UPS EMPLOYEES START NEW UNION!

[ok2bclever]

ups79,

when you've been to the top. . .

 

[tieguy]

"I refuse to lower myself to your level."

if you ever do you will have to climb a 24 foot ladder first. Tell us why you keep supporting that leaking bucket retirement plan if you can without throwing another heartfelt crying fit.

 

[tieguy]

I should have added try to defend it without trying to somehow blame UPS for its condition.

 

[tieguy]

"danny, yeah, I have trouble suffering tie, but it is the price of talking to guys like you."

Lol, danny you actually got him to give on that one. Your are da man!!!!!

 

[dannyboy]

I guess with that one sentence, he lumped me in there with the likes of you Tie

I can handle it. Hell, we might even learn something from each other.

If OK was really serious, he would just ignore the posts that you make. That is how I know he likes it when you talk rough to him

Ahhhhh the weekend!

d

 

[ok2bclever]

I have not blamed UPS for it's condition.

Perhaps you confuse my statement that UPS had the same knowledge of the fund's precarious condition as the union had.

UPS has a trustee on the CSPF board so UPS certainly had and has access to all pertinent knowledge regarding the pension fund.

That is a simple fact and in itself should not be taken as blame for the fund's condition.

It does make them a responsible entity of the fund.

That is the nature of a trustee.

What makes you think I support this pension fund outside of wanting it to survive and thrive in order to pay the pension I earned?

I irrespectively disagree that a 24 foot ladder would be long enough to reach down to your level of name calling and personal attacks.

It is also irrelevant as I don't intend to follow you down.

Have a nice day.

 

[ok2bclever]

danny,

You and I have agreed, disagreed and agreed to disagree, but it never devolves down to name calling and personal attacks.

So, no, you misread the intent of that statement if you thought it "lumped" you in with tie.

I have already stated that tie is one of a kind.

 

[tieguy]

"I have not blamed UPS for it's condition.
Perhaps you confuse my statement that UPS had the same knowledge of the fund's precarious condition as the union had."

I am afraid that I find you have indeed tried to muddy the waters with UPS. You keep making references to UPS not doing anything. At other times you make the point that while this present pension system is not that great it is at least better than if UPS has control of it. A clear reference to the days of 1997 when UPS clearly tried to do something to fix the pension. Comon man stand up with conviction! Say it nice and loud so everyone can hear you! The present Multi-employer pension system sucks!!! Don't beat around the bush, don't get cute with the facts don't muddy the waters. Stand up!!!

It is realistically possible that UPS could have taken control of the pension and turned it into a win/win for every one. Once the plan was fully funded they may not have had to pay as much into the plan to keep it at that level. One clear advantage to having your retirement in a single employer plan is the regulatory requirements for funding are much stricter than your multi-employer plans and the insurance of those plans is about 400 percent better than the insurance of a multi-employer plan.

So in your previous posts you again tried to throw cold water on UPS's intentions. I as a management person am according to your bleak outlook on life am not supposed to care for the people I work with and I am apparently according to your point of view not allowed to care whether those people have a nice retirement. Your logic of innuendo which you will now try to deny is totally fricked up.

 

[tieguy]

I think it is important that I point out that the previous post once again addressed the pension issue and again addressed Mr. Okies comments again without any of the alleged name calling charges Mr. Ok tends to hide behind.

 

[dannyboy]

"Perhaps you confuse my statement that UPS had the same knowledge of the fund's precarious condition as the union had.

UPS has a trustee on the CSPF board so UPS certainly had and has access to all pertinent knowledge regarding the pension fund."

Do you think, I mean really, that it just possibly might in your wildest dreams, that UPS was telling the truth during the walkout of 97. That they indead had the wellfare of the employees and as a result the company at heart, knowing that it was a slippery slope with no return?

I think they knew. And I think they tried to warn us about what was going on. And almost word for word what they said in 97 has come to pass.

So if we want to point the finger, it should be at ourselves. We chose not to believe the truth. WE chose instead to hook our wagons to the crooked star that is Cary and Hoffa. ANd while sweeping it under the rug worked for a few years, its over. Time to pay the piper. Bend over and take it like a man.

d

 

[tieguy]

While I am on a roll. Okie even your compliment to Danny is half-rear.(you know what I mean) If you are going to pay the man a compliment then do it, don't get cute with the wording. I have nothing but respect for danny. I believe the man is a person of strong convictions and strong integrity. If I ever had a chance to work with the guy I would consider it an honor even though I know there would be times he as a steward would be absolutely relentless. In my mind a pit bull would probably be a great illustration.

 

[dannyboy]

Thank you Tie. I resemble that remark.

d

 

[ok2bclever]

tie you just refuse to read the posts accurately, how convenient for your diatribes.

I have repeatedly stated I was in favor of UPS taking over the pension in 97.

Repeatedly, in multiple threads.

I have asked you to read slower.

Are you seriously having trouble reading or remembering or just using false accusations of what I said for your own satisfaction.

I never said this present fund is better than if UPS had control of it.

I did say there is no way to know how UPS control of the fund would go, but that is not the same thing except to an individual who looks at everything negatively.

tie, try to be consistent, in one breath you claim I have nothing but praise for the fund and in the next you are admitting yourself that I have said "At other times you make the point that while this present pension system is not that great".

Try to focus instead of trying to put words in and out of my mouth.

