ENOUGH IS ENOUGH PEOPLE!!!

[Indecisi0n]

If I never look back how will I know who's behind me?

 

[oldngray]

If I never look back how will I know who's behind me?

Does it matter?

 

[Mugarolla]

In any contract NO ONE gets everything they want. Would I have liked free healthcare that coast me nothing ? Sure who wouldn't, but that was not going to happen. Are there parts of this contract that I do not like? Yes there are. I don't like the fact that the dollar amount was removed for accidents before UPS can take someone out of service. Don't like the four year progression for top pay now for full time. List could go on and on, but do like increased strength for 9.5 ( which does nothing for me now in what I do out there now since I got off the meat grinder of full time driving), I do like cheaper scripts for my family. Give and take it is what happens in contract negotiations.


Healthcare was a national issue no matter how much you voted NO that was set when the national passed on 1st vote. So no holding up the ratification of your rider was just spitting in the wind as far as healthcare was concerned. , and not legal as far as the I.B.T was concerned.

Article 34 Section 2 of the NMUPSA

(b) Notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum, effective January 1, 2014 health and welfare coverage for all full-time and part-time employees on the payroll at that time and those hired thereafter who would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement will instead be provided coverage through the CSH&W Fund regardless of the employee’s work location. Weekly payments for covered employees shall be in accordance with the rules set forth in the applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If there are none then the rules set forth in the Central States Supplement shall apply. UPS will be responsible for making the weekly payments to the CSH&W Plan to provide the medical coverage.

What do you think "Not withstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum" means.

It means that if a rider keeps employees in their current healthplan, they stay there and do not go into Teamcare.

All you people that are saying healthcare is a national issue are full of crap. Why do you think Hoffa imposed the contract. He did not want "certain locals" to not join Teamcare. He saw the writing on the wall.

Look at LU348 under the Ohio Rider. They get to stay in their current healthplan and are not forced into Teamcare. Because their rider says so. Not withstanding any provision...

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Turdferguson]

Not with standing; preposition : in spite of adverb: nevertheless in spite of this conjunction : although in spite of the fact that. Now what does in spite of what is in any rider or suplement mean?

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[purplesky]

OK. Here are a few.

I had no copay for scripts. Now I have to pay $5 generic or name brand.

I have to use to CVS network for my scripts. I used to be able to go anywhere.

Maintanance meds have to be mail order or I am responsible for 50% of the cost.

I had no deductible. I will now have a $200 deductible starting in 2017 and do you really think it will ever go away?

I used to only have to work 1 day a month to maintain my healthcare. Now I have to work 1 day a week or I lose it for that week. So much for taking a week off unpaid if there are extra drivers.

If I have to go to the emergency room for what I think may be a serious problem and am not admitted, I am responsible for 20% of the cost. Was not that way before.

I am limited to Quest for any diagnostic testing. I was able to go anywhere before.

If I see an out of network doctor within 2 years before I die, my family is not eligible for an additional 5 years of medical coverage.

The list goes on but I am tired of typing. Basically I got screwed because I had people in other states voting on my healthcare.

Buster would have settled with the hold outs and let us keep our healthcare, but Hoffa wanted no part of that.

If you want more examples, I could go on for another hour.

I don't think this healthcare is a deal breaker. We did get raises and pension increase?

Looking at the reality of changing healthcare in 2014 I just don't think this is a bad deal.
You don't pay out of pocket for your healthcare? Most people do?

 

[Mugarolla]

I don't think this healthcare is a deal breaker. We did get raises and pension increase?

Looking at the reality of changing healthcare in 2014 I just don't think this is a bad deal.
You don't pay out of pocket for your healthcare? Most people do?

I have said it before. As a whole, compared to many other companies health insurance, Teamcare is pretty good. The problem I have with it is that it is nowhere near as good as what I had.

If UPS was hurting like ABF, YRC, etc. I could see taking concessions. UPS is not hurting. Record profits. Why did I have to take a concession.

I know some of you will point out the earnings just released. They still netted $1.2 Billion. They took a one time charge, on the books, of like $600 Million for the pension. Most likely related to having to catch up because the contract took almost a year to settle.

If they make $1 Billion again next quarter, there will be no pension charge, I took a healthcare concession for a company making record profits. BS.

Actually I was forced into a concession by Hoffa. We were leading a good fight to keep our healthcare until Hoffa stuck his brown nose into it.

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Mugarolla]

Not with standing; preposition : in spite of adverb: nevertheless in spite of this conjunction : although in spite of the fact that. Now what does in spite of what is in any rider or suplement mean?

Sent using BrownCafe App

We know what it means because LU348 was not forced into Teamcare because of a letter of understanding in the Ohio Rider.

If that clause meant that everyone was going into Teamcare no matter what their supplement or rider said, then LU348 would be going into Teamcare. They are not. Their rider says they don't have too.

