Right to Work,

[JonFrum]

No, employers (per se) did NOT "underfund Central States"; rather, they paid their negotiated contributions....UNLESS they were put out of business by the Teamsters (which, for example, was the case with 90% or more of the LTL employers) and were no longer able to pay into the funds. Or afford the withdrawal fee, for that matter.

What did the Teamsters do in reaction to these employers going out of business and leaving liabilities behind? Did they reduce the pension payouts? Did they organize new employers to keep up the contribution level? Nope...they did neither, counting on the remaining employers to make good THEIR (the Teamsters) screw-up.

Lastly, as "pitiful" as the UPS pension fund for the part-timers is (pension accrual rates or whatever), it has to be immeasurably better than "nothing", which appears to be what plans such as Cen. States will have to offer. Nor do the majority of the p/t'er - those who DON'T plan on retiring from UPS - have to look at the monies that are gathered in THEIR name being handed off to a Teamster plan from which they'll NEVER derive any benefit. 'Course, the Teamster plans like the idea because (1) they collect the funds based on the employee while (2) realizing it's more than likely the employee in question will never vest any earnings from those contributions.

As for your claim that "ll the Teamsters could do is try to negotiate higher contribution rates", that's absolute B.S. They could have done a myriad of different things to correctly alter the situation. First off, they could have stopped being so damned greedy, and behaved in such a manner that employers could stay in business and/or not go out of business simply to avoid being infested by them. That, of course, goes hand in hand with organizing new employers to replace the ones they cast aside. That, however, is difficult when the Teamsters created for themselves a reputation in which companies quite literally see "organization" by the Teamsters as 'the kiss of death" (and, given history, that view is quite justifiable). Lastly, they could have reduce payouts to match income...but that would have antagonized those who see things like you apparently do; i.e. - that's there's an inexhaustible supply of OTHERS wealth available to pay the bill.

Beyond that, there was simply no way for UPS to "shore up the fund"; that would have been like trying to mop us the sea. The six billion or so that was paid is, by all "fairness" means, an outrageous fine to pay for the transgression of being involved with the Teamsters. As for the withdrawal itself, one saw the writing on that wall with the resolution of the '97 strike, in which Central States and the Teamsters "blinked" to end the standoff by agreeing to the $100,000,000 concession to UPS in order to avoid bankrupting the fund at a much earlier date.

Anyway, in terms of what "anyone can see", there IS a lot for "anyone to see"...but they're going to actually have to use their OWN eyes, instead of looking through the rose-colored lenses the Teamsters have set in front of them for decades now.

When employers, includeing UPS, paid their contractually negotiated contributions into the Central States Pension Fund, that was not the end of their responsibility. If the Fund was only say, 70% funded, the cumulative negotiated contributions represented only a 70% payment, the remaining 30% was still legally owed. Thus, when UPS negotiates the contribution rates, and tries to keep them low, it knows it is underfunding the Fund, and is legally liable for a sizeable Withdrawal Payment should it seek to leave the Fund. That 's why when UPS "generously" offered to pay $4 billion to withdraw from the Fund, the Fund said, ah, excuse me, but you legally owe us $6.1 billion, and not a penny less. It was a debt UPS owed, not an "outrageous fine."

Incidentally, If a 17 year old UPSer is covered by a multi-employer pension fund, and he gets Vested in five years, UPS guarantees that man's pension until he (and his surviving spouse) die. If he (or his surviving spouse) lives to be 97, that means UPS is legally responsible for 80 years. If UPS is still around and still a contributing employer, it is legally responsible for fully funding that UPSer's pension for the full eight decades. Any time the assets of the Fund drop below 100% during that period, UPS is legally obligated to make up the difference one way or another. This is why UPS abandoned the Fund and also orphaned those UPSers who, at the time, were retired, or seperated and awaiting retirement.
- - - -
The accrual rate for the new UPS/IBT plan is currently $147 toward your future monthly pension benefit. That's lower than any other Teamster-sponsored plan covering UPSers . The accrual rate for my New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Plan, which is in terrible financial shape, is $248, by comparison.
- - - -
UPS has made it almost impossible for the Teamsters to organize any new bargaining units into Central States. UPS withdrew, seriously damageing the fund. UPS kept UPS Freight out of the fund even as it allowed the Teamsters to organize the unit without objection. UPS and the Teamsters (and especially you) make it clear that any new bargaining unit will be organized not for their benefit, but to hamstring them as they compete with UPS. Their contributions to Central States would not be used exclusively for their retirement, but confiscated to make up for the fund's past losses. Who would join the Fund knowing such things?

