tentative contract now online

[bigred9203]

Hi I am new to this site! I am wondering how the pension works if for example u worked 10 years part time and 20 full time would this give you 30 and out at any age and if so would you get the full time pension rate for 30 years?

 

[JustTired]

The other problem that I see is that if pension and health care costs go up, which we know that they will, the way I read the contract proposal is that the company can take up to .35 cents an hour of your pay and move it to the pension or health care costs.

Seems that way to me, too.

Memorandum of Understanding
​

Teamsters United Parcel Service Negotiating Committee (Union) and
United Parcel Service Inc. agree that pursuant to the past paragragh of
Article 34, Section 1(a), the maximum amount of a general wage
increase that will be reallocated to a pension contribution is thirty-five
cents ($0.35). The parties will not implement any reallocation of GWI
to pension contributions in excess of thirty-five cents ($0.35) without
mutual agreement by the parties and subject it to being ratified by the
affected employees.​

I've reread it several times and it still comes across the same.

If you go to Article 41, Section 1 (for example), showing the fulltime wage increase, it is called a "general wage increase". I don't think the contributions towards pensions/health and welfare funds are considered GWI. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope so) but it is worth looking into. Could be that your entire first year raise could be eaten up if they reallocated it ($0.35) twice a year. If they did it every year of the contract (twice), the 2nd year you would get 3 cents in Aug 2009, 2 cents in Feb 2010, etc.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong!!!

 

[GuyinBrown]

The last sentence appears to say that they can't do it, without us allowing them to do so with a vote. That would be a tough sell.

 

[Ms.PacMan]

I believe you are mistaken. I think that the term has gotten twisted around and it's distorted people's perceptions of what actually occurred. My understanding is that UPS did not "buy us out" of Central States, it payed a "withdawal penalty". Any money accumulated in the Central States plan stays with Central States and any new money contributed as of Jan 1st 2008 would begin accumulating in the new UPS/IBT plan. I do not state this as absolute fact, ( in fact I hope I'm wrong ) but that's what I've gotten out of the discussions over the last couple months. When we retire, we'd be looking at 2 separate checks... One from Central States and one from UPS.

You may be right- this paragraph seems to support the 2 check idea

"The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."

But I don't get this paragraph. They will offset the 6% penalty to allow for the 25/30 and out but might not depending on what is "as permitted or required by law".

Does anyone know what as permitted or required by law means?

 

[LKLND3380]

After skimming over it, here are some of my personal observations....

I very much like the stronger penalty for over 9.5. They've also added penalties for not adhering to an 8 hour request. I like it.

The split raise really doesn't bother me. Most people only get one $.35 or $.40 raise a year anyway.

A $1.00 raise after 90 days for new part timers is pretty good. If they're in a "skilled" position, they're at $11 in a year. That's not too bad.

I was a little confused on the pension part. On section mentioned the same penalties as CS ( -6% per year for every year under 62 ) and then another part mentioned a 30 and out at any age. Which is it? Is the penalty for those that didn't have at least 25 years? And if UPS doesn't have the penalty, could you retire and only draw on your UPS portion? I'd assume that the penalties would still be in effect on your CS portion so it'd be nice if you could delay drawing from that part to offset the penalty. I saw nothing regarding work restrictions in the UPS proposal. The currently, CS is extremely restrictive and it worries several people I know who would like to have a part time job to keep themselves busy, or just for some extra play money. Benefit has been returned to the pre-cut levels. This is almost like an increase, but not very impressive. I could go either way with this one, but my personal opinion is that I trust UPS to do better with it than the teamsters did.

Also, I saw nothing about the wage reduction for the guys in 804. Wouldn't that be in here if it was true? Or is that strictly a local rider kind of thing?

I saw that stronger penalty as well for over 9.5 I was thinking WOW!

$11.00 for a new hire is good BUT UPS will probably force them to load 4 or 5 package cars for that 11.00

 

[Anonymous GearJammer]

Was thinking exactly the same thing JustTired, that is probably why the is a 35 cent max without approval because anything more the first year would mean taking a pay cut. Which could mean Article 41 Section 1 could turn from:
2008 seventy cents ($0.70) to zero cents ($0.00)
2009 seventy-five cents ($0.75) to five cents ($0.05)
2010 seventy-five cents ($0.75) to five cents ($0.05)
2011 eighty-five cents ($0.85) to fifteen cents ($0.15)
2012 ninety-five cents ($0.95) to twenty-five cents ($0.25)

only thing protecting use from that happening would be the Teamsters United Parcel Service Negotiating Committee (Union) not agreeing.

