Is Central States pension fund ready to go under?

[satellitedriver]

Trust me when I say I won't care. Pension or not I will have myself setup for success come retirement. I will not rely on the false promises by either group.

I do trust that you are planning for your own future, and I agree with your planning.
What I do not understand is your support of IBT, only because they have experience.
The pension money is part of your total pay package negotiated by the teamsters, yet you seem to not care that you will not receive what you earned and given by UPS.
There is only one group that has not met their promises.

You must care or you would not post.

PAX

 

[raceanoncr]

as far as I know none of overnite became teamsters a few years ago. They did vote them in but then could not get a contract and tried to strike and that was the end of the teamsters in overnite. I may not have all exact details but that is about how it was explained to me.

BINGO!!! We have a winner! BUT...Engineer79 researches all the facts and gets all the answers! I think his credibility just got shot down. Let's have just the facts maam!

 

[705red]

Overnite was Teamsters nationwide, and then they had a strike that lasted over 3 years. The Teamster bosses and BA's still received their salaries while the strike was going on, but unfortunately for the drivers and employees who had a family to support, they didn't receive a paycheck and had no choice but to find other work. After the strike was over, Overnite reorganized with mostly new workers and was now non-union. UPS bought Overnite and it is now UPSF. The Teamsters are trying to organize UPSF for no other reason than to collect union dues for themselves, without concern for the working man. The UPSF employees would be foolish to allow the Teamsters to act as their bargaining agent again. Some of the Overnite drivers are still there, so they remember how the Teamsters screwed them over. Why would they want this to happen again? Would you?
Now that I have answered your question, please return the favor and answer one simple question for me. What are the Teamsters offering that we should remain loyal to them? They can't fix the pension problems, they are making cuts to our medical benefits, but they have no problem increasing union dues and taking big salary increases for themselves.

Are you guys instructed to lie to us by van and danny? Overnite was less than 25% unionized when that strike was called, and for you to say they were all nation wide teamsters is just another lie youve been caught telling. How does a union reps salary matter when it comes to the pension? That pension payment cannot go towards their saleries, and they legally cant differ their saleries into the pension funds if they wanted to. Man i hpoe your goals for a single employer fund never happens.

 

[Bill]

Are you guys instructed to lie to us by van and danny? Overnite was less than 25% unionized when that strike was called, and for you to say they were all nation wide teamsters is just another lie youve been caught telling. How does a union reps salary matter when it comes to the pension? That pension payment cannot go towards their saleries, and they legally cant differ their saleries into the pension funds if they wanted to. Man i hpoe your goals for a single employer fund never happens.

You still have not answered my question.

 

[705red]

You still have not answered my question.

2 plus 2 equals 4. Havent seen a question in any of your ramblings. If you have a question please repost it or direct me to it and ill answer it the best i can, if i cant answer it i will say i cant answer it.

 

[raceanoncr]

You still have not answered my question.

Oh, yeah, you DID answer MY question...BUT YOU ANSWERED IT WRONG!!!!

Thanks for the long dissertation on how Overnite was Teamster, nationwide, and how the Teamsters went on strike against Overnite and how all these Overnite people lost their jobs and now all the families are destitute because of the Teamsters! Well, I think even some of your "typical APWAers" posted here that that's wrong!

Geez! Getting all your facts before you post? Gimme a break!

Sure you answered (again, wrongly) that Overnite was Teamster but you failed to answer why the IBT is trying to organize them NOW! What a tangled mess! Let's see...UPS is now organized with IBT...let's go on strike in '97...let's organize UPS...AGAIN! How's that possible?

OK. Go ahead and call me a "typical Teamster" again. But, you know what? When you refer to yourself as more educated than anyone of us and go on to make false statements like this, it really throws a kink into ANY argument about ANYTHING that you want to bring up!

Like you tell so many others here, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! Maybe you'll gain some more supporters for your cause.

On a side note. Your name calling has subsided and I appreciate that. I think we can all listen better when we ain't seeing red.