"I as a management person am according to your bleak outlook on life am not supposed to care for the people I work with and I am apparently according to your point of view not allowed to care whether those people have a nice retirement."

Sheesh you are full of it and yourself.

While I believe you personally don't give a rats you know what about us workers I haven't even stated that (well, not 'till just now), let alone about real management.

What I have stated is I haven't seen any evidence of UPS doing anything that will help the worker in this current crises, but rather have seen them purposefully and with significant damage to those retired and retiring up the retiree medical premiums.

Those are again, simple facts which apparently confuse you.

Well it's refreshing that you are trying to mispell without name calling and personal attacks, keep working on it.

Not that such childishness regarding a handle as Okie for Ok is truly important it is ludicrously funny that you call me one and then address me as Mr in the same sentence that you are denying that you do so.

You are truly a dog chasing his own tail.

danny, In '97 I believe the CSPF was in the low 90 percent funded area.

I know TDU was screamingly concerned that the fund would become fully funded and UPS would legally be able to pull out of the fund without penalty except for negotiable restraints.

The market seemed to only be able to go in one direction, up.

Benefit payout levels were only two thirds of what they are now and that is a huge factor in the funds current problems.

I suppose UPS foresaw what would happen, certainly it would be likely they could see that the scenario was more likely if the fund matched their significant increases in benefit payouts (and don't twist that into an accusation that I am saying UPS did this to cause this as I state right here that I do not believe that, I believe UPS did it because the withdrawal penalty was manageable and they felt it would be a tremendous financial advantage to have control of their employees pensions, which it would have been even then and especially with the way things have gone), but no, I don't think that this was the vision and reason for the attempted take over of the pension fund.

I think it was simply a good economical move by the company.

As I have said, many times previously despite ties innacurate statements disputing this that I was in favor of going with the company on the pension issue, specifically because UPS was stating we would get full credit for our part-time years which in '97 you still couldn't get a straight answer from the fund that they were going to honor those years.

 

[tonyexpress]

Someone says:

UPS tried to proactively address the pension issue way before 97 as they saw these trucking companies going out of business. Each time this company tries to address this issue your union muddies the debate by questioning UPS's intentions.

You say:

The only news on this issue I have found anywhere is the one regarding UPS limiting their liabilities, not ours. Great to hear UPS is trying to do anything for us, if true.

I lost most hope and respect on this issue when UPS didn't do the right thing and raised our retiree medical premiums because they could get away with it.

Don't use that crap about "honoring the contract" as I know for a personal fact that contract negotiation level Teamster officials told UPS that wasn't the spirit of the article and that they shouldn't raise UPS retirees premiums when it became known UPS was considering it.

They did anyway.

Regardless, if UPS is actually doing anything proactive for the UPS worker's retirement problems rather than just the company's liabilities it seems like this would be something UPS would go out of their way to publicize, at least with their workers.

Liar liar pants on fire. You can't dispute your hatred for UPS and your inane way to justify your inherent disruption of the facts on the board. A comtemptive ploy for twisting the truth.

Much like the liberal twisting during the recent elections,thinking Kerry would triumph over Bush.

I guess its just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[literate]

contemptive?

 

[feeders]

If not now, then WHEN?
If not you, then WHO?

COME STAND WITH US!

 

[tieguy]

Ok I hope you are sincere but in rereading your many posts It certainly appears that in fact you talk on both sides of this issue. I will agree that you do at times speak for the company pension takeover but you do appear to speak a lot more loudly to the point that you can not trust the company and that your plan is better in the hands of the union.

In one of your quotes you state that the company would not pay a cent into the pension funds if they did not have to. No clearer rebuttal of this point exist then our non-union pension plan for clerical grade employees. We certainly do not have to offer non-union admins a pension but we do so any way. We do not have to offer non-union admins paid time off their first year but we do so anyway. There is no one holding a gun to our head to do these things yet we continue to do so.

 

[ok2bclever]

"Hatred of UPS", te you truly are misguided.

Throwing out words like "hatred" for speaking out against things you disagree with rings of the extremism of McCarthyism.

I would like to know if any worker or retiree was happy about UPS raising their retiree medical premiums from $100 for them and their spouse to $1120 over the last several years?

Perhaps I am wrong here a some of the workers thought "YES!".

Right.

But in trying to stay within the boundaries of your acussations (liar, liar. . .) I will just say, "I know you are, but what am I".

 

[ok2bclever]

tie, I was referring to the union pension.

I know UPS would pay into a pension, they already offered to.

The one doubt I do have is not specifically regarding UPS, but from watching many other corporations around the country.

There is a pattern of corporations that have had defined benefit plans for their employees just up and quit them and notify their employees that they were converting to a defined contribution (aka: a 401k type of plan) pension majorly interrupting the financial plans of their employees' futures.

That is a natural worry.

However, with the precarious financial nature of the current union pension funds where our benefits could plummet to 1/3 overnight with little warning and no guarantees the worry about future corporate decisions becomes academical.

If I had quite a bit of time to go I would say the most proactive thing would be to join APWA.

Sorry Feeders that this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked.

It would be great if all issues and problems were simple black and white with easy cures and good guys against bad guys, but it isn't that simple.

 

[parttimejon]

i've only been full time for 8 months and i think the most simple thing i'm gonna do is MAX OUT my 401k and quit depending on unions or companys for my retirement