Surrending CS Pension?

[dannyboy]

Granted I can be as long winded as Tie, and he makes very valid points.

But tell me, It would be a given that if UPS had to pump billions into failing retirements to just help take care of all the retirees, (you do know that it would be illegal for them just to help out the Ups portion of the ones retired?)that would hurt deeply in their ability to grow, expand and create more and new jobs. It might not cause UPS to fail, but it would not be good for the company either. so here they spend billions on the failing systems to prop them up for their workers, and also for the "majority" that never worked for us. You would again be getting pennies on the dollars that UPS is paying into the system for their employees.

How would that be fair to both the UPS retired and UPS? Of course, if I am a retired driver from say Mason Dixon it would be a Godsend.

as you say, fair has nothing to do with it when it comes to the government making decissions and regulations that affect each of us.

d

 

[ok2bclever]

Sorry if you don't understand a term of "this pension" as meaning the current pension system.

Actually, I know you understood, just typical misdirection to try to cloud the issue.

"our peoples pension" is so USP lingo, and yet, the only thing I see UPS doing legally or politically is working to limit their exposure and liability, nothing directly for "our people".

I have stated repeatedly that I would be in favor of changes, including to a UPS only pension.

The part that I am sure you have a problem with is my pointing out the cold fact of life that trusting UPS (or any corporation) without significant safeguards, limitations of power and monitoring installed would not be an improvement.

Oh, now it's down to "serious concerns"?

Well now that is a reasonable term, why didn't you use that initially instead of the theatrical "vehemently rejecting" lie ?

Let's see, you with a solid supervisor pension, versus me with a pension being discussed by the country as about to fail and being discussed by UPS as how they can get out from under it. . .

Yep, I certainly emphasize with the workforce's pain as I am part of it and I am doing what I can which is to continue to try to inform the membership of the situation and to stay up to date in what the politicians and UPS (and friends) lobbyists are doing.

Read this next sentence slowly as you keep seeming to conveniently miss it.

I am not defending the current pension, just disagreeing with simplistic accusations that the Teamsters are the only ones at fault in it's problems.

That way every one will know it will be just a simple lie the next time you issue your repetitive and convenient mistatements of what I believe.

It is amazing how ineffective UPS, normally extremely efficient at making sure we know exactly what finger to have the key on, etc. has been on this alledgedly vehemently rejected pension system (just for you) in the last three decades.

Appears more like hindsight to me.

Neither the Teamsters, nor UPS is in the habit of "sharing" most of the negotiations of all these contracts.

If there was a way to force them to be open and public I would do so immediately as I know both sides would be against letting the workforce into the discussions.

tie, remember, this should be the last time you misstate that I am defending this pension system or you will just be lying.

If I could make changes what would they be?

UPS retirees would be in a classification of their own.

Employees of out of business companies to this point would drop out of the pension system to the government safety net.

That UPS and all companies would have to up their payments to both the fund and the government safety net organization to real support levels rather than negotiated pretend levels.

The amount contributed to the pension fund and to the PBGC by companies all these years is inadequate for the promised benefits and upping it to adequate levels (to be determined by qualified economists rather than UPS management or Teamster politicians) would cost the companies more money, but stabilize the promises they have been touting of this benefit for decades.

Unfortunately, if the levels had always been right the necessary amount of money for employees who worked long enough to qualify for a pension from out of business companies would already have enough financial support, but the levels were artificially negotiated too low and so that is not the case.

So they would have to suffer the consequences of that fact and that their company no longer exists.

If UPS had it's own classification level the contributions and benefits could be customized to reflect UPS's great concern and appreciation for us without any additional problems or burden to the rest of the pension fund.

Keeping it a multi-employer and union controlled/overseen pension system would prevent any one company to be able to manipulate the benefits and qualifications of the beneficiaries which is a significant concern even with a stable pension system.

This would work, but is unlikely to occur as the companies will naturally balk at having to increase any expenses to their bottom line that they are not forced into and the fact that they are the ones with the well financed lobbyist groups taking the politicians to lunch and tropical vacations, etc pretty well guarantees they will get watered down fixes for us at best.

 

[wkmac]

"you with a solid supervisor pension"

I don't think any pension is solid, some just have better footings than others!


Seriously, after what took place with the MIP I think a lot of folks on the management side are looking with more shall we say "not as trusting eyes" as they once had in the past. That "solid" pension at any time could become weaker and it's at the whim of others which is at the heart of OK's concern and one of the reasons I'd just soon see a lump payoff now and walk away but that won't happen as both sides will oppose it as well as the vast majority of UPSer's covered under the "pension system" so it's a worst of 2 evils that we must choose from and figuring out the worse seems to be the topic of choice!