 

[Tackleberry]

You may be right- this paragraph seems to support the 2 check idea

"The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age. If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."

But I don't get this paragraph. They will offset the 6% penalty to allow for the 25/30 and out but might not depending on what is "as permitted or required by law".

Does anyone know what as permitted or required by law means?

Hi. I could be wrong, but the way I'm reading this -

"The UPS/IBT Plan will recognize full-time service in the CS Plan for determining eligibility for the benefits in this section and will offset at Normal Retirement Age the benefits accrued from the CS Plan commencing at Normal Retirement Age."
​

UPS will use count the years you've accrued with CS toward your total and will then reduce the amount you will receive from CS from the UPS plan. (two checks)

and this-

"If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."
​

seems to mean that if, for some reason CS cannot pay the full amount it owes you, then UPS is not required to make up the difference. For instance, if the Feds or CS decide that CS won't be able to pay everyone the agreed upon retirement amount, I suppose they could reduce it- if the current law permits the reduction.

 

[ozz]

Seems that way to me, too.

Memorandum of Understanding
​

Teamsters United Parcel Service Negotiating Committee (Union) and
United Parcel Service Inc. agree that pursuant to the past paragragh of
Article 34, Section 1(a), the maximum amount of a general wage
increase that will be reallocated to a pension contribution is thirty-five
cents ($0.35). The parties will not implement any reallocation of GWI
to pension contributions in excess of thirty-five cents ($0.35) without
mutual agreement by the parties and subject it to being ratified by the
affected employees.​

I've reread it several times and it still comes across the same.

If you go to Article 41, Section 1 (for example), showing the fulltime wage increase, it is called a "general wage increase". I don't think the contributions towards pensions/health and welfare funds are considered GWI. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope so) but it is worth looking into. Could be that your entire first year raise could be eaten up if they reallocated it ($0.35) twice a year. If they did it every year of the contract (twice), the 2nd year you would get 3 cents in Aug 2009, 2 cents in Feb 2010, etc.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong!!!

I think this says they can do take $0.35 cents out of each 6 month raise and put it into the pension without mutual agreement and without a vote. Only when they try to move more than $0.35 cents do they have to ask us!!! This alone is worth a no vote!

 

[Fnix]

The raises are higher yearly. Also will all current p/t employees receive a raise when the contract comes out?

 

[mackpilot]

are the suplements online also? i can only find the master

 

[no29.5]

There is absolutly no reason anyone should vote yes on this deal !!!!

9.5 Language is a Deal breaker for me....

No Change at all. Name one person that has every gotten the double pay.? So now it is triple, might as well make it 100X. You dont just automatically get that if you file. You have to file over 20 plus times I have found out to get double pay. I have filed 18 times and am no closer to double pay than I was when I started the process. Each time they put a sup or manager on car with me and we work over 9.5. Some say "oh that is a screwed up route" and some say "We real need to fix that area". We will then review the ride and agree to an average stop count and a average stops per hour that I must maintain. I have not once missed the stops per hour but the stop count is never at or below what was agreed on. They blame it on PAS. I am still working over 9.5 at least 2-4 days a week and can only file when I have 3 or more in a week. I think that I should be allowed to bring the car back at 9.5 if the dispatcher screwed up and he can go out for the 2-3 extra hours and deliver the rest. I guarantee you it would only take one time of having to call him at home at 6:45 and tell him to put his browns on because he needed to come back and clean his mess up.

Tell your local to re think the 9.5 issue. Either a list each month for those that want over 9.5 or those that dont. If there are no takers then it is forced in seniority order from the bottom up. That is the only way they get me to vote yes on this deal.

 

[Ms.PacMan]

and this-

"If the benefit paid from the CS Plan is reduced as permitted or required by law, the amount of such reduction shall not be included in this offset."​

seems to mean that if, for some reason CS cannot pay the full amount it owes you, then UPS is not required to make up the difference. For instance, if the Feds or CS decide that CS won't be able to pay everyone the agreed upon retirement amount, I suppose they could reduce it- if the current law permits the reduction.

Hi Tackleberry-

After thinking about it this afternoon I came to the same conclusion.

Even with UPS adding 6.1 Billion CS will still be underfunded 30%.
Actuaries estimate that the plan is underfunded by 49 percent, and with the $6.1 billion contribution, will remain 30 percent underfunded. source

It seems to me that the CS Pension 'house of cards' will be shakier now then ever before without future UPS contributions. That $3000/mo is hardly a guarantee then.

