Contract rumor 2 tier and Grandfathering PTimers

[Bad Gas!]

I like the word hence.

He plays outfield for the S.friend.Giants..

 

[oldupsman]

I am a 23 year veteran who is simply expressing his opinion on what I think UPS needs to do to remain competitive with FedEx Ground. Agree/disagree---I don't really care. The numbers I threw out there were off the top of my head and perhaps are on the low side but the principle remains the same----lower starting rate, longer progression, lower top out. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to address the wage disparity that exists between the two companies and we certainly know that Fred is not going to raise the ante.

I think the 2 tier is a reach. But agreeing to a lower starting rate and a longer progression that is currently in place is quite likely. Especially the progression.
Hourly raise? Who knows. It won't be much. Almost all the money the union does get out of UPS will go to health care and the pension.
In other words, directly into the Teamsters pockets. I don't see a strike happening ever again. You need public sympathy for a strike to work.
Who's going to feel sorry for a bunch of guys making 30.00 an hour in this economy.

 

[oldupsman]

Screwed it up again. Stinkin computers.

 

[brownmonster]

Screwed it up again. Stinkin computers.

No, just us old guys trying to figure out how to use them.

 

[Inthegame]

Seems to be a recurring and inaccurate theme here. If H&W and Pension gets increased, no money goes in the Teamsters pockets. Wage increases lead to per capita (dues) increases to the IBT and local unions. Your Pension and H&W increases go to those specific trust funds, not union treasuries. Odd that an old ups man doesn't know that.

 

[packageguy]

Heard a rumor that 2 tier pay is an option. Anyone working at UPS at time of contract would be grandfathered in. Makes sense as it would be a bit unfair for someone to start working part time now, under the impression that when they go driving they will be making the same as other drivers once threw progression.

Just a rumor that I would take with a grain of salt.

I heard the samething, But with that said there are so many rumors don't know what to believe

 

[brown_trousers]

I am a 23 year veteran who is simply expressing his opinion on what I think UPS needs to do to remain competitive with FedEx Ground. Agree/disagree---I don't really care. The numbers I threw out there were off the top of my head and perhaps are on the low side but the principle remains the same----lower starting rate, longer progression, lower top out. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to address the wage disparity that exists between the two companies and we certainly know that Fred is not going to raise the ante.

Tooner related how the GM workers in her town went from $30/hr and a pension to $12/hr with no pension.

The bottom line fact, is that even with wages where they are at $30/hr+, full medical benefits, and pension. UPS is not struggling, yet growing even more profitable while paying us this stuff.

So if UPS pays us these wages, benefits, and retirement in 2012 and posts record profits again, what is going to change so drastically in 2013 with the new contract to change this pattern of record profits???

 

[oldupsman]

Seems to be a recurring and inaccurate theme here. If H&W and Pension gets increased, no money goes in the Teamsters pockets. Wage increases lead to per capita (dues) increases to the IBT and local unions. Your Pension and H&W increases go to those specific trust funds, not union treasuries. Odd that an old ups man doesn't know that.

Well, who controls the Pension and H&W trust funds? I believe that would be the Teamsters. You have full faith that the Teamsters would never ever
misuse those funds? I've got some swampland in Florida for ya. I will admit to knowing
nothing about the H&W fund. I have been with UPS for my health care since the strike of 1976.

 

[TechGrrl]

FED EX is starting to run into problems there Express business is really taking a beating. I would bet in the coming years you will see a consolidation of divisions which would change what Labor Act they fall under and make it easier for areas to unionize. Instead of a country wide vote they could unionize locally...

As far as GM the people in the front office of GM still are making millions and they now have profit sharing with the union members each union member got a $7000 check in march...

If you think that it will ever be EASIER for workers to unionize in this country ever again, you haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years. Go look at the number of RIGHT TO WORK states there are now, compared to say, the year 2000. The 2010 elections put the GOP in total control of a number of states, and they immediately went after unions. FedEx will NEVER unionize any of its workers. Doesn't matter which version of labor law they fall under. Won't happen. That particular fairy dust isn't going to make our competitiveness fly.

 

[Inthegame]

Well, who controls the Pension and H&W trust funds? I believe that would be the Teamsters. You have full faith that the Teamsters would never ever
misuse those funds? I've got some swampland in Florida for ya. I will admit to knowing
nothing about the H&W fund. I have been with UPS for my health care since the strike of 1976.