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[959Nanook]

We know what it means because LU348 was not forced into Teamcare because of a letter of understanding in the Ohio Rider.

If that clause meant that everyone was going into Teamcare no matter what their supplement or rider said, then LU348 would be going into Teamcare. They are not. Their rider says they don't have too.

Sent using BrownCafe App

Just curious, did your Local have a Health and Welfare Fund ready and willing to accept you? Jurisdictions that failed to pass their Riders and Supplements were allowed to opt out of TeamCare if they had an alternative H&W willing and able to accept them or were able to establish a H&W alternative (yes, it had to be deemed equivalent or better). More importantly, were you forced out of your Local's H&W as you suggest that brothers and sisters from Local 348 should have been when you use them as the example of the exception to the rule?

I understand the overall concern that you are voicing in this thread and I appreciate your specific factual input about how your health care has changed; however, I think you muddy the waters if you raise Local 348 and it turns out that your Jurisdiction was unable or unwilling to provide an alternative to TeamCare.

 

[Mugarolla]

Just curious, did your Local have a Health and Welfare Fund ready and willing to accept you? Jurisdictions that failed to pass their Riders and Supplements were allowed to opt out of TeamCare if they had an alternative H&W willing and able to accept them or were able to establish a H&W alternative (yes, it had to be deemed equivalent or better). More importantly, were you forced out of your Local's H&W as you suggest that brothers and sisters from Local 348 should have been when you use them as the example of the exception to the rule?

I understand the overall concern that you are voicing in this thread and I appreciate your specific factual input about how your health care has changed; however, I think you muddy the waters if you raise Local 348 and it turns out that your Jurisdiction was unable or unwilling to provide an alternative to TeamCare.

Did I ever suggest that LU348 members should be forced into Teamcare? No. Hell, I was ticked off that I was forced into it. I would not want anyone else to have been forced into it without their consent.

This came up because most people don't understand the language in the NMUPSA. The clause "Notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum...has people confused as to what it means. According to Merriam Webster -

Notwithstanding - Merriam-Webster Online

without being prevented by (something)

So, the language in question should read as follows:

"Without being prevented by" any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum, effective January 1, 2014 health and welfare coverage for all full-time and part-time employees on the payroll at that time and those hired thereafter who would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement will instead be provided coverage through the CSH&W Fund regardless of the employee’s work location. Weekly payments for covered employees shall be in accordance with the rules set forth in the applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If there are none then the rules set forth in the Central States Supplement shall apply. UPS will be responsible for making the weekly payments to the CSH&W Plan to provide the medical coverage.

My local, or rider, did not have me in a healthcare plan, but according to the contract, my rider could have addressed this issue and it would take precedence over the master, as stated in Article 25 Section 2. It pisses me off that there are still people saying that healthcare is in the national contract so it cannot be negotiated in a supplement or rider. Hoffa and Hall were even pushing that BS telling people to vote yes because Teamcare is a done deal.

LU348 in Akron, Ohio came up because, if what Hoffa and Hall were correct in what they were trying to force down our throats, then LU348 would be forced into Teamcare.

Jurisdictions that failed to pass their Riders and Supplements were allowed to opt out of TeamCare if they had an alternative H&W willing and able to accept them or were able to establish a H&W alternative (yes, it had to be deemed equivalent or better).

This is not correct. Local 348 got to keep their healthplan, not get pushed into Teamcare, to benefit non UPSers. But, they got to keep it due to the clause in the Ohio Rider, not because of an alternative healthplan and "opting" out of Teamcare.

Ohio Rider To The Central Region

OHIO CONFERENCE
OF TEAMSTERS U P S, INC.

Pat Darrow, Chairman Karl Martin, Chairman

LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Local 348 will maintain their current Health and Welfare Plan for the life of
this Agreement.

For the Union: For the Company:

_____________________ ___________________

Pat Darrow Karl Martin

Date _____/_____/_____ Date _____/_____/_____

 

[959Nanook]

Did I ever suggest that LU348 members should be forced into Teamcare?
…

Semantically, I asked a different question than whether they should be “forced into Teamcare”. I asked:

More importantly, were you forced out of your Local's H&W as you suggest that brothers and sisters from Local 348 should have been when you use them as the example of the exception to the rule?

On more than one occasion, you have referenced Local 348 when discussing Article 34, Section 2 (b) but the language never applied to Local 348. They would not have “had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement” because they were already covered by their own health and welfare coverage prior to this Agreement. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you were never in the same boat as Local 348. They are the proverbial apple (had their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage thus would not have been provided by an Employer) and you are the proverbial orange (would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to the Agreement if not for the language saying that you are now in TeamCare). Article 34, Section 2 (b) only applies to oranges. You would have to force Local 348 out of their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage before Article 34, Section 2 (b) could even be applied to Local 348. My broader point then and now is that you need to find a jurisdiction that Article 34, Section 2 (b) actually applied to before you start chiding others about health care being a National issue once the National Master Agreement passed.