As an Olympic Sponsor, UPS fancied itself as a team of industrial athletes engaged in the spirit of Olympic competition. But their real inspiration is Tonya Harding. Win by crippling the competition.
- - - -
Trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons, just like companies in other industries: de-regulation, over-regulation, poor management, high taxes, bad luck, costs of 9-11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism, etc. Not to mention having to compete directly or indirectly with UPS, the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

 

[JonFrum]

Come on man. People are lining up to become Teamsters. They just organized 12 school bus drivers in Butte Montana.

Now that you mention it . . .


http://www.schoolbusworkersunited.org/victories_us

 

[UnconTROLLed]

When employers, includeing UPS, paid their contractually negotiated contributions into the Central States Pension Fund, that was not the end of their responsibility. If the Fund was only say, 70% funded, the cumulative negotiated contributions represented only a 70% payment, the remaining 30% was still legally owed. Thus, when UPS negotiates the contribution rates, and tries to keep them low, it knows it is underfunding the Fund, and is legally liable for a sizeable Withdrawal Payment should it seek to leave the Fund. That 's why when UPS "generously" offered to pay $4 billion to withdraw from the Fund, the Fund said, ah, excuse me, but you legally owe us $6.1 billion, and not a penny less. It was a debt UPS owed, not an "outrageous fine."

Incidentally, If a 17 year old UPSer is covered by a multi-employer pension fund, and he gets Vested in five years, UPS guarantees that man's pension until he (and his surviving spouse) die. If he (or his surviving spouse) lives to be 97, that means UPS is legally responsible for 80 years. If UPS is still around and still a contributing employer, it is legally responsible for fully funding that UPSer's pension for the full eight decades. Any time the assets of the Fund drop below 100% during that period, UPS is legally obligated to make up the difference one way or another. This is why UPS abandoned the Fund and also orphaned those UPSers who, at the time, were retired, or seperated and awaiting retirement.
- - - -
The accrual rate for the new UPS/IBT plan is currently $147 toward your future monthly pension benefit. That's lower than any other Teamster-sponsored plan covering UPSers . The accrual rate for my New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Plan, which is in terrible financial shape, is $248, by comparison.
- - - -
UPS has made it almost impossible for the Teamsters to organize any new bargaining units into Central States. UPS withdrew, seriously damageing the fund. UPS kept UPS Freight out of the fund even as it allowed the Teamsters to organize the unit without objection. UPS and the Teamsters (and especially you) make it clear that any new bargaining unit will be organized not for their benefit, but to hamstring them as they compete with UPS. Their contributions to Central States would not be used exclusively for their retirement, but confiscated to make up for the fund's past losses. Who would join the Fund knowing such things?

As an Olympic Sponsor, UPS fancied itself as a team of industrial athletes engaged in the spirit of Olympic competition. But their real inspiration is Tonya Harding. Win by crippling the competition.
- - - -
Trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons, just like companies in other industries: de-regulation, over-regulation, poor management, high taxes, bad luck, costs of 9-11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism, etc. Not to mention having to compete directly or indirectly with UPS, the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

SCB, aka pablocarlos, is a hardened anti-union troll that goes around website forums with union discussion and plays the contrarian in every debate for negative attention. Check out Teamster.net forum.

If there is someone to NOT waste your breathe on, it is that troll.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrom;

Your argument seems all good and well...except for the fact that your forgot a few things.

(1) The Teamsters union had an obligation to see that the funding they negotiated WAS sufficient to cover the funds obligations, if through no other way than by agreeing to reduce payouts, as necessary. And that sufficiency was NOT to be obtained solely by jacking up rates on a limited few contributors, but by making sure ALL the contributors had a means of competing and being able to pay those rates. There, the Teamsters failed miserably.

(2) The memorandum regarding CSPF which the Teamsters signed the contract PRIOR to UPS's pullout, in which UPS agreed to stay in the fund, while the Teamsters agreed to attempt to achieve full-funding, as exemplified by the Western States fund (which was specifically mentioned in the memorandum). UPS held up its end of that bargain; the Teamsters didn't.

Lastly, I find your whole thrust of the problem as being one of UPS's responsibility somewhat comparable to saying that a parent, who co-signed on a student loan for his child, is totally "responsible" for that child's defaulting on the loan after he's an adult, out of school, and has a decent job to boot. Legally, you may be right; the parent shares a legal responsibility for making good the loan. The parent, however, is not the one that's MORALLY responsible, nor the party that caused the loan to be bad.