 

[rapidrandall]

engineer79, Overnight has never been part of the Teamsters. The Teamsters have been trying to organize them for fifty years. If there is an agreement with the Indianopolis hub where there is currently negotiations going on, that would be the first agreement between the Teamsters and Overnight.

 

[705red]

engineer79, Overnight has never been part of the Teamsters. The Teamsters have been trying to organize them for fifty years. If there is an agreement with the Indianopolis hub where there is currently negotiations going on, that would be the first agreement between the Teamsters and Overnight.

Sorry rapid there were overnite barns that we represented by the teamsters. I know of 3 of them in cdicago, nationally it was just under 25% that were teamsters.

 

[raceanoncr]

Sorry rapid there were overnite barns that we represented by the teamsters. I know of 3 of them in cdicago, nationally it was just under 25% that were teamsters.

Exactly, 705! I know there were scattered barns across the country but the point I was trying to make to Eng79 was that he was saying O was Teamster NATIONWIDE! For one thing, they ain't even in all lower 48! Now, I don't care if a person gets the facts wrong once in a while but when that same person says they know ALL the facts before they speak and do all the research and THEN it comes out wrong...then I have a problem!

The trouble is, his speach on this issue alone was so convincing, some will naturally believe ANYTHING he says, whether it's right or wrong!

Now, I know I'm a bonehead on most issues, so I try not to speak if I don't know what I'm talking about. Something like this scares me. It's like Jim Jones telling all the duped to drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[Cole]

You may not agree with en79 or the APWA, but the fact that our pensions at CS were hit like they were causes all kinds friend problems. At this point I have to wonder if UPS isn't tooling the APWA just to weaken negotiations, and make it easier to pull away from CS, which is a possibilty because with that added pressure the Teamsters will be more open to it.

Maybe I am wrong, but that appears to be a possibility.

 

[wildgoose]

You may not agree with en79 or the APWA, but the fact that our pensions at CS were hit like they were causes all kinds friend problems. At this point I have to wonder if UPS isn't tooling the APWA just to weaken negotiations, and make it easier to pull away from CS, which is a possibilty because with that added pressure the Teamsters will be more open to it.

Maybe I am wrong, but that appears to be a possibility.

Hey Cole maybe our teamster brothers that want to be responsible to all the non ups Central States retires how about being responsible to the ups hourlys that arn`t recieving a pension yet and put a helping hand to them for the future by relocating their funds to the underperforming multi employer funds. I bet donuts to dollars they will be back peddaling as fast as they can ! When it comes to sharing the burnden it just ain`t going to happen. I`m not asking for much just the unity that they keep preaching - financial responsibitity = unity with brothers .

 

[JonFrum]

Working Without a Contract???

engineer79, Overnight has never been part of the Teamsters. The Teamsters have been trying to organize them for fifty years. If there is an agreement with the Indianopolis hub where there is currently negotiations going on, that would be the first agreement between the Teamsters and Overnight.

Yes, first the Teamsters organized a worksite, then they were certified as the "exclusive bargaining agent" for the unit, then they *try* to negotiate a first contract. If they can't, then the union will be broken at some point. It's possible to be a "Teamster," and yet not yet have a Teamster contract in place. (Some may say such people shouldn't actually be called Teamsters until they have a signed contract. It's a judgement call.) My Local doesn't require dues to be paid until a contract is signed.

But we should get the process straight because the APWA will be doing a similar thing. First they intend to replace the Teamsters as our "exclusive bargaining agent" in an NLRB election. Once the results are finalized; the NLRB certifies them, and decertifies the Teamsters. At that moment (almost) all things Teamster evaporate. The Contract, and all its provisions disapear. We are without a contract. The pension funds continue, because they are independent entities, but our active participation ceases. No further pension credits accrue. The APWA must now try to negotiate a first contract as best they can with UPS. Of course, we would still be protected by all the Laws of the Land: federal, state, and local. We would also be protected by the NLRB's rules that prohibit Unfair Labor Practices. But not by a union contract. The APWA refers to the success of the UPS Airline Pilots as an example, but their negotiations lasted four years without a new contract!