I think you should also admit to knowing nothing about multi employer pension plans. Trust Funds are "controlled" by equal number of employer and employee (union) trustees. The E-board that you elect selects the employee trustees. You have no control over who the employers put on those boards. If the Teamsters had an opportunity to misuse pension funds it would be with the approval of the trustees, including at least one employer trustee. These trustees also have personal liability for intentional misuse of funds. Do you really think with that on the table there is intentional misuse? Thanks for the offer of the swampland.

 

[oldupsman]

I think you should also admit to knowing nothing about multi employer pension plans. Trust Funds are "controlled" by equal number of employer and employee (union) trustees. The E-board that you elect selects the employee trustees. You have no control over who the employers put on those boards. If the Teamsters had an opportunity to misuse pension funds it would be with the approval of the trustees, including at least one employer trustee. These trustees also have personal liability for intentional misuse of funds. Do you really think with that on the table there is intentional misuse? Thanks for the offer of the swampland.

Yes I certainly believe there is still potential for intentional misuse. You don't think the Teamsters and UPS would make a move with that money that benefits them and not you? Or any other employer?
Is your pension plan fully funded? I'll bet it's not. Poor decisions by the board? Who's checking on the board's decisions?
Do I think there has been intentional misuse? Hell yes. Otherwise we all be getting 6000.00 a month pension.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Intehgame;

Yes, but the fact remains that one entity - the union - appoints a full HALF of the trustees, while ALL the employers contribute the rest. And those multiple employers often have vastly different interests. Of course, when one employer is by far the largest contributor to the plan, there's always the temptation for the union to approach one of the smaller contributing employers with a side deal for purposes getting things to go in its direction. Now I'm not saying it happens that often, but then again I've always heard that the possibility was one reason why UPS, in years past, refused to place ANY representative trustee on boards like Central States; i.e. - they wanted to to make it very clear that that the decisions of the board weren't necessarily decisions the company agreed with at all.

Even today, it just takes one employer trustee on the multi-employer boards to swing action toward the union's side...and it's quite possible that such an employer trustee may represent an employer that has but a minute fraction of the interest in the trust as a firm like UPS might have.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

but then again... I've always heard

I thought....

I heard....

Or.... somebody told me.


Tell your mom, to leave the hot pockets.... at the top of the basement steps.


We can handle things. You know.... the people, that have actually worked for UPS and the Teamsters.



-Bug-

 

[Inthegame]

Intehgame;

Yes, but the fact remains that one entity - the union - appoints a full HALF of the trustees, while ALL the employers contribute the rest. And those multiple employers often have vastly different interests. Of course, when one employer is by far the largest contributor to the plan, there's always the temptation for the union to approach one of the smaller contributing employers with a side deal for purposes getting things to go in its direction. Now I'm not saying it happens that often, but then again I've always heard that the possibility was one reason why UPS, in years past, refused to place ANY representative trustee on boards like Central States; i.e. - they wanted to to make it very clear that that the decisions of the board weren't necessarily decisions the company agreed with at all.

Even today, it just takes one employer trustee on the multi-employer boards to swing action toward the union's side...and it's quite possible that such an employer trustee may represent an employer that has but a minute fraction of the interest in the trust as a firm like UPS might have.

I'll start out by rejecting the flawed premise of "there's always the temptation for the union to approach one of the smaller contributing employers with a side deal for purposes getting things to go in its direction". If that temptation does exist, it exists for both sides, more likely for the wealthier, employer side.

The one entity that appoints "half" of the trustees, represents "all" of the participants. So with that math the union is getting shorted on trust fund boards. The one common interest that employers share (presently) is the unfunded/withdrawal liability. This in theory keeps everyone honest as your scenario played out (where an employer trustee would side with the union) would increase the obligation of that trustees employer, which is completely counter intuitive even without the personal liability issue. If a union trustee approached an employer trustee to make a "side deal" as you suggest, a very unpleasant future could result for both. But I will agree in a land of what ifs lots of possibilities exist. Remember, the same theory works in reverse, one union trustee could vote with the employer trustees to withhold legitimate improvements, the difference being that union trustee could then lose their (non-paid) position by membership vote. That's participant accountability that only works on the union side.
However in the highly regulated and reported world of Trust Funds, this kind of activity happens in movies, not in reality.