As for the and "trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons", well perhaps you don't remember when UPS rang its victory bell at corporate headquarters in Manhattan (and then Greenwich) every time a new operating authority was granted...and how much time, effort, and money (at EVERY level - driver to CEO) was expended in obtaining those authorities. Or how the value of those operating authorities plummeted to nothing overnight with the coming of deregulation. In that, UPS had more to lose via deregulation (having the largest expanse of operating authority) than any other union firm out there...but it survived, while 98% of the "union" truckers then in existence either went out of business, or found a way to go NON-union. Yeah, they went out of business for "a lot of reasons", alright...and every one of 'em involved the burden imposed upon them by the Teamsters. And how many of them - firms which for "a lot of reasons" went out of business, but would NOT have gone out of business if the union hadn't been so blind - would have continued contributing to the pension trusts? And, for that matter, have been equally liable for underfunding as UPS?

Lastly, as one who - in a minor way, at least - helped UPS grow throughout the years, I take umbrage with your "800 pound gorilla" comment. You seem to indicate that UPS was always an immense shadow over the industry, apparently forgetting that it wasn't THAT long ago (early 1970's, say) when UPS was a relatively small firm - even compared to other trucking companies, such as Yellow and Roadway. Or that it was known as "the company that takes the freight no one else wants". Perhaps you weren't one of those the UPSers who the drivers from the "big" trucking firms would make fun of as you worked harder than they picking up small packages on docks...packages which the claimed were too small and unprofitable to bother with. And perhaps you weren't one who, as a driver, went out on your own time (along with scads of other drivers) to obtain signatures from customers on petitions asking that UPS be granted operating authority in a far-off state simply because you wished to secure your own job as well as that of others. And perhaps you don't remember the articles in "The Big Idea" which showed that bell being rung as the efforts of yourself and hundreds like you finally bore fruit. And perhaps you don't feel the sense of betrayal those of us who did put forth that effort for our company, feel when those of OTHER companies - union members who used to make fun of our work ethic - come to us for a handout in terms of covering the liability of employers THEY put out of business.

There are, however, those of us who remember those "old days". And we're quite aware of what caused the Teamsters pension underfunding problem, thank you.....and we aren't all that inclined to simply pass off their irresponsibility as something we should be held liable for.

 

[JonFrum]

SCB, aka pablocarlos, is a hardened anti-union troll that goes around website forums with union discussion and plays the contrarian in every debate for negative attention. Check out Teamster.net forum.

If there is someone to NOT waste your breathe on, it is that troll.

I'm well aware of SCB's life-long obsessions, and his trolling on TeamsterNet, and even Browncafe a while back. Unfortunately, newer members may not be.

He'll probably get himself banned again eventually, but for now, so long as he is apparently able to post, his rants need to be answered. Browncafe has enough misinformation posted as it is.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

JonFrom;

Your argument seems all good and well...except for the fact that your forgot a few things.

(1) The Teamsters union had an obligation to see that the funding they negotiated WAS sufficient to cover the funds obligations, if through no other way than by agreeing to reduce payouts, as necessary. And that sufficiency was NOT to be obtained solely by jacking up rates on a limited few contributors, but by making sure ALL the contributors had a means of competing and being able to pay those rates. There, the Teamsters failed miserably.

(2) The memorandum regarding CSPF which the Teamsters signed the contract PRIOR to UPS's pullout, in which UPS agreed to stay in the fund, while the Teamsters agreed to attempt to achieve full-funding, as exemplified by the Western States fund (which was specifically mentioned in the memorandum). UPS held up its end of that bargain; the Teamsters didn't.

Lastly, I find your whole thrust of the problem as being one of UPS's responsibility somewhat comparable to saying that a parent, who co-signed on a student loan for his child, is totally "responsible" for that child's defaulting on the loan after he's an adult, out of school, and has a decent job to boot. Legally, you may be right; the parent shares a legal responsibility for making good the loan. The parent, however, is not the one that's MORALLY responsible, nor the party that caused the loan to be bad.