It is possible for UPS and the APWA to have handshake agreements on any number of issues during the time after the Teamsters' Contract disolves, but this remains to be seen. The NLRB will give the APWA one year to negotiate a signed contract. After that their protected status of "exclusive bargaining agent" evaporates. If a contract is signed, their protected status lasts almost three years, even if the contract lasts longer.

Incidently, Local 705 and Local 710 are both large Chicago area locals and each are a seperate bargaining unit from the single "national master" unit. They are also seperate from each other, so there are actually three UPS bargaining units to deal with. (Not to be confused with Area Supplements.)

 

[Fullhouse]

Well I guess this debunks the theory that UPS is behind APWA! Now that, that issue is clear.
Lets move on to nation wide Teamster Unity! Like wild said,well lets take this one step further. Yo guys can start by writing letters and signing petitions to give to your respective funds, requesting that they send money from their fund to help get central states back on thier feet so all the teamsters can retire and still have their health!
NOT! That will never happen! ehh so much for teamster unity!

 

[krash]

You may not agree with en79 or the APWA, but the fact that our pensions at CS were hit like they were causes all kinds friend problems. At this point I have to wonder if UPS isn't tooling the APWA just to weaken negotiations, and make it easier to pull away from CS, which is a possibilty because with that added pressure the Teamsters will be more open to it.

Maybe I am wrong, but that appears to be a possibility.

Good post

 

[Cole]

To be honest I am up and down on this somewhat lately. I guess because I don't trust UPS a great deal, but I also know alot of Teamsters can't be trusted either, particularly those affiliated with CS.

I think we could run our own Union, and do quite well for ourselves, and on that note, maybe if that happened, it would make the Teamsters try to organize FedEx with alot more diligence etc...since the APWA charter states UPSers only.

If the Machinists can get our mechanics such a good pension why the heck can't the mighty Teamsters get all UPSers the same?! Are the Machinists that much better than the Teamsters, or do they have protections to keep hands out of the cookie jars?! I don't know but it shows it can and should have been done, but for some reason, wasn't, accept to a few, and most top officers.

Yes the Teamsters have gotten us descent pay and benefits the latter which are diminishing, but we have done our parts on our end, and they have profited from us too. The very title Teamsters should mean taking care of your own, but just like UPS turned hard core away from the way Casey wanted people treated, so have some of the Teamsters forgotten who works for who, and too many sweetheart deals are made at our expense everyday, and we just saw a big one in our building, and it goes on all over country. They better get real, real quick, or you know the song..."Don't know what ya got til it's gone"...

Of course that doesn't pertain to those who put the "T" in Teamster, and really give their most honest efforts for the members behalves.

Ok I have vented for the evening!

Peace

 

[nospinzone]

Re: Working Without a Contract???

But we should get the process straight because the APWA will be doing a similar thing. First they intend to replace the Teamsters as our "exclusive bargaining agent" in an NLRB election. Once the results are finalized; the NLRB certifies them, and decertifies the Teamsters. At that moment (almost) all things Teamster evaporate. The Contract, and all its provisions disapear. We are without a contract....... The APWA must now try to negotiate a first contract as best they can with UPS. Of course, we would still be protected by all the Laws of the Land: federal, state, and local. We would also be protected by the NLRB's rules that prohibit Unfair Labor Practices. But not by a union contract. The APWA refers to the success of the UPS Airline Pilots as an example, but their negotiations lasted four years without a new contract!

Jon,
I would like to point out that you are misinformed and drawing an incorrect conclusion to the protection that employees have during contract negotiations. As I have described in previous posts, employers must maintain the STATUS QUO established in the previous contract while negotiating a new contract. Hence, employees do have the protection of a "contract" although technically it has expired. In my previous post, I referenced a case in which the STATUS QUO was enforced by the NLRB in a US Postal workers case. To give you a more succinct and clear definition of this protection, here is an excerpt from a 2004 case in which the long standing Supreme Court precedent of STATUS QUO is explained.