I have no knowledge of UPS's intentions on placements of trustees on the CS plan. Neither do you. When trustees don't support a decision on any board, they vote no.

 

[Inthegame]

Yes I certainly believe there is still potential for intentional misuse. You don't think the Teamsters and UPS would make a move with that money that benefits them and not you? Or any other employer?
Is your pension plan fully funded? I'll bet it's not. Poor decisions by the board? Who's checking on the board's decisions?
Do I think there has been intentional misuse? Hell yes. Otherwise we all be getting 6000.00 a month pension.

Show me some proven instances of intentional misuse by the Teamsters and UPS acting in collusion to benefit themselves at the expense of participants.
Pension plans are generally not fully funded for many reasons having nothing to do with misuse. Remeber 2008 and the market meltdown. Lots of dollars disappeared but obligations remained. You're not getting $6000 a month because your fund can't sustain that payment and survive. You know nothing about how plans are structured or funded, yet make wild, reckless accusations. Instead of criticizing, you should be thanking your thoughtful predeccessors for their sacrifices that you will soon enjoy.
You're the one who should be checking on the boards decisions. Call the (non-paid) trustees with questions, if you know who they are. That information is provided to you at least yearly or will be provided with a call to your local. Oh wait, what am I thinking. That would require effort on your part. Much easier to live in fairy tale land, and blame others for perceived injustices. Have you ever been involved in anything that requires decision making? I didn't think so.

Regards
...an older UPS man...that still cares!

 

[PobreCarlos]

Inthegame;

Regarding your claim of....

"If a union trustee approached an employer trustee to make a "side deal" as you suggest, a very unpleasant future could result for both"

...is that the "unpleasant future" YRCW has encountered, especially vis-a'-vis ABF and it current controversy with the Teamsters and their multi-employer pension trusts? You sure about that, are ya'?

As for your claim that....

"The one entity that appoints "half" of the trustees, represents "all" of the participants. So with that math the union is getting shorted on trust fund boards."

...just where did you come up with THAT particular little formula? The fact is, the union represents only the side of BENEFICIARIES (past, present, and future)...and truthfully "represents" only those beneficiaries who are direct members of the union (non-union beneficiaries effectively don't have a vote or a say except through their EMPLOYERS representation). And, since those union representative don't represent any CONTRIBUTING entity whatsoever, I'm hard pressed to see how they're being "short-changed". In fact, from a logical viewpoint, I think one could make a good argument that they shouldn't be given any "change" at all. They're not representing any entity that's making a contribution. And, as has been seen with Central States and the active UPS participants, apparently they weren't really representing the plan beneficiaries either. In fact, it appears that they were intent on screwing them over; if they weren't, surely they would have gone along much earlier with a plan that worked to preserve those UPSers pensions to the extent of contribution deposited in THEIR name.

Then there's your argument about....

"this in theory keeps everyone honest as your scenario played out (where an employer trustee would side with the union) would increase the obligation of that trustees employer, which is completely counter intuitive even without the personal liability issue."

...perhaps it's supposed to work that way "in theory", but in actual practice, there's a HUGE incentive for the smaller contributing and less viable employers to try to put the brakes to the legitimate aspirations of larger and more viable ones. Look at the '97 situation, in which UPS wanted to withdraw and pay the then-current withdrawal fee...only to find that it was pocked-up by the union and a minority representation of employer trustees. Why? Because those employers didn't want to be left holding the bag, and couldn't make the existing withdrawal fee on their own. Meanwhile, how do you account for the interests of trustees originally appointed in the context of contributing employers, which subsequently went out of business? Finally - and again - HALF the trustees represent the interests of ONE entity, while the remaining half represent the DIVERGENT interests of MULTIPLE entities...many of which have NO representation on the board at all!

In truth, I don't know the current intentions of UPS trustees currently on the board, BEYOND WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD! And, saying that, it's a matter of public record that UPS did NOT (by way of example) have a trustee on the CSPF board for quite a number of years. Not one. And it was common knowledge (and widely spoken of) throughout the company at the time as to why they didn't as well.

Granted, I'm not a big believer in their being CURRENT trust hokey-pokey (although the history of the Teamsters more than demonstrates that such wasn't always the case), and I'm well aware that the current pathetic situation of several of the trusts has more to do with the unions themselves, and their inability to neither (1) maintain the viability of existing contributing employers, and (2) organize new ones. Perhaps the restructuring of the trusts ala' what's going on with New England now will change things...but I'm not hopeful.