It's looks as though we (UPS/IBT) will all have $875/mo at the end of 2013 in our new pension. Am I reading this correctly? (132+132+135.5+147+158.5+170)

What can we assume future contributions to the pension to be? The same at least? So a new hire would get approx. $5250/mo at a 30 year retirement? And me with 17 years left would accrue what - without CS added into the equation (assuming the worst- that they go belly up)?

I'm am just not willing to vote yes on this contract unless I know worst case scenario what my pension payout will be per month.

 

[nickelback]

I heard from a reliable source (feeder driver) that UPS was going to allow us to combine our years PT & FT into one total . Has anyone heard anything about that ? Also heard that there would be no restrictions on jobs we wanted to do after retirement, I figured no union job but haven't heard for sure.

 

[Braveheart]

Read all of the new language in artcle 37 right under the triple time paragraph. That whole underlined section has trouble written all over it for those of us that run an hour or more over daily. Plus you must sign up 2 times a year to request no overtime. What happens if something changes and then you need the ot?

good point but also what if you are off the list and then you need back on it to get off a little earlier to take care of an elderly parent, or kid struggling in school, or wife that had major surgery etc etc? You are locked in for 5 months and the 2nd half would be 7 months which includes Nov-Dec!!!!!!!

Since when does UPS care if you want off the list anyway, hell they love that! 5 and 7 month lock ins are bad news brother!

Easy thing to do is to have every single person sign up to be on the 9.5 list to protect yourself! We make good money for 1, we can work 7.5 hours of overtime per week at a minimum for 2, and since you can work past 9.5 twice a week which most of us do anyway it really adds up to about 8.5 to 10 hours of overtime per week while still having the triple time protection. We will all get the major overtime every Nov-Dec on top of it all anyway.

Plus get your 8 hour requests in on top of that. These things will help the junior drivers and cover drivers get work because they will have to stop cutting routes so often!! I have actually got a couple extra days off every year now because they want to avoid my 9.5 grievance or having to shuffle around my 8 hour request.

 

[Braveheart]

I'm not really sure where the combo job speculation is coming from. I just read the proposed contract and it says very clearly in Article 22 section 3 that the number of combo jobs from the past 2 contracts can't be reduced. No new 22.3 jobs, but the ones that currently exist are protected. Am I missing something?

Well why are we not fighting for new combo jobs anyway? And there are no new full time jobs promised either! There is no new protection for the loss of non 22.3 jobs! We have had like 6-8 full timers quit in our bldg yet everyone replaced by cover driver! Union says as long as they have 10% over average daily routes they do not have to replace them. That sucks!

 

[Braveheart]

It appears the current batch of combo jobs are protected, but there is no language promising new combo jobs, just 20,000 new fulltime jobs.

Can someone please clarify for me what the top rate is for fulltime package car and feeder drivers? The only sentence I see is under fulltime inside jobs, and its in bold saying Top rate is $22.62 plus applicable raises in this agreement. Certainly that can't apply to new package car and feeder drivers as well can it?

I did not see anything mentioning any new jobs at all?

 

[Braveheart]

No, that figure doesn't apply to feeder/package drivers.

Article 41, Section 2
Start: 16.10
Seniority: 17.25
Twelve Months: 17.25
Twenty Four Months: 18.45
Thirty Six Months: Top rate

I don't see what the top rate is for drivers, though. I thought I saw something about $31/hr somewhere on BrownCafe but I could be wrong. Not being a driver, I'm on the fence about this three year progression. -Rocky

2 contracts by Hoffa and 2 extensions to the progression! That is only the tip of the iceberg people! Read at the end where it talks about taking some of our general wage increase and moving it to pension!

 

[Braveheart]

Guys....it's what it currently is plus the new round of raises.

Is the 9.5 language all that stronger now? I was under the impression that once you had your letter in, under the current contract. They could work you over 9.5 once before you were into the "bonus". Now you can't get that till the 3rd day you are over 9.5.

Then you still have to get a BA willing to get you the money.

The important change is the 8hr dispatch.

WE USED TO HAVE A 3 IN ANY 10 WORK DAY VIOLATION BUT IT GOT LOWERED TO 3 IN 5!!!! It did used to be stronger!!

 

[JustTired]

The last sentence appears to say that they can't do it, without us allowing them to do so with a vote. That would be a tough sell.

It says they can't go over the $0.35 without a vote

 

[GuyinBrown]

I reread that... You're right, I stand corrected.