In other words, an employer cannot bargain piecemeal over discrete terms and conditions of employment; instead, it must maintain the status quo of all mandatory subjects of bargaining during the course of contract negotiations. This overall impasse rule is grounded in the longstanding Supreme Court precedent of NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962), in which the Court held that an employer’s unilateral change in a term and condition of employment that is a subject of ongoing contract negotiations is the equivalent of a refusal to bargain over that subject, and therefore violates the employer’s statutory duty to bargain. (SECTION I. Introduction, paragraph 1)

Stated another way, during negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement, an employer must maintain the status quo with regard to all mandatory bargaining subjects absent overall impasse in negotiations. (section IV. Discussion. A. paragraph 2)

If you or Krash have cases which would invalidate STATUS QUO in our situation, please provide them.

Whether this is intentional or not, please stop scaring people with the idea that they will lose all working rights and benefits during negotiations with the APWA. Their villages will not be pillaged. Their women and children will not be raped.

 

[JonFrum]

The Status Quo? . . . I don't know.

Nospinzone,

Please re-read my post. I clearly said that federal, state, and local laws would remain in effect during the negotiation phase. Rape and pillage, and all other criminal acts, would still be illegal. I also said the NLRB's rules that prohibit Unfair Labor Practices remain in effect. But the contract between the Teamsters and UPS ceases to apply the day the NLRB certifies the APWA and decertifies the Teamsters. It's like when a man divorces his wife: when the divorce becomes "final," the marriage contract disolves.

This is the third post that you have used the term "status quo." Before, you seemed to say the entire contract continued in force after the official change of bargaining agents, now you seem to be conceeding that the status quo applies only to mandatory subjects of bargaining. There are a limited number of such mandatory subjects, everything else is non-mandatory. And there will undoubtedly be disputes over which subjects really are mandatory. These are negotiations with UPS after all. So would you at least conceed that there is no status quo protection when it comes to all the many non-mandatory subjects? The mandatory ones would be protected under the Unfair Labor Practice rules, but of course, enforcing those rules will be a major ongoing problem, as enforcing the current contract is now.

The Teamsters contract with UPS will no longer apply. Just read the contract and notice how it makes constant references to the Teamsters (IBT), and its Local Unions. How can this language logically apply when you just decertified them? How, to take just one example, can a decertified BA represent you, or process a grievance, or sit on a grievance panel when you just fired him and stopped paying his salary?

Ideally, the APWA should post an online version of the contract and highlight each clause they claim will still apply after decertification. Then we can all see how many such clauses there are, whether their applicability makes sense, and how likely UPS is to honor them.

I'd also like to see more official quotes about this crucial concept of "status quo." I looked for it on the NLRB website when you first raised it but couldn't find anything.

Do you agree that on the day the APWA is certified, dues payments to the Teamsters stops, as does contributions to the pension and health & welfare funds?

What happens if negotiations drag out past the one year mark and the APWA looses its NLRB protected status?

 

[nospinzone]

Re: The Status Quo? . . . Yes you do know.

Jon,
I clearly understood your post and do not need to re-read.

Wikipedia's definition of status quo reads...
Status quo is a Latin term meaning the present, current, existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are.

The state of things before the decert vote would be work activities defined by the Teamsters contract-- from salary to overtime regulations to senority rules. These are all items negotiated in the contract. Each item in the contract would be in force. As stated in the 2004 case I cited

Section I-Intro. paragraph 1[/URL].

Not a few of the bargaining subjects, but ALL. When I say status quo, I imply the entire contract, as defined by the case above. I do not concede that there will be partial enforcement of the contract during negotiations because the cases I've read do not imply partical enforcement.

My understanding is, that following the vote, APWA business agents would begin taking grievances and using the IBT contract, which defines the status quo, to argue the grievances until an APWA/UPS contract is in place. And UPS would not want to aggravate the NLRB during negotiation with repetitive infractions. I do not read where there is a time limit on status quo, only that negotations are in progress.

APWA does not need to post an online version of the contract highlighting applicable clauses since the whole contract is enforcable. UPS is still free to violate it, as they do now with IBT on a regular basis. It will be up to APWA to protect the IBT contract until a new one is in place.