Personally I think they are both about the same threat level of evil!

To all of you!

 

[tieguy]

"Sorry if you don't understand a term of "this pension" as meaning the current pension system."

Oh I think I can understand that just fine if you specify it as such. But saying UPS is against your pension is distinctly different from saying UPS is against your pension system.

"our peoples pension" is so USP lingo, and yet, the only thing I see UPS doing legally or politically is working to limit their exposure and liability, nothing directly for "our people".

There is also a chance you see what UPS is doing and you keep trying to discredit their efforts in order to defend your unions incompetence with this issue. Fixing the pension is really going to require some honest dialogue. Not the "evil empire is trying to steal your pension" BS

"I have stated repeatedly that I would be in favor of changes, including to a UPS only pension."

I'm sorry I must have missed it. All I see is you trying to somehow blame the company for your unions mismanagement of the pension.

The part that I am sure you have a problem with is my pointing out the cold fact of life that trusting UPS (or any corporation) without significant safeguards, limitations of power and monitoring installed would not be an improvement.

Yes you are right you should trust the union who has totally mismanaged your pension.

Let's see, you with a solid supervisor pension, versus me with a pension being discussed by the country as about to fail and being discussed by UPS as how they can get out from under it. . .

Again you play the us against them angle. Not that it matters but my pension would equate to somewhere around what teamsters across the country average on their pension. My point is and has been about everyone getting their just rewards. Too much of your money has gone to others. The financial liabilities of several of your largest pension funds collapsing would hurt everyone. UPS is not a financial bottomless pit.

Yep, I certainly emphasize with the workforce's pain as I am part of it and I am doing what I can which is to continue to try to inform the membership of the situation and to stay up to date in what the politicians and UPS (and friends) lobbyists are doing.

Any yet you did not know how much UPS opposes multiple employer pension systems?

"Read this next sentence slowly as you keep seeming to conveniently miss it.
I am not defending the current pension, just disagreeing with simplistic accusations that the Teamsters are the only ones at fault in it's problems."

Ah yea. I really think you should reread your previous posts. You really give the strong impression you are defending those pensions. My prior post on the pensions stated my opinion on specific provisions of the current system. If you then respond by stating what you agree or disagree with me on that subject then you are being objective. If on the other hand you attack me and also UPS and you do not throw any accountability anywhere else then guess what you are defending the present system lock stock and barrel.

That way every one will know it will be just a simple lie the next time you issue your repetitive and convenient mistatements of what I believe.

Ok I really don't have to lie for you , you're doing a great job all on your own What I really like is when you state you are not defending the present system and then actually go back to doing so.

It is amazing how ineffective UPS, normally extremely efficient at making sure we know exactly what finger to have the key on, etc. has been on this alledgedly vehemently rejected pension system (just for you) in the last three decades.

Perhaps but since UPS has actually tried to do something about it including taking a strike over the issue , then how ineffective does that make your union on the issue? Again you talk like you want to fix the problem but again defend your union and attack the company on the issue. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to attack the company and give them their share of the blame on this issue then you really need to address your unions ineffectiveness which has been even worse.

Neither the Teamsters, nor UPS is in the habit of "sharing" most of the negotiations of all these contracts.

OK , Its not my fault the teamsters do not share this information with you. Perhaps you should look at some new leadership. Someone that does not lie to you or hide things from you.

"If there was a way to force them to be open and public I would do so immediately as I know both sides would be against letting the workforce into the discussions.
tie, remember, this should be the last time you misstate that I am defending this pension system or you will just be lying."

Then help me out. What should I do the next time you defend this stinking pile of whale****? Should I sugercoat it somehow so that no one knows your again defending this pension system?

"If I could make changes what would they be?"

At last something constructive. And some good ideas here OKie. You really need to do more of this and stop trying to muddy the waters so much with your us against them , evil empire dialogue.

By the way thanks for the tip on changing from basic to enhanced. It really does make posting easier.

 

[tieguy]

And perhaps the conversation focuses too much on who to trust and not to trust. In the process of debating my evil nemisis Okie

I perhaps sucumb to much to the same.At this point there needs to be a congressional investigation of the Central States pension issue to determine what the heck happened. Many of you who have some understanding of basic investing through playing the stock market or managing your 401 K should be able to understand that even when the market has a down turn you do have options where you can make money or roll your investment into safer investment options that will still pay some interest. Why was the CS plan hit so hard? How is the money invested. What investment decisions were made when the market soured? What accountability is in place to ensure the money is invested wisely. If you don't dig deep into these type of questions then even UPS putting every cent they have into the CS pension fund would not be enough to save your retirement.

