The truth about the new UPS/IBT pension plan

[sawdusttv]

then where is the disconnect?

You voted them in.
they asked you what you wanted before they left.
they reviewed what they got when they came back.
wheres the disconnect?

WHAT?????1

 

[Cole]

I sent in the poll, and voted as always. I know very few people who voted for Hoffa, or at least that admitted it. As we all know Ledham didn't have near the funds that Hoffa had/has, which is our money, and we can only imagine the other sources.

Imo this contract was in motion the minute Hoffa decided to run for office.
The disconnect started when negotiations started, or the moment they decided the members didn't need to be involved or receive updates etc...This simply an Old Guard way of negotiating, imho.

Granted the Union didn't have agreat deal of clout, due to problems with several pension funds.

 

[FIST]

Let's all face it, the contract is a big ****t sandwhich and we all have to take a bite.

 

[Cole]

Good Morning Vietnam!

I thought of that quote when I first saw the Union was recommending this, and many think if everyone at UPS voted no it would still pass.

 

[DorkHead]

TIEGUY<
I hate to keep saying this but, WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
We did not reject any pension offer in 97'
The union that you so oddly have aligned yourself with this time around, that would not bring the offer to a vote in 97'
We did not turn anything down!
We were not given the chance to vote on it.

Sawdusty.
Keep saying it!! Tieguy just loves to print misinformation when it relates to the '97' STRIKE. He`s got a huge hardon for Ron Carey, as I`m sure most readers already know.

 

[Bill]

The "offset" is the amount that UPS' payment will be reduced by when you reach 65. If CS's payment is reduced the resultant offset is reduced as well, so UPS' payment at 65 is reduced by less. They could have said this more clearly, but their legal obligation to keep your total payment the same when you reach 65 seems clear. On the other hand, if you'd retired already under the CS plan you'd be SOL (and CS underfunding was reported by Boomberg as $18 billion, so $6.1b isn't going to keep it afloat).



Can you provide the source of these numbers? I see a table of monthly benefits per year worked beginning at $132, but that's not obviously the same as a $132 weekly contribution. And where does the $238 number come from? Seriously asking here.

YOUR statement makes no sense. If CS payment is reduced, and even if UPS payment is reduced as well, how can the total payment be the same at age 65? The numbers you refer to is in the current and proposed contracts. Why didn't anyone wonder why your money is worth less each year due to inflation? Are you happy receiving less each year?

 

[Bill]

Huh?


Huh?

What specifically don't you understand? I can go on and on, and write pages like you do, but I try to get to the point.

 

[Bill]

I find it interesting that you folks keep comparing this offer to the one in 97 that you rejected. Why aren't you comparing this offer to what you're presently getting and what you can expect to get when the new pension rules kick in. You had your chance to take the 97 offer and you blew it.

As I recall, UPS wanted to control the pension back in 1997, and one of the conditions was that our social security benefit would be deducted from our pension check. Not a good deal, except for UPS.

 

[Bill]

So where's the APWA pension plan come into play?

If you go to the APWA website you can read the information for yourself. Briefly, the APWA is attempting to form a union for UPS people only, whereas we receive all the benefits, and not allow the Teamsters or UPS to dictate the terms, or share it with other companies.

 

[Bill]

Sawdust good point however they are your leaders and they do represent you and you are them and they are you or so I thought?

Obviously, the Teamsters have their own interests in mind when negotiating a contract. As an example, they are concerned with higher salaries, thus higher union dues.

 

[downtowner]

UPS and the Teamsters both know that the Central States pension is in serious trouble of becoming insolvent. Under the new law (Red Zone Amendment), starting on January 1, 2008, pensions are required to meet minimum funding. Companies will be required to contribute additional funding to meet these standards. UPS knows this, but rather than pay additional money that its employees don't receive anyway, UPS is willing to spend $6.1 billion to withdraw from Central States. The Teamsters mismanagement of the pension fund has created a situation whereas the Teamsters have no choice but to allow UPS to control the pension. This would be a good thing, except for the details in the contract and its supplement.
1. The following can be found in the Master contract (page 24) as well as the Central States supplement (page 14) : " 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." The Teamsters and UPS are telling us that the money is guaranteed, but it doesn't say "guaranteed" once in the contract. UPS has the money, and will pay the pension up until a retiree reaches the age of 65. After that, he/she receives two checks; one from UPS and another from CS, and the combined checks will total $3000 for a 30 and out pension. However, if CS CAN NOT pay its obligation, and must reduce your pension check under the new law(see above), UPS will NOT make up the difference or offset. In all likelihood, this is going to be the case, as CS is still obligated to pay its current retirees, but no additional money is being contributed by UPS. The pension fund will drain faster than before, and become insolvent.