I'd also like to see more official quotes about this crucial concept of "status quo." I looked for it on the NLRB website when you first raised it but couldn't find anything.

Jon, did you read the case I provided you? Why do you think the NLRB put that case on their website for us to read? That is law. If you choose to ignore that, I have nothing else to offer you because there is nothing else.

Once APWA is certified and is the CBA, benefits paid by UPS will cease to be paid to IBT and will begin going to the APWA. The terms of pension and health/welfare contributions and union dues would still be in force since they are terms of the contract, and status quo is maintained. But all payments would go the CBA as chosen by the membership in the vote.

In the case that a contract is not agreed upon within one year, NLRA allows for a new vote to take place at the end of that year. To be sure,,, the IBT will be using that interim year to organize for another vote.

 

[705red]

Re: The Status Quo? . . . Yes you do know.

Jon,
I clearly understood your post and do not need to re-read.

Wikipedia's definition of status quo reads...
Status quo is a Latin term meaning the present, current, existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are.

The state of things before the decert vote would be work activities defined by the Teamsters contract-- from salary to overtime regulations to senority rules. These are all items negotiated in the contract. Each item in the contract would be in force. As stated in the 2004 case I cited


Not a few of the bargaining subjects, but ALL. When I say status quo, I imply the entire contract, as defined by the case above. I do not concede that there will be partial enforcement of the contract during negotiations because the cases I've read do not imply partical enforcement.

My understanding is, that following the vote, APWA business agents would begin taking grievances and using the IBT contract, which defines the status quo, to argue the grievances until an APWA/UPS contract is in place. And UPS would not want to aggravate the NLRB during negotiation with repetitive infractions. I do not read where there is a time limit on status quo, only that negotations are in progress.

APWA does not need to post an online version of the contract highlighting applicable clauses since the whole contract is enforcable. UPS is still free to violate it, as they do now with IBT on a regular basis. It will be up to APWA to protect the IBT contract until a new one is in place.
Jon, did you read the case I provided you? Why do you think the NLRB put that case on their website for us to read? That is law. If you choose to ignore that, I have nothing else to offer you because there is nothing else.

Once APWA is certified and is the CBA, benefits paid by UPS will cease to be paid to IBT and will begin going to the APWA. The terms of pension and health/welfare contributions and union dues would still be in force since they are terms of the contract, and status quo is maintained. But all payments would go the CBA as chosen by the membership in the vote.

In the case that a contract is not agreed upon within one year, NLRA allows for a new vote to take place at the end of that year. To be sure,,, the IBT will be using that interim year to organize for another vote.

Not alwatys no spin, im not the best researche on line, but if you can look up the afscme out of wisconsin about 2 to 3 years ago they were decertified by the law enforcement part of their union who then formed the wlea. Their (wlea formely afscme) contract was done away with and had to start over from scratch. It was not a pleasant time for the members because they had no bargaining rights until their new contract was in place. Pm me i can give you the names of the wlea organizers who started that decert. I meet them 2 weeks ago and they explained it all to me, if that was to happen here alot of us would be unemployed.

 

[JonFrum]

Status Quo doctrine is limited in scope, hard to enforce

Nospinzone,

Briefly, your view is the entire contract remains in effect after the NLRB decertifies the Teamsters and certifies the APWA. My understanding is the entire contract does not remain in effect.

However, the *limited* doctrine of Maintaining The Status Quo does keep mandatory subjects of bargaining in place, but not all other non-mandatory subjects. There would presumably be major debates between negotiators as to exactly what is, and is not, mandatory, and exactly how much change is allowed before the Status Quo rule is violated. Several subjects would have to change significantly since the APWA proceedures are, by definition, different from the Teamsters. Replacing one union with another is itself a huge change in the Status Quo and has consequences. Alledged violations of the limited Status Quo doctrine might be Unfair Labor Practices, but enforcing each of them would require filing formal charges with the NLRB and waiting for the board to rule on each. It could get ugly.

But, as I hear Bill O'Reilly say every weeknight: "We'll let the folks decide."