Surrending CS Pension?

[tieguy]

"UPS attempted to endow a chair at the University of Washington..."

I went to the doctor to become endowed but he just gave me a prescription for Viagra!

Being endowed with a chair could be rather painfull for the misses.

 

[wkmac]

I'm pulling this thread back up out of the bowels of archives in order to ask any and all, whether CS, UPS management or other pension coverages of any thoughts on the recent announcment of sweeping changes in the pension system at IBM.

There have already been numerous changes to the management retirement with the most recent being that when a retiree begins to draw social security that the SS monthly amount will be equally pulled out of the UPS retirement check so that instead of getting more as in the past, a retiree will still have the same total amout after SS starts. We're next oh Brother Teamsters and you can take that to the bank no matter how much you balk! Jim Casey would have never stood by and let this happen to any UPSer whether management or hourly.

Get ready folks! It's coming our way too very soon. If you don't have an alternative plan you better get one and fast. To my brother Teamsters it's very important now that we push and push hard to eliminate all retirement work rules for retirees. If we don't we could find ourselves in retirement and eating dogfood just to get by. With unrestricted workrules we could at least work other places supplementing our retirement incomes. JMHO.

 

[olebrownie]

wkmac, don't know where you heard that management pension is reduced by ss amount. That is not true.
There are many concerns for retirees, and retirement work rules by the teamster plans are one of them.
We can count on changes, especially for the "unborn workers".
Union employees decided a long time ago to maintain their pension plans with the Teamsters - right or wrong - Jim Casey couldn't change anything happening with those plans.

 

[ups79]

mac:you should not have to bargain with the teamsters. the teamsters should bargain for you. i believe if you ask the union to get rid of the no work rule, they in turn will ask you to give up even more of your pension. just my thought.

 

[wkmac]

wkmac, don't know where you heard that management pension is reduced by ss amount. That is not true.
There are many concerns for retirees, and retirement work rules by the teamster plans are one of them.
We can count on changes, especially for the "unborn workers".
Union employees decided a long time ago to maintain their pension plans with the Teamsters - right or wrong - Jim Casey couldn't change anything happening with those plans.

Was told that by a management retiree via his son. The retiree had attended a meeting on the subject just recently and wasn't happy about it. Another manager who I know is set to retiree this spring and I even asked him when I heard it and he also verified this. As much as I think it sux "if true", it does make sense. The majority of corporations do this so we (both UPS management and union) are in a very rare minority from what I can see. I've no doubt UPS would push this come 2008' and I'm sure the savings to the plans would be huge since most UPSers would draw towards the upper end of what SS pays out. If a UPSer works until 62' and then draws at say 65', my guess is the SS check will be about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the pension check so that's a huge savings for the pension plan and takes a lot of pressure off of both the union and UPS. Come to think of it, they can make the change now without the company but the heat would be enormous. It's more like they would wait until 08' and use the "blame the company" as cover. Otherwise, in this climate right now it's political suicide to do this.

As for Jim Casey, well it's true in the since that we'll never know but if I were a betting person I think Big Jim would have seen the train wreck coming back in the 1980's and started doing something then. JMO.

 

[wkmac]

mac:you should not have to bargain with the teamsters. the teamsters should bargain for you. i believe if you ask the union to get rid of the no work rule, they in turn will ask you to give up even more of your pension. just my thought.

I've no doubt they would but they already have that. It goes like this:

Retiree: I wanna work!

CS: You're totally free to work at anytime for anyone you like.

Retiree: Oh Boy! Man I'll be rolling in money.

CS: Uh, not so fast. If you work we also keep your check and you won't get one as long as you work.

Retiree: (Looking at watch) Well if I hurry I can make it home and not miss Days of Our Lives, General Hospital and Oprah.


Is it not wonderful our union wants us to not miss all those TV programs that we did over the years while moving the world for Big Brown. I'm surprised they don't print the TV schedule in the monthly Teamster magazine or would that be to much in your face?

 

[olebrownie]

Was told that by a management retiree via his son. The retiree had attended a meeting on the subject just recently and wasn't happy about it. Another manager who I know is set to retiree this spring and I even asked him when I heard it and he also verified this. As much as I think it sux "if true", it does make sense. The majority of corporations do this so we (both UPS management and union) are in a very rare minority from what I can see. I've no doubt UPS would push this come 2008' and I'm sure the savings to the plans would be huge since most UPSers would draw towards the upper end of what SS pays out. If a UPSer works until 62' and then draws at say 65', my guess is the SS check will be about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the pension check so that's a huge savings for the pension plan and takes a lot of pressure off of both the union and UPS. Come to think of it, they can make the change now without the company but the heat would be enormous. It's more like they would wait until 08' and use the "blame the company" as cover. Otherwise, in this climate right now it's political suicide to do this.

As for Jim Casey, well it's true in the since that we'll never know but if I were a betting person I think Big Jim would have seen the train wreck coming back in the 1980's and started doing something then. JMO.

wkmac
Your sources misunderstood the information at the meeting. Their pension is not affected by social security. The health care benefits were and are affected by the changes to Medicare.
The company has offered to take over the Teamsters pension plans in previous negotiations and were turned down each time. I don't see what more Casey could have done.

 

[automated]

Congress May Focus on Retirement Funds

Congress is expected to take steps to shore up private pensions, but almost half the workers in private industry won't benefit since their employers offer no retirement plans.

Link To Original Article

 

[wkmac]

wkmac
Your sources misunderstood the information at the meeting. Their pension is not affected by social security. The health care benefits were and are affected by the changes to Medicare.
The company has offered to take over the Teamsters pension plans in previous negotiations and were turned down each time. I don't see what more Casey could have done.

olebrownie,
That may be true but as to the point about Casey, UPS to my knowledge first offered in 97' which by then the damage was mostly done. I see the effort on the part of UPS in 97' as 2 fold, one to limit it's own liability in the face of the coming crisis and 2, an attempt to limit the damage or even scuttle a pending strike which was about 48 plus hours away when the offer was first released to the UPS Teamsters. Nothing wrong in either case and I'd do it also if I were them. In light of what we now know most UPS Teamsters now believe we should have taken a stand and demanded a voice but that is gone now and not likely to come back ever.

The point about Casey is I believe he would have seen the train wreck coming back in the 80's and started pushing the Teamsters to do something then. In light of events concerning Teamster response to other pension options it would be fair so say Casey may have been ignored but I still believe he would have tried to do something early to avert the problem to begin with. I could be wrong but just based on what I've read of the man and what I've seen and heard of some of his speeches I just tend to believe that about him.