Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="beentheredonethat" data-source="post: 1093144" data-attributes="member: 4886"><p>You bring up an excellent point.  Back in 97, the main sticking point is the UPS wanted to take over the pension funds, (like we recently did for both New England pension fund and for Central states). UPS knew that the funds were mismanaged and due to the laws out there, they were liable for bad investments in those funds.   The teamsters sold it as FT jobs. But as you said, if the 22.3 jobs were so darned important that they were willing to strike over it, why then are they not that important to enforce the contract?   The reason.... it wasn't really about the 22.3 jobs, the main issue was control of the pension.</p></blockquote><p></p>