As for the and "trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons", well perhaps you don't remember when UPS rang its victory bell at corporate headquarters in Manhattan (and then Greenwich) every time a new operating authority was granted...and how much time, effort, and money (at EVERY level - driver to CEO) was expended in obtaining those authorities. Or how the value of those operating authorities plummeted to nothing overnight with the coming of deregulation. In that, UPS had more to lose via deregulation (having the largest expanse of operating authority) than any other union firm out there...but it survived, while 98% of the "union" truckers then in existence either went out of business, or found a way to go NON-union. Yeah, they went out of business for "a lot of reasons", alright...and every one of 'em involved the burden imposed upon them by the Teamsters. And how many of them - firms which for "a lot of reasons" went out of business, but would NOT have gone out of business if the union hadn't been so blind - would have continued contributing to the pension trusts? And, for that matter, have been equally liable for underfunding as UPS?

Lastly, as one who - in a minor way, at least - helped UPS grow throughout the years, I take umbrage with your "800 pound gorilla" comment. You seem to indicate that UPS was always an immense shadow over the industry, apparently forgetting that it wasn't THAT long ago (early 1970's, say) when UPS was a relatively small firm - even compared to other trucking companies, such as Yellow and Roadway. Or that it was known as "the company that takes the freight no one else wants". Perhaps you weren't one of those the UPSers who the drivers from the "big" trucking firms would make fun of as you worked harder than they picking up small packages on docks...packages which the claimed were too small and unprofitable to bother with. And perhaps you weren't one who, as a driver, went out on your own time (along with scads of other drivers) to obtain signatures from customers on petitions asking that UPS be granted operating authority in a far-off state simply because you wished to secure your own job as well as that of others. And perhaps you don't remember the articles in "The Big Idea" which showed that bell being rung as the efforts of yourself and hundreds like you finally bore fruit. And perhaps you don't feel the sense of betrayal those of us who did put forth that effort for our company, feel when those of OTHER companies - union members who used to make fun of our work ethic - come to us for a handout in terms of covering the liability of employers THEY put out of business.

There are, however, those of us who remember those "old days". And we're quite aware of what caused the Teamsters pension underfunding problem, thank you.....and we aren't all that inclined to simply pass off their irresponsibility as something we should be held liable for.

 

[JonFrum]

JonFrom;

Your argument seems all good and well...except for the fact that your forgot a few things.

(1) The Teamsters union had an obligation to see that the funding they negotiated WAS sufficient to cover the funds obligations, if through no other way than by agreeing to reduce payouts, as necessary. And that sufficiency was NOT to be obtained solely by jacking up rates on a limited few contributors, but by making sure ALL the contributors had a means of competing and being able to pay those rates. There, the Teamsters failed miserably.

(2) The memorandum regarding CSPF which the Teamsters signed the contract PRIOR to UPS's pullout, in which UPS agreed to stay in the fund, while the Teamsters agreed to attempt to achieve full-funding, as exemplified by the Western States fund (which was specifically mentioned in the memorandum). UPS held up its end of that bargain; the Teamsters didn't.

Lastly, I find your whole thrust of the problem as being one of UPS's responsibility somewhat comparable to saying that a parent, who co-signed on a student loan for his child, is totally "responsible" for that child's defaulting on the loan after he's an adult, out of school, and has a decent job to boot. Legally, you may be right; the parent shares a legal responsibility for making good the loan. The parent, however, is not the one that's MORALLY responsible, nor the party that caused the loan to be bad.

As for the and "trucking companies go out of business for lots of reasons", well perhaps you don't remember when UPS rang its victory bell at corporate headquarters in Manhattan (and then Greenwich) every time a new operating authority was granted...and how much time, effort, and money (at EVERY level - driver to CEO) was expended in obtaining those authorities. Or how the value of those operating authorities plummeted to nothing overnight with the coming of deregulation. In that, UPS had more to lose via deregulation (having the largest expanse of operating authority) than any other union firm out there...but it survived, while 98% of the "union" truckers then in existence either went out of business, or found a way to go NON-union. Yeah, they went out of business for "a lot of reasons", alright...and every one of 'em involved the burden imposed upon them by the Teamsters. And how many of them - firms which for "a lot of reasons" went out of business, but would NOT have gone out of business if the union hadn't been so blind - would have continued contributing to the pension trusts? And, for that matter, have been equally liable for underfunding as UPS?

