Ken Hs 2013 Healthcare comes back to bite him

[Hofficer Hater]

Before healthcare has even been discussed in contract negotiations, hall tried to get UPSers in his local to pay for their retiree healthcare out of their own pockets.

hall was removed as Package Director after he negotiated healthcare cuts for more than 100,000 UPS Teamsters. But make no mistake. Hall is still very influential. At the opening of contract negotiations, Hall sat right next to Package Director Denis T.

So when Hall tried to get the UPS Teamsters in his own local to pay for their retiree healthcare, you can bet the company was paying attention and took the move as a sign of weakness.

Last week, Hall had UPSers in his home local vote on a proposal to divert 25¢ an hour out of their wages and put that money toward their retiree healthcare coverage. Many West Virginia Local 175 members balked and Voted No (46%), causing Hall to retract the proposal.

Healthcare has not even been put on the table yet in contract negotiations. If money is needed to protect retiree healthcare, shouldn’t Hall be pushing for the IBT to negotiate that money from UPS instead of trying to make his members pay out of their own pockets?

Apparently, hall has not learned much since he let UPS cut members’ healthcare and retiree healthcare in the last contract.

UPS Teamsters need to be ready to fight for ourselves.

hall Signals Weakness on Healthcare, Again

 

[623STEWARD]

Slow day at the tdu bunker paff?
God sees everything

 

[Brown Down]

Let me clarify since I'm in thst local and know the full story.
1st it was to be a supplement to our retirement benefits since we do pay for our Healthcare coverage after retirement. Plus it was for full time employees only.
2nd it was 25 cents out of both raises this year which they said would go into its own separate account and pay out 200 a month upon retirement to lower said Healthcare costs.
3rd it wasn' a really bad idea but it wasn't worth it monetarily wise for anyone with less than 15 years in as they would never recoup the money put in unless they lived just as long as they drove which to many was risky and most felt they could manage that money better themselves.

So quit posting crap you have no clue about.

 

[DELACROIX]

Let me clarify since I'm in thst local and know the full story.
1st it was to be a supplement to our retirement benefits since we do pay for our Healthcare coverage after retirement. Plus it was for full time employees only.
2nd it was 25 cents out of both raises this year which they said would go into its own separate account and pay out 200 a month upon retirement to lower said Healthcare costs.
3rd it wasn' a really bad idea but it wasn't worth it monetarily wise for anyone with less than 15 years in as they would never recoup the money put in unless they lived just as long as they drove which to many was risky and most felt they could manage that money better themselves.

So quit posting crap you have no clue about.

I am presuming that hall local has it's own Health and Welfare plan, not under the Central Trust's plan. I was totally against the 2013 contract for obvious reasons which have shown up over the last 5 years, the lack of negotiations concerning the retiree's monthly co-pay was very disconcerting. I agree with you that the first blog did not tell the whole story, thanks for clarifying it. I hate to bring up some concerns over this vote, for example why couldn't your members vote to pay 25 cents to help your current retirees considering we are in a contract year. Hate to say it but if Hall is in involved with the current contract negotiations it does not fare well that they are going to put up much of a fight over over any monetary increases in our Health and Welfare benefits (retirees or actives).

 

[BrownMonk]

Let me clarify since I'm in thst local and know the full story.
1st it was to be a supplement to our retirement benefits since we do pay for our Healthcare coverage after retirement. Plus it was for full time employees only.
2nd it was 25 cents out of both raises this year which they said would go into its own separate account and pay out 200 a month upon retirement to lower said Healthcare costs.
3rd it wasn' a really bad idea but it wasn't worth it monetarily wise for anyone with less than 15 years in as they would never recoup the money put in unless they lived just as long as they drove which to many was risky and most felt they could manage that money better themselves.

I am presuming that hall local has it's own Health and Welfare plan, not under the Central Trust's plan. I was totally against the 2013 contract for obvious reasons which have shown up over the last 5 years, the lack of negotiations concerning the retiree's monthly co-pay was very disconcerting. I agree with you that the first blog did not tell the whole story, thanks for clarifying it. I hate to bring up some concerns over this vote, for example why couldn't your members vote to pay 25 cents to help your current retirees considering we are in a contract year. Hate to say it but if hall is in involved with the current contract negotiations it does not fare well that they are going to put up much of a fight over over any monetary increases in our Health and Welfare benefits (retirees or actives).

Thanks for the clarification on the Local 175 proposal. It sounds like the Local was creating a fund to pay the premium for the retiree so they had nothing to pay in retirement. If everyone remembers correctly, it was Hall that put retiree benefit in the Contract in the first place.

Second, you can't officially negotiate for a group that you don't represent. In other words, they can make strong recommendations for the retiree benefits and put them in the plan that allows for it, but they can't demand anything on their behalf. Simple labor law stuff.

 

[BrownFlush]

Let me clarify since I'm in thst local and know the full story.
1st it was to be a supplement to our retirement benefits since we do pay for our Healthcare coverage after retirement. Plus it was for full time employees only.
2nd it was 25 cents out of both raises this year which they said would go into its own separate account and pay out 200 a month upon retirement to lower said Healthcare costs.
3rd it wasn' a really bad idea but it wasn't worth it monetarily wise for anyone with less than 15 years in as they would never recoup the money put in unless they lived just as long as they drove which to many was risky and most felt they could manage that money better themselves.

So quit posting crap you have no clue about.

