tieguy said:
anyone else having problems following this person?
I don't get it all, but what I think this guy is trying to say is that UPS' expense for the Teamsters is not just limited to Teamster who are UPS employees. I have heard this several times over the last year.
UPS pays toward the Health fund and the Retirement fund as outlined by the Teamster agreement. If every dollar went to a UPS Teamster's welfare, it would go farther. This is supposedly not true. The money paid goes for all Teamster retirees. Every person who has ever retired from a Teamster represented company that is still living and drawing pension and health benefits gets a piece of the UPS money. There are few big Teamster represented companies still in business. The ones that are left are forced to subsidize all Teamsters, not just those who worked for that company.
My manager makes an argument (one that I can sort of buy into) that if only UPS Teamster benefited from UPS contributions to Teamsters that the retirement and health benefits would be far better. Of course, he makes the point that under the same scenario, that UPS could pay less to the Teamster Funds (if only for UPS Teamsters), and yet UPSers would get the same or better benefits. This is the company's (UPS') rationale for taking over the Teamster plans.
I heard the 300 company rhetoric myself. I have been told that UPS money goes to retirees of some 300 companies that no longer exist. Because they were represented by the Teamsters, these people benefit from UPS. At some level, the Teamster put all current participating company monies in a slush/general fund to benefit all retirees (UPS and otherwise).
So, I guess it is possible that Teamster fleece the existing companies to pay for the retirees of all companies.
If this is so, it kinda sucks. A non-union company doesn't have to deal with this. Whether they take good care of their employees is another matter, but it does leave them to shoulder the responsibility for only their employees and retirees.
I do think social security is a good example. I'm paying into something that I hope exists when I get old. My money is not being put in a 'lockbox' for me. It is being spent to pay for my parents and grandparents. Hopefully, my kids will pay into it for me.
If the Teamsters were rock-solid, none of this would matter much. However, because of the decline of the teamster membership, and the constant (over the decades) questionable financial practices of the Teamster leadership, I am a little worried.
I was a part-time supervisor, and I guess I'll never lose all my management feelings. I don't believe that UPS management is any less capable of managing my retirement than the teamsters. In fact, I would like them to manage my money, and the Teamsters to save my jobs. I would like to keep these things separate. I know that I am a minority in this view, though.
The Teamsters have done a lot for us members, but I don't know of any anything that the Teamster have built that has any of the lasting strength or prestige as have the UPS management people who built brown. I know it took teamster to get there, but I argue it could have been done without teamsters, too. It just takes good employees.
I guess you've picked up on my feelings about the teamsters. They have helped me in a couple of binds, but I don't see them as anything but paid protection. I don't mind paying for protection, but I'd rather have a fortune 500 company with a board of directors and FCC oversight handle my retirement. I know, I know, there is ENRON. However, I don't think anyone would ever compare Brown to ENRON.
I hope I haven't been just as hard to follow...
either staying at Kinkos or leaving. After thinking about it for a nano second i told them that I will leave Kinkos. Kinkos mgmt was really supportive. They thought i should have been grandfathered in.