Lastly, as one who - in a minor way, at least - helped UPS grow throughout the years, I take umbrage with your "800 pound gorilla" comment. You seem to indicate that UPS was always an immense shadow over the industry, apparently forgetting that it wasn't THAT long ago (early 1970's, say) when UPS was a relatively small firm - even compared to other trucking companies, such as Yellow and Roadway. Or that it was known as "the company that takes the freight no one else wants". Perhaps you weren't one of those the UPSers who the drivers from the "big" trucking firms would make fun of as you worked harder than they picking up small packages on docks...packages which the claimed were too small and unprofitable to bother with. And perhaps you weren't one who, as a driver, went out on your own time (along with scads of other drivers) to obtain signatures from customers on petitions asking that UPS be granted operating authority in a far-off state simply because you wished to secure your own job as well as that of others. And perhaps you don't remember the articles in "The Big Idea" which showed that bell being rung as the efforts of yourself and hundreds like you finally bore fruit. And perhaps you don't feel the sense of betrayal those of us who did put forth that effort for our company, feel when those of OTHER companies - union members who used to make fun of our work ethic - come to us for a handout in terms of covering the liability of employers THEY put out of business.

There are, however, those of us who remember those "old days". And we're quite aware of what caused the Teamsters pension underfunding problem, thank you.....and we aren't all that inclined to simply pass off their irresponsibility as something we should be held liable for.

The Teamsters do not control the pension funds; the pension fund trustees do. The funds are independent legal entities, run according to very strict ERISA mandates. Despite the fact that half the trustees are also Teamster Union officials, they do not constitute a majority of the Board. The Teamsters Union can't order the Board of Trustees to do anything, just as they can't order UPS to fully fund the pension plans.

The Teamsters are not responsible for the severe market downturns of 2000 and 2008. Almost everyone lost a lot of money, not just Teamster-sponsored pension funds. Apparently the plunging markets "never got the Memo."

UPS is a Contributing Employer to the funds, and has been since before many UPSers were born. UPS, and all other Contributing Employers, are totally, legally responsible for funding the plans. UPS is not co-signing a child's student loan. They themselves contracted with the funds directly, by signing the legal documents, (before current employees were old enough to even spell U-P-S), to guarantee monthly pension payments for their employees for decades to come. That's why UPS was made to payoff their $6.1 billion Withdrawal Liability, (which they did on December 26, 2007, in one fell swoop.) Full-time Central States UPSers had no liability whatsoever.

What a shame UPS couldn't see fit to contribute the $6.1 billion to Central States in a way that would have earned a decade of Pension Credits for its covered employees, instead of paying it in the form of a Withdrawal Liability Payment, which accrued UPSers no additional Pension Credits whatsoever, and cut adrift all allready seperated and retired UPSers in the process.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrom;

Re: your statement of...

"He'll probably get himself banned again eventually...", etc.

What is it about vocal Teamsters such as yourself that seems to compel you guys to lie? It's almost come to the point that the words "Teamster" and "honest" can't be used in the same sentence anymore. Do guys like you think you're enhancing your union's status in such a fashion? What?

That's not just idle curiosity; I really would like to know.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jon;

You just keep on spinnin', don't ya'? [smile] For example, your claim that "The Teamsters do not control the pension funds; the pension fund trustees do" sounds real cute...until one realizes that a full HALF the trustees in funds such as Cen. States are appointed by - and serve at the pleasure of - the Teamster's union, while the remaining half of the trusteeship is SPLIT among ALL the contributing employers. Think it's real hard for the Teamsters to find one shaky minor employer board member willing to let his vote be swayed in return for a sweetheart deal of some sort,, do ya'? Think it's never happened? Think ABF is just spittin' in the wind now because they FEEL like it? Or that ABF and/or an "independent" trustee board voted to extend pension contribution forgiveness to YRCW WITHOUT the
Teamsters controlling the process? REALLY?


As for your claim that...

"The Teamsters Union can't order the Board of Trustees to do anything"

...did you read "Sprague v. CSPF", and note the common admissions of CSPF, the Teamsters, and the company? What? Did the 1997 settlement NOT happen??

Also, I'm curious; just how could UPS...

"see fit to contribute the $6.1 billion to Central States in a way that would have earned a decade of Pension Credits for its covered employees, instead of paying it in the form of a Withdrawal Liability Payment, which accrued UPSers no additional Pension Credits whatsoever, and cut adrift all allready[sp] seperated[sp] and retired UPSers in the process."