 

[brett636]

Just a quick note and I will be gone.

You all need to learn how to use the quote feature!!! to end a quote its [/QUOTE] and to begin a quote its

or

Let me demonstrate

And perhaps the conversation focuses too much on who to trust and not to trust. In the process of debating my evil nemisis Okie

or I can make my own quote. The key is to use CAPS in the word QUOTE

this is the end of my public service announcement. thank you.

 

[ok2bclever]

Always you favor the personal insults and childish name calling over actual discussions.

sorry tie, but you will be alone with your denigration crap, I won't go there.

So go ahead and get whatever pathetic satisfaction you can out of calling me Okie, etc, I will not respond in like with lieguy, etc, but will stick to the issues.

Bogus claims that all the problems are the results of the Teamsters when the company is involved in all of it will always get rebuked by me.

If that confuses you, I will live with your convenient confusion.

It's actually real simple.

I say while the Teamsters are far from blameless, UPS has been and is a significant part of the problem and not to be trusted to look out for our best interests.

You say that UPS is an innocent, kind and caring company that goes all out for our best interests and we should trust them.

I will leave it up to those here which they believe is true.

 

[tieguy]

Always you favor the personal insults and childish name calling over actual discussions.

What? What the heck are you talking about?

sorry tie, but you will be alone with your denigration crap, I won't go there.

Not really sure what you are talking about here. Can we stick to the pension discussion and stay away from these types of cheap theatrics?

It's actually real simple.
I say while the Teamsters are far from blameless, UPS has been and is a significant part of the problem and not to be trusted to look out for our best interests.

Ok, I see. So now you are acknowledging that the union may have been involved in this pension mess. And that is fine. Now at this point in the debate what you should do is to try to stay away from the us against them , evil empire dialogue and try to focus on the real issues. Why specifically do you think UPS is a significant part of the problem? What specifically do you feel UPS did to cause retirees from other companies to drain the CS reserves. What specifically do you feel the union did to create this pension mess or to earn this vague " far from blameless" label. You can't fix the pension problem until you assign specific blame where it belongs. Using vague references like "far from blameless" does not help the fix. If you objectively read through your many posts I think you will see that you have had no problem blaming the company for the pension mess but have struggled to identify the unions involvement.

You say that UPS is an innocent, kind and caring company that goes all out for our best interests and we should trust them.

Tsk, Tsk. Could you please show me where I said such a thing?

 

[ok2bclever]

gee tie, I always have you to blame the union for everything, so that leaves it up to me to point out UPS isn't the lily white innocent in all of this.

I have always agreed the Teamsters are part of the problem.

Perhaps you have a comprehension problem?



I would rather fix the problem and assigning blame as a primary tool in fixing a problem has always been a UPS belief, not mine.

UPS has had a rep on the CSPF for a decade plus.

You know, during the time it is failing.

Yet, has failed to do anything about the situation that you imply is caused by mismanagement and company failures.

Nor has UPS so much as educated their employees on the problem in any of that time, including during the 97 contract strike.

You continue on the "failed company employees" myth, but if the companies had been inputting an adequate contribution level then this would not be a factor as the only employees that would draw from the pension are those that earned enough time through company contributions.

That they are causing a problem means you acknowledge that those companies and UPS were not and are not contributing enough money.

Yeah, I know it the Teamster's fault for not negotiating enough from UPS, agreed, but that still makes UPS an accomplice as they knew the pension fund was in trouble

You can't have it both ways.

The one issue UPS did/does have exclusive control over is the medical premium issue and there they screwed UPS retirees and are still screwing UPS retirees.

UPS tries to mouth they are just following the contract.

Why now! why just on this issue?!

Plus that was a lie even so, the negotiating committee for the Teamsters told UPS that they considered the intent of that language was to be at least as good and not requiring UPS to lower their standards as well, but UPS did it anyway.

 

[tieguy]

gee tie, I always have you to blame the union for everything, so that leaves it up to me to point out UPS isn't the lily white innocent in all of this.
I have always agreed the Teamsters are part of the problem.
Perhaps you have a comprehension problem?

Yea it looks like I do. It also appears I have a communication problem. Now that we have been able to determine that you have said all this and that I have a comprehension / communication problem could we perhaps move on. Could you possibly progress past expressions such as Lily white/ "far from blameless and tell me exactly what you think UPS did to screw up the central states pension. And then tell me what the teamsters did to screw this pension.

 

[susiedriver]

ok2b,

It seems that you and tie are carrying on quite the conversation. I have found found the ignore feature to work well in tie's case. From what I can see from your responses, he continues to bring nothing of value to the conversation. Do yourself a favor and try it out. It seems (from Bretts post) that he hasn't even figured out how to post in a readable fashion, or use the preview feature.