​

​

 

[UnconTROLLed]

methodological self-expression was never scb's strong suit.

 

[Inthegame]

Inthegame;

Regarding your claim of....

"If a union trustee approached an employer trustee to make a "side deal" as you suggest, a very unpleasant future could result for both"

...is that the "unpleasant future" YRCW has encountered, especially vis-a'-vis ABF and it current controversy with the Teamsters and their multi-employer pension trusts? You sure about that, are ya'?

As for your claim that....

"The one entity that appoints "half" of the trustees, represents "all" of the participants. So with that math the union is getting shorted on trust fund boards."

...just where did you come up with THAT particular little formula? The fact is, the union represents only the side of BENEFICIARIES (past, present, and future)...and truthfully "represents" only those beneficiaries who are direct members of the union (non-union beneficiaries effectively don't have a vote or a say except through their EMPLOYERS representation). And, since those union representative don't represent any CONTRIBUTING entity whatsoever, I'm hard pressed to see how they're being "short-changed". In fact, from a logical viewpoint, I think one could make a good argument that they shouldn't be given any "change" at all. They're not representing any entity that's making a contribution. And, as has been seen with Central States and the active UPS participants, apparently they weren't really representing the plan beneficiaries either. In fact, it appears that they were intent on screwing them over; if they weren't, surely they would have gone along much earlier with a plan that worked to preserve those UPSers pensions to the extent of contribution deposited in THEIR name.

Then there's your argument about....

"this in theory keeps everyone honest as your scenario played out (where an employer trustee would side with the union) would increase the obligation of that trustees employer, which is completely counter intuitive even without the personal liability issue."

...perhaps it's supposed to work that way "in theory", but in actual practice, there's a HUGE incentive for the smaller contributing and less viable employers to try to put the brakes to the legitimate aspirations of larger and more viable ones. Look at the '97 situation, in which UPS wanted to withdraw and pay the then-current withdrawal fee...only to find that it was pocked-up by the union and a minority representation of employer trustees. Why? Because those employers didn't want to be left holding the bag, and couldn't make the existing withdrawal fee on their own. Meanwhile, how do you account for the interests of trustees originally appointed in the context of contributing employers, which subsequently went out of business? Finally - and again - HALF the trustees represent the interests of ONE entity, while the remaining half represent the DIVERGENT interests of MULTIPLE entities...many of which have NO representation on the board at all!

In truth, I don't know the current intentions of UPS trustees currently on the board, BEYOND WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD! And, saying that, it's a matter of public record that UPS did NOT (by way of example) have a trustee on the CSPF board for quite a number of years. Not one. And it was common knowledge (and widely spoken of) throughout the company at the time as to why they didn't as well.

Granted, I'm not a big believer in their being CURRENT trust hokey-pokey (although the history of the Teamsters more than demonstrates that such wasn't always the case), and I'm well aware that the current pathetic situation of several of the trusts has more to do with the unions themselves, and their inability to neither (1) maintain the viability of existing contributing employers, and (2) organize new ones. Perhaps the restructuring of the trusts ala' what's going on with New England now will change things...but I'm not hopeful.

​

​

I'm getting a headache. My points were quite clear and obviously rankled you. You're (once again) looking at this with your one way (I hate everything the Teamsters do) glasses on. The nefarious charges of trust fund malfesance (of course only from the union side) are too tempting for you to resist regardless of any factual basis. Predictably you've once again clouded the topic with rants unrelated to the issue of how Trust Fund contributions are completely separate from wage allocations and not used to line the pockets of ne'er do wells. Your retort had more holes than I have time to fill. Conversations with you are unending and mindnumbing. But thanks anyway, at least you have a mission.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Inthegame;

Yes, I'm sure my "retort had more holes than [you] have time to fill". Funny, though, how I've noticed that those who lack the backing and the capacity to "fill" such "holes" often come up with similar excuses. Rather remarkable that, 'eh?

Anyway, it's your right not to be responsive. And, frankly, it wasn't all that unexpected. Have a good one...and here's hoping that your "headache" gets better!

​

 

[BigUnionGuy]

If you feed the Troll

They just come back.... Again and again....

With nothing more, than they have regurgitated.... over and over.

From this site.... to that site.... "ad nauseam"


-Bug-