...in that just how was there supposed to be an "accrual" with an entity that was essentially broke EVEN WITH a six billion dollar enhancement?!? (which, BTW, was NOT the actual liability amount, but rather represents a sizable contribution on the part of UPS beyond the legal liability to assure at least some continuing coverage of its employees under the C.S. plan). Do you think that UPS should hold itself out to cover for the screw-ups of all Teamsters, at all locations, for all eternity, no matter who they may have worked for or when? Do you realize how badly the Teamsters had already screwed over their UPS employee brothers by squandering so much that had been contributed in THEIR names on OTHER, less-deserving Teamsters? You know...those Teamsters who's employers "went out of business for a lot of reasons"[grin...s.u.r.e.!]

In truth, you're entire spiel seems somewhat on the order of some street bum blaming the lottery commission for his poverty because they didn't shovel the sweepstakes winnings his way. You seem to think that UPS owes the Teamsters a "free lunch" for frittering away untold wealth. Sorry...I'm not buying that.

No, the Teamsters aren't SOLELY responsible for the market turn downs (although, as "heavies" in the financial sector, they most assuredly bear at least a degree of responsibility. And, through their contributions to a political party that pushed entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the foreground, a fairly large degree at that) However, they *ARE* responsible for there being substantially more eligible recipients in the funds than there are members who's employers are making contributions in their names. I.e. - it wasn't any "market down turn" that caused the funds to turn topsy-turvy in terms of the employee/pensioner ratio. Don't see a problem with 3-4 times as many pensioners as contributing workers? Think any market upturn is going to correct THAT situation? Think again.

As so many Teamsters, you seem to want to keep your head buried in the sand. With you guys, it's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem to fix. Meanwhile, your union is becoming toast, the members pension are being being frittered away, and the membership's remaining viable employers are folding under non-union competitive pressure because you guys are too darned lazy to get off your duffs and face reality.

Question. Do you plan on giving the same excuses to the remaining million or so Teamsters when they all lose THEIR jobs that you've given to the million and a half who have already lost theirs? That "responsible" labor organization, is it?

 

[hubrat]

Okay, I live in Missouri and they are about to instill or at least try to pass the Right to Work clause in the Senate and the House.
Should this thing pass, I am hearing that people are already talking about withdrawing from the union so they won't have to pay union dues.
Those on this forum who live in Right To Work States. How have you handled it and is it true members can do that--withdraw from the union.
Some members say, hey why pay dues when you get representation for nothing.
BTW, that is so wrong that people in RTW states, who don't join unions, still get representation by a shop steward when they get written up.
Anyway, any one who works in RTW states, I would like to hear from you. I got a bad feeling this law may pass.

NC has been rtw since I've lived here. It does not really seem to affect me at work other than the union here is much weaker than elsewhere. I say it doesn't affect me b/c it's all I've known. I do not believe ppl should be forced to pay union dues, but it does anger me that they expect and receive union benefits. They file grievances, go to panel with representation, etc on my dollar. They also seem much more likely to kiss management booty though it doesn't really seem to get them anywhere; sups and managers don't like them any more than the rest of us b/c they seem to be the loudest complainers.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Hubrat;

If it's any consolation, I happen to agree with you; I don't believe either that non-members should receive union benefits. By that I mean that the union shouldn't have to represent them, and that they should have to and/or be allowed to negotiate their compensation packages and treatment on their own. That would mean, however, that the union would have to give up its sole representative status...and I don't think they'll agree to that as long as they have breath in their lungs. The LAST thing a union wants is for independent workers to negotiate on their own; for example, offer to work more or less efficiently for compensation and/or treatment significantly different from the average.

In that sense, I'm still waiting for a TRUE "right to work" environment; i.e. - where workers negotiate their own wages, benefits, and treatment, and employers are free to continue employ them "at will"...and get rid of them when they don't measure up. Most of the private employment in this country today is done on that basis already....but the minor sector that isn't has cost this country a ton economically, if only in the number of jobs that have been scared away.

 

[JonFrum]

Jon;

You just keep on spinnin', don't ya'? [smile] For example, your claim that "The Teamsters do not control the pension funds; the pension fund trustees do" sounds real cute...until one realizes that a full HALF the trustees in funds such as Cen. States are appointed by - and serve at the pleasure of - the Teamster's union, while the remaining half of the trusteeship is SPLIT among ALL the contributing employers. Think it's real hard for the Teamsters to find one shaky minor employer board member willing to let his vote be swayed in return for a sweetheart deal of some sort,, do ya'? Think it's never happened? Think ABF is just spittin' in the wind now because they FEEL like it? Or that ABF and/or an "independent" trustee board voted to extend pension contribution forgiveness to YRCW WITHOUT the
Teamsters controlling the process? REALLY?