2. In 1997, the pension in CS was increased to $3000 per month for 30 years of service. The following chart is the consumer price index taken from the U.S. government statistics

.............cpi........... what $3000 is worth
1997.....160.8...........$3000
1998.....163.4.............2952.26
1999.....167.1.............2886.89
2000.....172.8.............2791.66
2001.....177.5.............2717.75
2002.....180.7.............2669.62
2003.....184.6.............2613.22
2004.....189.5.............2545.65
2005.....196.4.............2456.21
2006.....203.8.............2367.03
2007.....207.9.............2320.35
As you can clearly see, the $3000 that was negotiated back in 1997 is worth much less today after adjusting for inflation. What do you think your pension will be worth when you retire? It is worth less each year as the cost of inflation rises. The contract must have a cost of living built into the pension plan. This contract doesn't. UPS was contributing $238 per week per employee into the pension fund under CS, but with the new UPS/IBT plan, UPS starts out contributing only $132 per week and increases it each year. UPS will contribute less, so in actuality, UPS is getting their $6.1 billion back in a few years. If UPS contributes more each year starting in 2009, then why are we still receiving only $3000 per month? If more money goes in, shouldn't the monthly payment go up? UPS will benefit the most as they still will only pay out $3000 a month, but the money will be worth less each year, so the bottom line is that after this new fund is fully funded, UPS will never have to contribute another dime, as the interest alone will pay the pension for the retirees. This is exactly what the APWA proposed, only they included a cost of living increase each year.
In conclusion, if this contract is to be acceptable, it needs a guarantee, and a cost of living increase to keep up with inflation.

So vote No, because if the CS plan fails UPS will contribute no more and only guarantee 3k per month.
However,we can stick with the CS plan,and when theyfail we get ZERO
Am I drunk?

 

[tieguy]

As I recall, UPS wanted to control the pension back in 1997, and one of the conditions was that our social security benefit would be deducted from our pension check. Not a good deal, except for UPS.

You're partially right in that this was one of the lines of misinformation spread around. There were no social security penalties in the offer. But then we can argue that one to the end because the teamster leadership at the time would not present our offer to the members back then.

One thing I wonder about is if the 97 offer put more pressure on the CS plan. If you remember UPS offered a private co-administered pension plan that paid 3000 a month. Many pension plans then suddenly raised their payout levels to match what UPS was offering. CS was one of them. In hindsight it appears CS over extended or over spent their means at the time.

 

[sawdusttv]

You're partially right in that this was one of the lines of misinformation spread around. There were no social security penalties in the offer. But then we can argue that one to the end because the teamster leadership at the time would not present our offer to the members back then.

One thing I wonder about is if the 97 offer put more pressure on the CS plan. If you remember UPS offered a private co-administered pension plan that paid 3000 a month. Many pension plans then suddenly raised their payout levels to match what UPS was offering. CS was one of them. In hindsight it appears CS over extended or over spent their means at the time.

Tie,
Is it misinformation because you say it is?

You do bring up one point here that I would like to explore deeper.
You said it appears CS over extended or over spent their means at the time.
This is one point, while I thing that it is true, I feel that UPS would have known this. Being that they had members on the CS board. Not to mention that UPS being the financial GIANT that they are, keep track of were there money goes to the penny. There is no doubt in my mind that UPS was aware that CS was over extendings themselves with the match offer, and it should have been the companies obligation to bring this financial short coming to the employees attention.
That is if UPS truly cares about us and our best interest as you so often state!

 

[Cole]

So vote No, because if the CS plan fails UPS will contribute no more and only guarantee 3k per month.
However,we can stick with the CS plan,and when theyfail we get ZERO
Am I drunk?

How do you come to the conclussion that a no vote, leads to that?

 

[nospinzone]

I'm hearing people saying that they have received multiple ballot packets in the mail, and that another ballot may be on the way. Any truth to this?

