The truth about the new UPS/IBT pension plan

[sawdusttv]

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.

Number one Tie, it is my understanding that UPS has one member on the board in an observatory roll. In other words he knows exactly what goes on with CS.

Number two, yes the company has made general statements over the years about the financial problems of the multi-employer funds including CS.
But, as you state, YOUR running on doesn't make thing the gospel. As usual you choose to water things down and generalize an issue.
My statement was clear, I was speaking of one particular subject and one paticular point in time, not a generalized subject.

At the point in time, when CS made the offer to match any offer that UPS made, Why didn't UPS speak up right then and tell us that the teamsters did not have the money to match the offer. I'm sure that the company could have produced documented proof to that nature.
If they had really cared about our well being they would have done just that!!!

 

[sawdusttv]

Number one Tie, it is my understanding that UPS has one member on the board in an observatory roll. In other words he knows exactly what goes on with CS.

Number two, yes the company has made general statements over the years about the financial problems of the multi-employer funds including CS.
But, as you state, YOUR running on doesn't make thing the gospel. As usual you choose to water things down and generalize an issue.
My statement was clear, I was speaking of one particular subject and one paticular point in time, not a generalized subject.

At the point in time, when CS made the offer to match any offer that UPS made, Why didn't UPS speak up right then and tell us that the teamsters did not have the money to match the offer. I'm sure that the company could have produced documented proof to that nature.
If they had really cared about our well being they would have done just that!!!

Furthermore, If the company had done that very thing, there offer in 97' most likely would have been accepted and we would not be were we are today!

 

[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?

The leaders are only looking out for themselves, not for us. Isn't this obvious?

 

[Bill]

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?

UPS is not guaranteeing anything after age 65, only the years that you work after January 1, 2008. This plan only benefits UPS. For the older employee who has most of his years vested in CS, what happens when he reaches 65, and CS defaults. Only a small portion of the pension comes from UPS, which will be a few hundred dollars. For the new employee who starts now, his entire pension will come from UPS, is guaranteed, but the drawback is that in 30 years, what will $3000 be worth? Please read my thread on "the truth about the new UPS/IBT pension plan".

 

[tieguy]

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.

We may be close on this one. ups has several pension options. One is a catch up type offer where someone who does not have many years vested can elect to recieve a much higher pension disbursment until their social security kicks in at which point they would recieve their pension minus the amount of social security.

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.

When I get around to it.

 

[tieguy]

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?

correct the old blank check strike authorization vote that takes place before an offer has been tendered for consideration. tendered to show unity behind your leadership for negotiation purposes.

Its interesting because you're giving your right to vote on an offer away before its been tendered. Many of clearly stated that you don't trust your leadership that much but yet each contract time in the past 15 percent of you would meet in a parking lot and speak for 100 percent of you giving all rights away.

 

[tieguy]

Number one Tie

thank you , I never knew you cared.

 

[JonFrum]

correct the old blank check strike authorization vote that takes place before an offer has been tendered for consideration. tendered to show unity behind your leadership for negotiation purposes.

Its interesting because you're giving your right to vote on an offer away before its been tendered. Many of clearly stated that you don't trust your leadership that much but yet each contract time in the past 15 percent of you would meet in a parking lot and speak for 100 percent of you giving all rights away.

Tie, the strike authorization vote was taken after months of negotiations had already taken place and the members knew, in general, what the company was proposing, and that it was unacceptable. Like it or not, the Teamster Negotiating Committee was our representatives. They were authorized to make certain decisions on our behalf. That's the way collective bargaining works.

On the other hand, in individual bargaining, like when a sports superstar has his personal contract negotiated by his personal lawyer, (nicknamed "Swifty" usually,) the star probably gets hourly reports and can "vote" on each clause as it is discussed. It's not practical to have the entire membership in the negotiating room, or to have them in the hallway, or on hold on the phone. Instead, our representatives negotiate until they have achieved an acceptable agreement, or the company has declared it's unacceptable offer "final." Then our negotiators either put the agreement to a vote, or call a strike in order to pressure the company to reach an acceptable agreement. Remember, we were dealing with UPS, not Mother Theresa.

The lack of trust in our leadership applied (and applies even more today) to the Old Guard, the guys UPS loves to deal with, not to Ron Carey.

Our strike authorization vote was publicized in advance and taken at the Union Hall. A lot of members skip it because they correctly see it as a vote that will pass overwhelmingly, with or without their presence. And because they have already put in a hard week's work and have other things to do on the weekend.

 

[upsman29]

Thanks. I don't know why everyone believes the propaganda behind the Teamsters and UPS. I give them facts and some of them still dispute it.

Your facts as you say arent facts at all as far as the $132.00....That only applies to the "acural penion" not the "and out pension"...If you retire with the Acural pension you could receive more than 3000 a month...Whats the difference between the two....As simple as I can explain it is once you turn 62 you are qualified for the FULL pension which is the acural pension...The and out pension is a years of service pension say 30 and out which includes part time years after the age of 21....If you're 55 and have 34 years of service but 7 of those are part time you qualify for the 30 and out 27/30 at $100 and 7/30 at $55 which would be a total $3085 but had you works till 62 you would have qualified for the acural pension at which the $132 and so on comes into effect I dont have the actual figure on that but it would be close to the $5000 range...

 

[tieguy]

Tie, the strike authorization vote was taken after months of negotiations had already taken place and the members knew, in general, what the company was proposing, and that it was unacceptable. Like it or not, the Teamster Negotiating Committee was our representatives. They were authorized to make certain decisions on our behalf. That's the way collective bargaining works.

On the other hand, in individual bargaining, like when a sports superstar has his personal contract negotiated by his personal lawyer, (nicknamed "Swifty" usually,) the star probably gets hourly reports and can "vote" on each clause as it is discussed. It's not practical to have the entire membership in the negotiating room, or to have them in the hallway, or on hold on the phone. Instead, our representatives negotiate until they have achieved an acceptable agreement, or the company has declared it's unacceptable offer "final." Then our negotiators either put the agreement to a vote, or call a strike in order to pressure the company to reach an acceptable agreement. Remember, we were dealing with UPS, not Mother Theresa.

The lack of trust in our leadership applied (and applies even more today) to the Old Guard, the guys UPS loves to deal with, not to Ron Carey.

Our strike authorization vote was publicized in advance and taken at the Union Hall. A lot of members skip it because they correctly see it as a vote that will pass overwhelmingly, with or without their presence. And because they have already put in a hard week's work and have other things to do on the weekend.

Jon,

I know how your strike vote works. I also know its a sham.

 

[JonFrum]

New pension articles and analysis:
http://www.tdu.org/view/ups