As for your claim that...

"The Teamsters Union can't order the Board of Trustees to do anything"

...did you read "Sprague v. CSPF", and note the common admissions of CSPF, the Teamsters, and the company? What? Did the 1997 settlement NOT happen??

Also, I'm curious; just how could UPS...

"see fit to contribute the $6.1 billion to Central States in a way that would have earned a decade of Pension Credits for its covered employees, instead of paying it in the form of a Withdrawal Liability Payment, which accrued UPSers no additional Pension Credits whatsoever, and cut adrift all allready[sp] seperated[sp] and retired UPSers in the process."

...in that just how was there supposed to be an "accrual" with an entity that was essentially broke EVEN WITH a six billion dollar enhancement?!? (which, BTW, was NOT the actual liability amount, but rather represents a sizable contribution on the part of UPS beyond the legal liability to assure at least some continuing coverage of its employees under the C.S. plan). Do you think that UPS should hold itself out to cover for the screw-ups of all Teamsters, at all locations, for all eternity, no matter who they may have worked for or when? Do you realize how badly the Teamsters had already screwed over their UPS employee brothers by squandering so much that had been contributed in THEIR names on OTHER, less-deserving Teamsters? You know...those Teamsters who's employers "went out of business for a lot of reasons"[grin...s.u.r.e.!]

In truth, you're entire spiel seems somewhat on the order of some street bum blaming the lottery commission for his poverty because they didn't shovel the sweepstakes winnings his way. You seem to think that UPS owes the Teamsters a "free lunch" for frittering away untold wealth. Sorry...I'm not buying that.

No, the Teamsters aren't SOLELY responsible for the market turn downs (although, as "heavies" in the financial sector, they most assuredly bear at least a degree of responsibility. And, through their contributions to a political party that pushed entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the foreground, a fairly large degree at that) However, they *ARE* responsible for there being substantially more eligible recipients in the funds than there are members who's employers are making contributions in their names. I.e. - it wasn't any "market down turn" that caused the funds to turn topsy-turvy in terms of the employee/pensioner ratio. Don't see a problem with 3-4 times as many pensioners as contributing workers? Think any market upturn is going to correct THAT situation? Think again.

As so many Teamsters, you seem to want to keep your head buried in the sand. With you guys, it's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem to fix. Meanwhile, your union is becoming toast, the members pension are being being frittered away, and the membership's remaining viable employers are folding under non-union competitive pressure because you guys are too darned lazy to get off your duffs and face reality.

Question. Do you plan on giving the same excuses to the remaining million or so Teamsters when they all lose THEIR jobs that you've given to the million and a half who have already lost theirs? That "responsible" labor organization, is it?

The Teamsters have been bribing Employer Trustees that sit on the Central States Board??? Really??? That's terrible!!!

ERISA has very strict rules against that. The series of Judges that have overseen the operations of Central States under a Consent Decree since 1978 would be shocked to know this has been happening right under their watchful noses. Please post your evidence here, and send copies to:

The Honorable Milton I. Shadur
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: Solis v. Estate of Frank E. Fitzsimmons, et al., No. 78 C 342 (N.D. Ill., E.D.)

He will be furious!!! Heads will roll.
- - - -
You claim the $6.1 billion was "NOT the actual liability amount, but rather represents a sizable contribution on the part of UPS beyond the legal liability to assure at least some continuing coverage of its employees under the C.S. plan." Really??? I've never heard that one before. Then what was the actual legal liability amount paid to Central States? And what was the remaining amount contributed to Central States? And what exactly do you claim the additional contribution bought for UPSers?

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jon;

Yeah...and Teamsters follow the rules religiously, don't they? Just like they adhere to the principle of honesty (just who was it that used the word "again"?). But then, just how do YOU explain the relief YRCW received in terms of pension contributions...while ABF got "none of the above"? Or "Sprague v. CSPF" either, for that matter? Gonna' report those matters to "the judge", are ya'? Seems to me he - or a counterpart - has already ruled on them.

Look, you demonstrated just a few posts back that you're far from the most honest individual out there. And surely you realize that, at this point in time, you'd have a hard time convincing me that you have any credibility whatsoever. So, if you think your union is doing just hunky-dory - and are willing to simply dismiss the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of members' jobs that dishonest jokers like you have squandered away over the years, along with the billions upon billions of dollars of members' pension funds, then fine and dandy. Have it your way, if you will. Maybe you can continue convincing the gullible that it's always been, and always will be, "somebody else's fault" when it comes to the Teamsters record of "accomplishment".

