a pension by the trustees and start receiving your first monthly check. Until then it's UPS' responsibility.

withdrawing from CS is strictly a ups expense? Which we will do for what reason? Are you saying upsers would not want ups to withdraw from CS? If this is your position then UPS should stay in the CS and let it continue to produce the same ****ty results answer man?

 

[trickpony1]

"which we will do for what reason?".
The reason is money.......the same reason the company does everything else.
I've heard that if the company takes full control of the pension (the "UPS dollars for UPS people" battle cry) then, at some point, the fund will have so much money in it the interest alone will perpetuate it. This is, essentially, a good business decision as the company no longer throws money at a pension plan that supports other pensioners of companies no longer in business. The problem I have is if our company gets full control, what shenanigans will they pull on us?
The same logic applies to our company being self-insured. If a company has enough money they are protected. Liberty Mutual just administers the company's insurance.

 

[JonFrum]

withdrawing from CS is strictly a ups expense? Which we will do for what reason? Are you saying upsers would not want ups to withdraw from CS? If this is your position then UPS should stay in the CS and let it continue to produce the same ****ty results answer man?

Tieguy,
I'm just telling you what The Law says.

UPS proposes to withdraw from Central States. It's a UPS initiative. ERISA says UPS must therefore pay its Withdrawal Liability. Plain and simple. UPS seems to understand this since they included a $4 billion payment in their negotiating proposal.

Current UPSers can't totally withdraw from Central States under either the APWA proposal or the UPS proposal. All the money contributed on their behalf, and all their vested pension credits stay in the fund. They are members for life. Only UPS can withdraw by stopping its monthly contributions, and thus stopping any additional pension credit accruals from that point on.

I have no way of predicting the future investment results of Central States or any other fund. I generally assume almost all funds loose money in a down market, and make money in a bull market. Central States is making money currently, after taking losses in 2000-2002. There is also a bit of luck involved as well, so some funds will do better or worse than others in the same investment climate.

 

[tieguy]

"which we will do for what reason?".
The reason is money.......the same reason the company does everything else.
I've heard that if the company takes full control of the pension (the "UPS dollars for UPS people" battle cry) then, at some point, the fund will have so much money in it the interest alone will perpetuate it. This is, essentially, a good business decision as the company no longer throws money at a pension plan that supports other pensioners of companies no longer in business. The problem I have is if our company gets full control, what shenanigans will they pull on us?
The same logic applies to our company being self-insured. If a company has enough money they are protected. Liberty Mutual just administers the company's insurance.

Is there an offer on the table for a ups controlled plan or one that is jointly administered. If jointly administered as I believe I heard then what is UPS's financial incentive to pay 4 billion dollars to withdraw?

 

[Braveheart]

I am against all those BS proposals!

 

[moreluck]

After several rounds of negotiations, UPS and the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) are taking a break from the National
Master sessions to deal with negotiations on the Supplemental Agreements
and to provide opportunities for vacation and personal time over the
July 4th U.S. holiday. Negotiations on the National Master are
scheduled to resume July 9.

We know you are interested in the talks and may be getting questions
about them as well. The following is a brief update on the negotiations
to date.

As a reminder, both UPS and the IBT felt that the issues before us were
important enough to warrant an early start to negotiations on a new
contract to replace the one that expires on July 31, 2008. Since talks
began late in 2006, contract proposals have been exchanged on both
economic and non-economic issues. In brief, the normal process of
bargaining is being followed and we expect this process to continue as
we work through topics and issues.

UPS entered these negotiations with two key issues in mind: protecting
the pensions of UPS employees in a very complex environment and
positioning the company to thrive in a new era where our competitors are
gaining strength and ground capacity, as well as some cost and
flexibility advantages.

On the pension issues, a survey conducted by the Teamsters earlier this
year confirms pension as a top issue. This is particularly true with the
Central States Pension Plan -- a plan that has a large number of UPS
employees. With new pension laws taking effect in January 2008, it is
essential to take steps to ensure that UPS employees receive the
pensions they have worked for and deserve. These new pension laws set
higher standards for pension plan funding as it relates to benefit
levels. This includes multi-employer pension plans to which UPS
contributes large sums of money on behalf of our employees. Achieving
this objective will require open minds and a willingness to entertain
new ideas, without subjecting the company to unsustainable financial
obligations. Both UPS and the IBT are working to see if there is a
viable solution.

At the same time, it is absolutely essential that we begin to position
UPS in our centennial year to prosper in the next 100 years. One large
challenge is that our competitors have labor cost structures that are
significantly lower than ours. We have been able to remain successful,
despite higher labor costs than most of our competitors, due to the
efficiencies of our integrated network and our skill in execution. Your
hard work in keeping costs in check is both recognized and appreciated.
But our future success is not guaranteed if we cannot manage costs
effectively. We have seen what has happened to companies that were icons
of their industries in steel, auto and aviation only to stumble badly or
go out of business because they failed to take steps to deal with
growing competitors with lower cost structures. UPS has always prepared
for and adjusted to changing market conditions. All UPS proposals are
designed to ensure UPS can continue to grow and prosper, and we are
discussing ideas with the IBT on creative solutions that will help us
grow our business and provide opportunities.

We also recognize the IBT has posted high-level updates about
negotiations on its web site. Additionally, other interested groups have
been publishing comments electronically and in print -- some of this
information is accurate, but much is inaccurate or speculation. We do
not intend at this point to respond to these inaccuracies unless they
affect negotiations or significantly confuse the facts or the solutions
in the final agreement. Speculation about what is being discussed at the
table will continue and likely increase. Please keep these rumors and
speculation in proper perspective. Remember, the only real solutions
will emerge over time at the bargaining table. At this stage, we must
remain focused on our business priorities and address the pension and
competitive issues as outlined above.

Should you be approached about the status of negotiations, we encourage
you to verbally share the key points outlined in this briefing -- that
the normal process of negotiations is being followed, that UPS and the
IBT are working toward solutions for employee pensions and for keeping
UPS competitive, and that we will not respond to any inaccuracies unless
it affects our negotiations at the table.

We hope this update helps you understand our current status, the key
issues, and the negotiating schedule. We will provide additional updates
to you on important topics as the negotiations progress. At the
appropriate time, we will provide detailed information to help you talk
with your people.