What you posted is true .
But , because it was rejected , it reveals an ugly truth . The new generation on the scene could care less about those that have paid their dues . If something has nothing in it for them except its the right thing to do , forget about it.
More than a few times in my 30 years we voted to take the hit to protect those who had retired .

 

[Bubblehead]

What you posted is true .
But , because it was rejected , it reveals an ugly truth . The new generation on the scene could care less about those that have paid their dues . If something has nothing in it for them except its the right thing to do , forget about it.
More than a few times in my 30 years we voted to take the hit to protect those who had retired .

Yep, and more than a few times in my 30+ years we have voted to sell out the unborn ("the new generation") as well...

...watch and see if we don't continue to do it in this upcoming contract.

Is one worse than the other???....and is this how we got where we are today???

What comes around, goes around.

 

[Over70irregs]

We all have families we don’t get to see to often during the week. Our knees and backs all take the beating on a daily basis. Young seniority and wiley vets both pay union dues. WE MUST watch out for each other the best we can. The Box Monster does not care for any of us. Stick together guys/gals. We all we got...

 

[BrownFlush]

Yep, and more than a few times in my 30+ years we have voted to sell out the unborn ("the new generation") as well...

...watch and see if we don't continue to do it in this upcoming contract.

Is one worse than the other???....and is this how we got where we are today???

What comes around, goes around.

I must be in denial. Been out 8 plus years , so maybe my long term memory is fading , but I really don't know which contract I voted on that boned the unborn.
If it's done this contract , it won't be a surprise .
If I had to say if one is worse than the other , I would say not taking care of those who are not working would be worse . There is something to be a said about a society and or a brotherhood that doesn't care of the elderly ( not working ) .
What will come around if that is lost will be worse than what went around . You reap what you sow . That law cannot be broken .

 

[okeydoke]

What you posted is true .
But , because it was rejected , it reveals an ugly truth . The new generation on the scene could care less about those that have paid their dues . If something has nothing in it for them except its the right thing to do , forget about it.
More than a few times in my 30 years we voted to take the hit to protect those who had retired .

Just to clarify, the new generation does care. In the meeting that I attended Hall could not answer a simple question about our local 175 healthcare plan. But, he knew the numbers for the proposal and informed us that it would go broke in 12 years. The local voted and realized that the proposal was doomed to fail. That is my opinion.

 

[Bubblehead]

I must be in denial. Been out 8 plus years , so maybe my long term memory is fading , but I really don't know which contract I voted on that boned the unborn.
If it's done this contract , it won't be a surprise .
If I had to say if one is worse than the other , I would say not taking care of those who are not working would be worse . There is something to be a said about a society and or a brotherhood that doesn't care of the elderly ( not working ) .
What will come around if that is lost will be worse than what went around . You reap what you sow . That law cannot be broken .

Seriously???

Do I need to give you a history lesson?

 

[1989NW]

What is stopping UPS from just buying the union out so that they can do what they want?

 

[Bubblehead]

What is stopping UPS from just buying the union out so that they can do what they want?

Buying the Union out of what?

 

[1989NW]

Buying the Union out of what?

Existence

 

[Bubblehead]

What is stopping UPS from just buying the union out so that they can do what they want?

Buying the Union out of what?

Existence

How would that work, @Elwood S. ????....and what would the Union's end game be???

You know what, never mind.....please don't answer this.

 

[BrownFlush]

Just to clarify, the new generation does care. In the meeting that I attended hall could not answer a simple question about our local 175 healthcare plan. But, he knew the numbers for the proposal and informed us that it would go broke in 12 years. The local voted and realized that the proposal was doomed to fail. That is my opinion.

Surprising to hear that from hall . He always had an answer no matter the question .

 

[Bubblehead]

If I had to say if one is worse than the other , I would say not taking care of those who are not working would be worse . There is something to be a said about a society and or a brotherhood that doesn't care of the elderly ( not working ) .

So,...you feel those who we sold out prior to their employment (while they weren't working yet), somehow owe us in our retirement (when we are no longer working)?

Let me ask you this, were you ever part time and how long did it take you to receive benefits when you were hired at UPS??

What was your starting pay rate in relation to minimum wage???

Once you became full time, how long did it take you to reach top scale????

How are those questions answered for today's "new generation"?????

 

[BrownFlush]

Seriously???

Do I need to give you a history lesson?

I'm good . Your point is valid .
What you get handed when you start the job is the deal you get . Nobody looks over their shoulder and wonders which contract the older guys shoved it in them .
Just sayin' , once you are working and you see how things really are , the pattern was to get a good contract for yourself and protect the ones that went before you because the only say they have is the active employee .
That realization was a given and went without saying .

 

[BrownFlush]

So,...you feel those who we sold out prior to their employment (while they weren't working yet), somehow owe us in our retirement (when we are no longer working)?

Let me ask you this, were you ever part time and how long did it take you receive benefits when you were hired at UPS??

Once you became full time, how long did it take you to reach top scale???

How are those questions answered for today's "new generation"????

Hired off the street . 3 years casual .
I don't remember but I think it was 90 days after seniority date . Yeah.. its a little different now .

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Hired off the street . 3 years casual .
I don't remember but I think it was 90 days after seniority date . Yeah.. its a little different now .

"A little different". Wrong answer dude. Apathy begets amnesia? 2 yr progression.(Better) benefits after 30 dys. Welcome to hoff's kitchen. Leftovers abound