After all, that's sure been a sure method of operations for the Teamsters over the last few decades, hasn't it? And, of course, you've got all those years of "success" to point to when reaching out to potential members, don't you? [smile]

 

[JonFrum]

What exactly am I lying about? Did you not plague TeamsterNet for a very long time with your ranting obsessions, alienate almost everyone with your posting style and content, and almost single-handedly ruin the site, (not that it wouldn't have been ruined for other reasons without your help,) to the point where even the ultra- ultra-tolerant TeamsterNet felt compelled to eventually ban you?
- - - -
What inappropriate relief has YRCW received from Central States? When YRCW suspends contributions, their employees earn no Pension Credits. There's no free ride. Just Central States (and all the other pension plans,) trying not to loose its second biggest contributor, after having just lost its first (UPS.) Trying to save YRCW by being really, really flexible may be a lost cause from the start, but I don't know that for sure, so I can't fault Central States for trying. And as you say, the Judge is approving every move, step by step. Probably because he knows Central States is in no shape to absorb another catastrophe.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jon;

Bingo, cat daddy....that's EXACTLY what you're lying about. Hit the nail on the head with your first "guess", 'eh? Now isn't THAT a "big surprise"?!

As for your last, why don't you review the the news clips posted right here on BrownCafe and see the difference between what UPS *negotiated* with the Teamsters in terms of withdrawing, and the actual withdrawal liability (from the fund) itself.

Seems to me that, even for a pompous, presumptious bag of wind such as yourself that shouldn't be TOO difficult a task.

Lastly, as perhaps you're aware, I have a reputation for being intolerant of dishonest Teamsters. Unfortunately, I've run into far too many of them - such as yourself - in my time. Sorry if you feel offended by being called out as a liar. Then again, perhaps that's something you should have considered BEFORE you chose to lie in the first place.

I've pointed out something to quite a few other ethics-lacking Teamsters before you which seems just as applicable today....

"You are what you are. Deal with it."

 

[JonFrum]

So what part am I lying about? It wasn't TeamsterNet, it was BetterHomesAndGardens???
- - - -
Better post those news clips here yourself if you still insist $6.1 billion wasn't the Withdrawal Liability amount.

UPs did not negotiate with the Teamsters over the Withdrawal Liability amount. The "negotiation" if you want to call it that, was with the Central States Trustees. And ERISA provides mathematical formulas to calculate it. There's not much room for negotiating.

[UPS also paid $1.7 billion initially into the new UPS/IBT Fund to cover UPSers' early retirement liability, but that had nothing to do with any money going to Central States.]

 

[PobreCarlos]

It wasn't Better Homes and Gardens. And it wasn't T-Net, either. What it "was" was the fertile imagination of an individual who thinks he can lie his way out life's little difficulties. He's a guy here on BrownCafe who goes by the handle "JonFrum", and he'd rather fabricate stories about those who get his goat rather than deal honestly with the arguments they present; i.e. - he lies.

Not an unknown avocation for a Teamster, by any means. But a liar is still a liar.

Deal with it, "Jon".

 

[BrownArmy]

...Seems to me that, even for a pompous, presumptious bag of wind such as yourself...

From wikipedia:

...Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings...

By the way Pobre, it's 'presumptuous'...

 

[Jones]

From wikipedia:

...Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings...

By the way Pobre, it's 'presumptuous'...

Nailed it.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Guys;

My Goodness! A flock of Teamsters who deny reality and embrace dishonesty! How untypical; rare birds indeed!

Anyway, "BrownArmy", I want to thank you for your help with the spelling of "presumptuous". Of course, given the manner in which you entered the discussion, maybe one should expect you to know how the word is spelled....and, in light of that manner, perhaps appreciate the high irony of the content of your post as well. Bravo!

Then "Jones". One can't help but admire the courage it must have taken for you to pile-on with your "nailed it" comment. As a Teamster, you must be very proud of your ability to make such pithy and substantive interjections.

Lastly, "JonFrum": I'm going to bail out of BrownCafe for a while, giving you an opportunity to fabricate yet another story about so-and-so being banned from forum such-and-such. Go for it, guy! Never let anything as insubstantial as the truth stand in the way of a good yarn! After all, isn't that what the vaunted Teamster "integrity" is all about?

Have a good one, people......