And if there ever is a reason to sign an APWA authorization card, its now. We have an extremely effective weapon at our disposal if the APWA were to force a union election. You could sign the authorization card now, which would place an enormous amount of pressure on the Teamsters to give us a real contract. If the Teamsters produce under the pressure, you could then vote down the APWA. I personally believe that the APWA is the best long term solution, but they could still be used to better position ourselves in regards to a stronger UPS-IBT contract that works for us and not the company and the IBT.

 

[tieguy]

Tie,
Is it misinformation because you say it is?

Absolutely. I kept copies of our offer to the teamsters at the time. It clearly states a co-adminstered plan was offered. yet the misinformation that continues to spin today was that ups wanted control of the teamster pensions.

You do bring up one point here that I would like to explore deeper.
You said it appears CS over extended or over spent their means at the time.
This is one point, while I thing that it is true, I feel that UPS would have known this. Being that they had members on the CS board.

Could you tell me how many members we have on the CS Board and who they are. I keep hearing we have 0 on the board. Some say we have 1.

Not to mention that UPS being the financial GIANT that they are, keep track of were there money goes to the penny.

ahhh i kinda think you're supposed to keep track of every penny no matter what you're size if you want to stay in business?

There is no doubt in my mind that UPS was aware that CS was over extendings themselves with the match offer, and it should have been the companies obligation to bring this financial short coming to the employees attention.

As they have done for at least twenty years that I am aware of.

That is if UPS truly cares about us and our best interest as you so often state!

You should educate yourself more before you run off on these tangents. UPS has consistently been talking about the dangers of multi employer plans. CS's poor financial performance has been well documented over the years.

 

[tieguy]

I'm hearing people saying that they have received multiple ballot packets in the mail, and that another ballot may be on the way. Any truth to this?

And if there ever is a reason to sign an APWA authorization card, its now. We have an extremely effective weapon at our disposal if the APWA were to force a union election. You could sign the authorization card now, which would place an enormous amount of pressure on the Teamsters to give us a real contract. If the Teamsters produce under the pressure, you could then vote down the APWA. I personally believe that the APWA is the best long term solution, but they could still be used to better position ourselves in regards to a stronger UPS-IBT contract that works for us and not the company and the IBT.

I'm surprised we have not had any fdx people here encouraging you to do the same thing. I'm sure they are titillated by our current labor issue.

 

[JonFrum]

You're partially right in that this was one of the lines of misinformation spread around. There were no social security penalties in the offer. But then we can argue that one to the end because the teamster leadership at the time would not present our offer to the members back then.

Actually, the offer was silent on the Social Security Offset issue. The offer didn't say there was one, or there wasn't one. My Local President told me on the strike line, that UPS would not rule it out and put it in writing. This made it seem that a Social Security Offset might well be in the final version, or we would have to "pay" in the negotiation process, to keep it out. Remember "the offer" was not a pension plan, but a sales brochure that promised a pension plan would be negotiated after the strike was over and we all returned to work. By then our negotiating strength would have dwindled considerably.

Tie, I've asked you before to scan and post that copy of "the offer" you say you have, and I'm asking you again, now.

. . .If you remember UPS offered a private co-administered pension plan. . .

Actually, the offer was for a jointly-trusteed plan, not a co-administered plan. UPS would appoint the Administrator. This is important because the Administrator makes all the day-to-day decisions.

 

[JonFrum]

Could you tell me how many members we have on the CS Board and who they are. I keep hearing we have 0 on the board. Some say we have 1.

"In May 2007, Mr. Chris Langan, the Trustee appointed by UPS, elected to take a leave of absence from the Board of Trusees while the issue of UPS's potential withdrawal from the Pension Fund is pending. Subsquently, on July 16, 2007, Mr. Langan tendered a letter resigning his position as a Trustee of both the Pension Fund and the Health and Welfare Fund (with his resignation effective the date of his letter)."

From Second Quarter 2007 Report:
http://www.centralstatesfunds.org/cs/Spcl_Councel_Report.asp

Does anyone know if UPS has replaced Mr. Langan?

 

[JonFrum]

TIEGUY<
I hate to keep saying this but, WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
We did not reject any pension offer in 97'
The union that you so oddly have aligned yourself with this time around, that would not bring the offer to a vote in 97'
We did not turn anything down!
We were not given the chance to vote on it.

We voted against the clearly unacceptable contract offer (including the non-existent pension and health & welfare plans) by voting to authorize a strike. The company wouldn't improve their offer, even after the contract "expired," so several days later, out we went! The process isn't perfect, but it was a vote, and a very significant one at that. Don't you remember?