Do yourself a favor and try out the ignore feature.

One point about the pension, if UPS could be trusted, they would have shown it by keeping the medical intact at the old rates instead of raising it as much as they legally could. One additional point: I believe that in a single employer pension, the employer can cease contributions once funding reaches a certain level, where in a multiple employer pension, contributions must continue no matter what the funding is. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Unregistered]

Interesting point you make Suzie. You wish to put me on ignore but yet apparently wish to continue responding to my posts. Tieguy

 

[over9five]

The ignore feature. A small minded feature for small minded people.

Why listen to other peoples opinions?

Then again, isn't that what we come to BrownCafe for?

I highly doubt OK2 will use the "ignore" on Tie. Why? Because as much as OK2 may disagree with Tie, he ain't gonna run and hide!

I don't have anyone on "ignore". I like to hear all opinions (even Susies!).

And Susie, I'm stunned that you are hiding from anyone. Your tenacious hold to your convictions, (if not your convictions themselves) has always impressed me.

So shut off the ignore feature, and get both sides of the story!

 

[brett636]

The ignore feature. A small minded feature for small minded people.

Why listen to other peoples opinions?

Then again, isn't that what we come to BrownCafe for?

I highly doubt OK2 will use the "ignore" on Tie. Why? Because as much as OK2 may disagree with Tie, he ain't gonna run and hide!

I don't have anyone on "ignore". I like to hear all opinions (even Susies!).

And Susie, I'm stunned that you are hiding from anyone. Your tenacious hold to your convictions, (if not your convictions themselves) has always impressed me.

So shut off the ignore feature, and get both sides of the story!

+1 the ignore feature is really meant to be used for trolls, and those that have nothing to contribute. Not to ignore someone based on your disagreement with their opinions.

 

[susiedriver]

Brett & .5,

I use the ignore to weed out the drivel. I have yet to find anything useful in a posting by 'tieguy' on this board, or 'beegdadday' on Yahoo or 'upssup' on Tnet. I have found that individual's posts to be confusing at best and downright offensive at worst. It is not the fact that I disagree with him, but I find having to wade through his drivel as a waste of time. I only have a couple people on ignore, and find that feature useful.

I don't agree with dBoy or .5, yet I read their posts.

As far as 'run & hide', I have found that tie does that more than anyone (except perhaps dBoy); he rarely answers questions or clarifies points. More likely than not another attack is launched. When one has no basis to stand on, they tend to lash out.

Life is too short to engage those folks, it's an exercise in futility. Iprefer to get my exercise hiking, biking or swimming. To exercise my mind I read, and try to read articles written by people smarter than me.

,5, I'm not hiding from anyone, unless they have me on ignore. I'm hiding them from me. See the difference?

brett, I consider tieguy to be a company troll. I can talk to Libertarians & Republicans & Communists; I have a hard time justifying any effort to talk to obfuscators.

PS- .5,
If you want to call me 'small minded' that's your prerogative, but pleas point out one instance where listening to tieguys ramblings would have expanded my knowledge.

 

[Unregistered]

LoL,

Be carefull any further discussion on this subject will cause Suzie to run and hide from also. Isn't that right Suzie.... Tieguy

 

[Unregistered]

LOL, Suzie claims she has put me on ignore for being a company troll yet in reality she responded to the below quote when doing so:

"Oh I see so you're really trying to save all us poor mutton heads from your brand of hypocrisy. Well shucks girl I didn't realize you were really providing us with such a valuable service. Now let me give you a clue sister. If 98 percent of the posters on this board have a problem with what you are posting then there is a chance, I know its a small one but still there is a chance that you and what you are posting are in fact the hypocrisy. In which case you probably could save us all this hypocrisy by not posting it."

At that point we were on the ethics thread when she was getting blasted by everyone. The only one helping not agreeing with her at the time was OK. Suzie then placed myself and Moreluck on ignore and said she would stop posting for a while. Hence the previous post about Suzie running and hiding was absolutely correct....Tieguy

 

[over9five]

Re: A small minded feature for small minded people.

I do not consider you small minded at all. Which is why I tried to convince you (and everyone) to turn the ignore off.

But your point is taken. If someone truly disgusts you, ignore may be the only way you can enjoy your visit here.

 

[susiedriver]

I do not consider you small minded at all. Which is why I tried to convince you (and everyone) to turn the ignore off.

But your point is taken. If someone truly disgusts you, ignore may be the only way you can enjoy your visit here.

Thanks for understanding, though it's not disgust, just a waste of time that I'm trying to avoid.

 

[Unregistered]

yet you chose to "waste" your time by responding to a thread of his.