…
Jurisdictions that failed to pass their Riders and Supplements were allowed to opt out of TeamCare if they had an alternative H&W willing and able to accept them or were able to establish a H&W alternative (yes, it had to be deemed equivalent or better).
…

This is not correct. Local 348 got to keep their healthplan, not get pushed into Teamcare, to benefit non UPSers. But, they got to keep it due to the clause in the Ohio Rider, not because of an alternative healthplan and "opting" out of Teamcare.

My statement is absolutely correct. I have already explained in this post that Local 348 had no need to opt out of TeamCare because they were never going to be in TeamCare. You, on the other hand, were going to be in TeamCare “notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum” once the NMA passed. Your jurisdiction had a choice to propose and pass a provision in a Supplement, Rider, or Addendum and essentially opt out of TeamCare. It would seem that your jurisdiction chose to double down on the No Vote because you were unhappy with outcome of the NMA vote. Western Region was not happy with the outcome of the NMA vote either; however, we didn’t double down on the No Vote. We made damn sure there was a provision in the Western Region Supplement and passed our Supplement before January 1, 2014.

…
Actually I was forced into a concession by Hoffa. We were leading a good fight to keep our healthcare until Hoffa stuck his brown nose into it.
…

This may come across as harsh but your jurisdiction played their hand and lost. You were not forced into a concession by Hoffa though I certainly understand why you might feel that way. Whether you were aware or not, the decision makers in your jurisdiction (be they the membership and/or the leadership) made a calculated decision not to be proactive about avoiding TeamCare in accordance with Article 34, Section 2 (b). They decided to take a much more passive approach and double down on the No Vote rather than using the language in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to opt out of TeamCare. Some jurisdictions chose to play their hand different and they are not in TeamCare now. Only time will tell who played their hand the best. Frankly, you were going into TeamCare as soon as the NMA was ratified once you allowed the January 1, 2014 deadline in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to pass by with no provision in your applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If you need to be angry at anyone, you should be looking internally to your jurisdiction. They bluffed and they got called by the nut hand.

 

[Mugarolla]

Semantically, I asked a different question than whether they should be “forced into Teamcare”. I asked:


On more than one occasion, you have referenced Local 348 when discussing Article 34, Section 2 (b) but the language never applied to Local 348. They would not have “had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement” because they were already covered by their own health and welfare coverage prior to this Agreement. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you were never in the same boat as Local 348. They are the proverbial apple (had their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage thus would not have been provided by an Employer) and you are the proverbial orange (would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to the Agreement if not for the language saying that you are now in TeamCare). Article 34, Section 2 (b) only applies to oranges. You would have to force Local 348 out of their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage before Article 34, Section 2 (b) could even be applied to Local 348. My broader point then and now is that you need to find a jurisdiction that Article 34, Section 2 (b) actually applied to before you start chiding others about health care being a National issue once the National Master Agreement passed.





My statement is absolutely correct. I have already explained in this post that Local 348 had no need to opt out of TeamCare because they were never going to be in TeamCare. You, on the other hand, were going to be in TeamCare “notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum” once the NMA passed. Your jurisdiction had a choice to propose and pass a provision in a Supplement, Rider, or Addendum and essentially opt out of TeamCare. It would seem that your jurisdiction chose to double down on the No Vote because you were unhappy with outcome of the NMA vote. Western Region was not happy with the outcome of the NMA vote either; however, we didn’t double down on the No Vote. We made damn sure there was a provision in the Western Region Supplement and passed our Supplement before January 1, 2014.



This may come across as harsh but your jurisdiction played their hand and lost. You were not forced into a concession by Hoffa though I certainly understand why you might feel that way. Whether you were aware or not, the decision makers in your jurisdiction (be they the membership and/or the leadership) made a calculated decision not to be proactive about avoiding TeamCare in accordance with Article 34, Section 2 (b). They decided to take a much more passive approach and double down on the No Vote rather than using the language in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to opt out of TeamCare. Some jurisdictions chose to play their hand different and they are not in TeamCare now. Only time will tell who played their hand the best. Frankly, you were going into TeamCare as soon as the NMA was ratified once you allowed the January 1, 2014 deadline in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to pass by with no provision in your applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If you need to be angry at anyone, you should be looking internally to your jurisdiction. They bluffed and they got called by the nut hand.

You made some very good points, but I do not feel that I was forced onto Teamcare because a rider did not pass before january 1 2014. If the rider passed with no provision for healthcare, then I would be forced into Teamcare. I had until the rider passed to come up with an alternative to Teamcare...being a new plan or staying in my existing plan. Notwithstanding any provision...

We will never know though because Hoffa imposed the rider without giving us a chance of not accepting Teamcare.

Sent using BrownCafe App