Thats what we want...or another. friend...NO.vote!
TeamCare upgraded
- Thread starter opie
- Start date
Thats what we want...or another. friend...NO.vote!
East coast navy
Veteran
177 and the west coast are in the same plan.
You and many others "misunderstand" how an insurance plan works. You state that your local will be represented so "they will have more control over it", yet, this is UNTRUE.
The locals only role in all of this was to establish an ADMINISTRATOR, and that administrator is the entity that will control the plan. Its trustees on the board of that administrator will have the final say on what happens to benefit levels and the LOCAL will not have ANY influence whatsoever on benefits.
Its the sole responsibility of the trustees to maintain the plan and neither UPS or the Locals can influence those trustees on decisions.
If you were told this , then you were "misinformed".
Let me give you a hypothetical. Lets say the plan was not taking in as much revenue as before, and costs could be forecasted to increase. The trustees then take a vote to A) raise revenue by increasing member particpation or B) reduce benefit levels.
At what point do you think at the trustees meeting do they call your local and ask them what to do? Then, at what point does your local contact you to ask you what you think is the right decision?
Think about it. When someone at your local tells you "if we have our own plan, we will have more control over it"... they dont know what they are talking about. Its something that gets said (cause even our own local leaders are trying to say it) because they dont know what an administrator does.
YOU will never be consulted before a change in employee benefits happens. Your Local will never be consulted before a change in employee benefits happens. YOU will find out when you get the letter in the mail explaining the reductions.
Hope this helps you out.
Peace
TOS
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
Ken sent me a letter that I will stay with the same union run plan that I've always had.
Anonymous 10
Guest
He's a good guy.
There is no "underfunding" issue. TOS is speculating (I'm being generous with that term) on future funding deficencies without any facts about negotiated funding levels. She is understating CS H&W plan costs to fit in the imaginary scheme she has concocted in the "scare politics fantasyland" in which she lives.
Anonymous 10
Guest
So you're saying that she's crazy??
And you're one of those that misunderstand the locals role. In many local plans, the E-Board appoints the employee trustees that have direct control of decisions regarding the Fund including the administrators role, which is spelled out in the Plan document that is amendable by the Trustees. That gives control to the voting members of that local as the members get to elect their e-board every three years.
You need to post more accurate unbiased facts if you think a leadership position is in your future. Facts and truth matter.
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
Remember when I put you on check wait? You didn't know then and you don't know now so stop giving bad advice. (BTW that's checkmate)
Ingame,
Your theory is laughable at best, but I give you credit for making an attempt at a reasonable argument. However, your opinion is flawed.
The southwest joint council will appoint the three trustees and the company will appoint the others. In your explanation, the locals appoint "employee trustees" and this is not true. The trustees on the union side will consist of officers of various locals.
Your second argument that "control" goes to the voting members, because they vote in officers and therefore can somehow "affect" the decision making progress is again, laughable.
As the administrator evaluates the financial position of the fund at large, and then discovers cost projections that exceed estimated revenue, during a board meeting this will be discussed and motions will be made. A motion is then seconded and a vote of the board members ( trustees) ensues.
If the motion carries, then the plan adjusts accordingly to the motion.
There is NO interaction with the local, the employees or any other entities. Now, the officers of the locals who get appointed by the joint council to the board of the administrator get to vote, and yes, by virtue of being elected into office of their respective locals they get to be on the board, that doesnt give ANY employee a "sayso" on benefit levels.
A benefit level can ALWAYS be amended by the trustees, but that has NOTHING to do with the members. There will be no consultation with ANY of the members of all the southwest locals before decisions are made.
To suggest or infer such is just manipulation on your part.
I gather you speak to the stinks and 407 stewards of the crowd who may believe this, but the rest of the membership understands the separation between trustees authority and employee participation.
Sure, we can vote out officers every three years and recommend to our joint councils replacement trustees, but that in NO WAY gives the employees any bargaining power.
We are just in for the ride with our fingers crossed that the IBT/Trustees/ will keep their word and maintain benefit levels.
If they had intended on protecting benefit levels, why didnt they include this into the MOU:
"benefit levels to remain the same for the duration of this contractual agreement"..
Instead, it says the opposite and furthers that NOTHING in the agreement shall stop them from changing them.
I hope you have a better understanding.
Peace
TOS
LB,
here you are again! Trying to ride the shirttails! Wheres the west's plan? We have seen the teamcare upgrade and that had nothing to do with a carve out. We are still waiting to see in writing the wests plan.
I know you dont have it, but you will get ahead of yourself before anything is presented to us.
Your still a loof.
Peace
TOS
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
Year one, UPS will be paying 3 billion for the first year of health benefits.
By year 5, UPS will be paying "close" to 4 billion in that year for our health benefits.
3 billion to 4 billion over 5 years is about a yearly increase of 5.9% depending on how close to 4billion that year 5 contribution will be. My guess it is calculated at 5% which brings year 5 to 3.8 billion.
Another words, if health care cost rise more then an average of 5% a year, we are screwed.
Kaiser Family Foundation states that healthcare costs have gone up on average 4.2 percent per year from 2008 to 2012, do to the slow down in the economy. If the economy picks up, which it is, the average cost of healthcare could rise by an additional 3 points per year.
That would put us over the UPS increase in contributions by as much as 2 percentage points putting us at a deficit of about half a billion dollars. Some where in the neighborhood of 1500 dollars per person depending on whether that would be distributed between just UPSers or everyone at Teamcare.
Numbers never lie. The future is uncertain, and UPS has just secured their future healthcare cost by having a defined healthcare cost for the next 5 years.
By year 5, UPS will be paying "close" to 4 billion in that year for our health benefits.
3 billion to 4 billion over 5 years is about a yearly increase of 5.9% depending on how close to 4billion that year 5 contribution will be. My guess it is calculated at 5% which brings year 5 to 3.8 billion.
Another words, if health care cost rise more then an average of 5% a year, we are screwed.
Kaiser Family Foundation states that healthcare costs have gone up on average 4.2 percent per year from 2008 to 2012, do to the slow down in the economy. If the economy picks up, which it is, the average cost of healthcare could rise by an additional 3 points per year.
That would put us over the UPS increase in contributions by as much as 2 percentage points putting us at a deficit of about half a billion dollars. Some where in the neighborhood of 1500 dollars per person depending on whether that would be distributed between just UPSers or everyone at Teamcare.
Numbers never lie. The future is uncertain, and UPS has just secured their future healthcare cost by having a defined healthcare cost for the next 5 years.
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
yes, I know that they are not one in the same. Kaiser numbers however seem to be inline with a lot of other groups. The percentages are skewed, but not wildly off. If you have other numbers that you feel are more accurate, please share.
Regardless, UPS is increasing the contribution by 5% a year. If healthcare costs rise at a lower rate, great. If the rise at a greater rate, not so good.
Please enlighten us all with what you feel is an accurate rate of increase for healthcare. If you are correct, we will be seeing a short fall far greater then 1500pp.
oldngray
nowhere special
With the currently constantly changing situation and uncertainty of future rule changes its almost impossible to predict very far into the future now and I am no expert. My point is just to be cautious of any long term predictions until it becomes clear exactly what the changes in healthcare will be which will influence any increases in the future.
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
Historical values/percentages/costs are the only real numbers we have to go by. I agree that the future is an unknown. I think we can all agree that healthcare costs will rise. The unknown is by how much. My post was just to point out that UPS's contribution rises at a rate of 5% annually. If HC costs rise over 5% there very well could be a shortfall of funds.
King of Chester
and
OldGray
Good points!
With some enlightened communication between some fellow drivers, and others,
it was presented to me this very similar scenario.
Costs!
With accepting anything currently presented, what contract langauge do we have that is currently present in this next ballot proposal to vote on, that locks in cost increases in precisely the same concerns as you are pointing out.
MAINTENANCE AND STANDARDS language was the key pointe given to me protecting us from this very scenario!
With regards to the ever present ACA forthcoming, as I have pointed out to several members, this is a HC Plan that has never been LAW in this country.
In regards to our Teamster members, lets look ahead at this and be concerned that we all need contract language that protects the unknown.
Just the same as you have suggested above here.
Your $1500.00 per person would seem to be a fair number of imbalances.
I have repeatedly pointed out to some of my Executive Board Officers in my Local, what coverages are we going to be able to replace IF & when it surpasses what we are being asked to accept.
Be very concerned, as TOS has pointed out, that coverages could possibly be reworked later after this proposal is eventually at some pointed agreed to.
There are no guarantees for anyone in the west with this current language that nothing will change costing us more out of pocket.
and
OldGray
Good points!
With some enlightened communication between some fellow drivers, and others,
it was presented to me this very similar scenario.
Costs!
With accepting anything currently presented, what contract langauge do we have that is currently present in this next ballot proposal to vote on, that locks in cost increases in precisely the same concerns as you are pointing out.
MAINTENANCE AND STANDARDS language was the key pointe given to me protecting us from this very scenario!
With regards to the ever present ACA forthcoming, as I have pointed out to several members, this is a HC Plan that has never been LAW in this country.
In regards to our Teamster members, lets look ahead at this and be concerned that we all need contract language that protects the unknown.
Just the same as you have suggested above here.
Your $1500.00 per person would seem to be a fair number of imbalances.
I have repeatedly pointed out to some of my Executive Board Officers in my Local, what coverages are we going to be able to replace IF & when it surpasses what we are being asked to accept.
Be very concerned, as TOS has pointed out, that coverages could possibly be reworked later after this proposal is eventually at some pointed agreed to.
There are no guarantees for anyone in the west with this current language that nothing will change costing us more out of pocket.
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
Rpoz,
Nice post!
Lets see what Reid has to say about union health plans: LISTEN!!!
This is part of a KNPR interview from August 2013
Harry Reid to Unions: It's Time You Put "Some Skin in the Game" - Give Ups Cadillac Plans - YouTube
Nice post!
Lets see what Reid has to say about union health plans: LISTEN!!!
This is part of a KNPR interview from August 2013
Harry Reid to Unions: It's Time You Put "Some Skin in the Game" - Give Ups Cadillac Plans - YouTube
LagunaBrown
Well-Known Member
I love schooling you........How quickly you forget bashing Andy M and the MOU saying we did not have enough time to make a carve out..... I put you on "check wait" and even your beloved TDU website posted "Western locals and New Jersey Local 177 have also reached an agreement with UPS on their healthcare plan which they say will be equal to or better than the enhanced Central States TeamCare Plan". You acted like you had supreme knowledge on the situation and gave advice as if you were on the negotiation committee but obviously you did not know anything. Here we are again and you talking about trustees on the plan and you are unqualified to give this information. You should be telling everyone to JUST WAIT FOR THE SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS like the rest of us and members will be able to read it themselves before they vote on it. It is that simple.......... Guys like you create distrust with our unions when we should take ownership and back the leaders that we voted into office. If the leaders fail then you can criticize them and take action but they deserve the same chance as you to get the job done.
I made a disclaimer for you if you want to continue acting like "loof".
The views expressed by TOS represent the personal views of TDU members and do not represent the opinion of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters serving its members of the United Parcel Service. The IBT assumes no responsibility for the content of individual members on web pages.
Similar threads
