705red
Browncafe Steward
Dog no one knows for sure. Everything is just rumors right now, but you bring up alot of valid concerns, what i did miss is what will happen under a single employer fund if we have more drawing from it then paying in?
What if Ups buys out Teamsters/Central States Pension woo`s?
- Thread starter wildgoose
- Start date
barking dog
Member
705Red - My understanding of the contract proposal to switch the UPS pension from central states to a UPS only fund is that there are no negotiated increases to the pension benefit paid to retirees. The current limits of 2,500; 3,000 and the maximum drawable of 3,500 are still in place. So I guess my question is what would be the benefit of voting in this proposal and changing pension funds if there are no increases and everything stays the same. It sounds to me like there is a power play going on for control of the pension fund by the IBT and UPS and the retirees are caught in the middle. In order to make this pension fund change the membership will be voting on it in their contract proposal. If there are no real gains to be made by changing funds then why should anyone vote for it?
I also feel that everyone should look at what happened to all of the airlines that filed Chapter 11 and voided their "single employer" pension requirements and turned them over to the PBGC. The end result was that the retiring members got pennies on the dollar for their monthly pension checks and the employers laughed all the way to the bank.
If this is approved by the membership contract vote the same thing could happen down the road at UPS. After all why did United Parcel Service, Inc. spend over $4 million dollars to split off UPS, Inc. as a seperate corporation? It would be easy for them to drain the finances of "small parcel" UPS, Inc. and place it under Chapter 11 just like the airlines did.
This is a very serious issue that should be explained in detail to all of the members at contract ratification meetings and I for one feel that the members should notify their local unions that they want a representative from central states and UPS at the meetings to explain the benefits that the members would see as a result of the change. An open and fair explanantion is due the members and they have the right to hear both sides of the issue. This issue is far too important to the futures of the members to just be decided by reviewing a piece of paper from the IBT or UPS that touts their version of how good it is. Everyone affected has the right to hear both sides of the issues and the IBT and UPS have the responsibility to provide answers in a fair and even manner.
I also feel that everyone should look at what happened to all of the airlines that filed Chapter 11 and voided their "single employer" pension requirements and turned them over to the PBGC. The end result was that the retiring members got pennies on the dollar for their monthly pension checks and the employers laughed all the way to the bank.
If this is approved by the membership contract vote the same thing could happen down the road at UPS. After all why did United Parcel Service, Inc. spend over $4 million dollars to split off UPS, Inc. as a seperate corporation? It would be easy for them to drain the finances of "small parcel" UPS, Inc. and place it under Chapter 11 just like the airlines did.
This is a very serious issue that should be explained in detail to all of the members at contract ratification meetings and I for one feel that the members should notify their local unions that they want a representative from central states and UPS at the meetings to explain the benefits that the members would see as a result of the change. An open and fair explanantion is due the members and they have the right to hear both sides of the issue. This issue is far too important to the futures of the members to just be decided by reviewing a piece of paper from the IBT or UPS that touts their version of how good it is. Everyone affected has the right to hear both sides of the issues and the IBT and UPS have the responsibility to provide answers in a fair and even manner.
Browndawg don`t you work at the 7-11 by the tracks ?you must be getting your information from the x-files or the future apwa president Alf!!!!!! stay tuned for another episode of close encounters of the unthinkable mind.....
705red
Browncafe Steward
No if im correct hes the de-featherer at the bird farm.Browndawg don`t you work at the 7-11 by the tracks ?
Now thats funny i don`t care who you are - thats funny !
Bdawg, this is exactly what we need and that is someone taking a valid concern in their future. I applaud your efforts in getting informed. My feeling on this is simular to yours because I feel its putting all your eggs in one basket no matter how secure our money would be with ups. My other concern is the fact that ups and teamster trustees would be in charge. But I also agree with the amounts given and that knowing how much ups puts into the pension fund now that is kind of a slap in our face. I know this is the early rounds but there are alot to cover before I get interested. Especially if soc sec is deducted. There's no way in hell that will ever get my vote. Lets also hope the rule of OKing jobs is over as well.
barking dog
Member
badpas Thanks for the comment. I feel very strongly that everyone needs to get the whole truth on this issue before they receive their ballot to vote on the proposal. As things stand right now UPS stands to make a killings on the way things are proposed. Not only would they control the pension fund they would also control the contributions into the fund. It is common knowledge that single employer pensions are not as safe and secure as multi employer pensions. This has proven out multiple times over the last several years in the airlines and other industries. Look what happened when ENRON went down and all of the employees had their retirements tied up in the company stock and company pensions. They virtually lost everything. The airlines cashed in with the PGBC and their employees got pennies on the dollar for their pensions.
My point is that when UPS'ers retire they are entitled to the best pension available because they have worked thier assess off for it and they deserve it. It would be a grave injustice for the union to back door a deal and let UPS gouge the pensions of anyone that can make it retirement from a part time or package job. Feeders have a go of it too but nothing like package car drivers and long term part timers.
Every UPS Teamster should be calling their local union and demanding that a pension representative be present at the contract ratification meetings that are held. If the local can not or will not get a pension representative to the meeting then the question is "Just what do they have to hide?"
The UPS'ers should be given all of the facts (pro and con) on the pension change that has the IBT is going to try and get passed through on the contract vote.
My point is that when UPS'ers retire they are entitled to the best pension available because they have worked thier assess off for it and they deserve it. It would be a grave injustice for the union to back door a deal and let UPS gouge the pensions of anyone that can make it retirement from a part time or package job. Feeders have a go of it too but nothing like package car drivers and long term part timers.
Every UPS Teamster should be calling their local union and demanding that a pension representative be present at the contract ratification meetings that are held. If the local can not or will not get a pension representative to the meeting then the question is "Just what do they have to hide?"
The UPS'ers should be given all of the facts (pro and con) on the pension change that has the IBT is going to try and get passed through on the contract vote.
705red
Browncafe Steward
Excellent post!
BROWNDAWG
Active Member
i'm usually on geese patrol, since im a dawg highly trained to control undomesticated geese (goose=female)(gander=male)Browndawg don`t you work at the 7-11 by the tracks ?
Good post, but I think that you are wrong on one point. There is a big difference in the proposal in that they would reinstate the 25, 30, and 35 years at any age clause and do away with the 62 and 65 years old clause.
Watch it or i`ll sic my venoumous duck on ya !i'm usually on geese patrol, since im a dawg highly trained to control undomesticated geese (goose=female)(gander=male)
barking dog
Member
I actually believe that the 25/30 and 35 and out are still there and available and contrary to common perception have been there since the central states changes were put in place. The issue is that going before the 57 and 62/65 caused a penalty and then the added cost of retiree health care made it impossible for anyone to use the 25/30 and 35 and out at any age. It has been the cost of retirees health insurance that has stopped many UPS'ers from going eary.
I have not seen where the issue of restoring the 25/30 and 35 and out at any age with the orginial health insurance premimum has been addressed. The proposal appears to mirror the current entitlements and restrictions without any substancial increase in benefits whether it be increased monthly pension amounts or decreased cost of insurance.
These are the questions that need to be asked of the local union officers and central states pension representatives at the contract ratification meetings. After all, what is the sense of giving up the security that multi employer pension with portability in exhange for the exact same benefits under a single employer plan that could be manlipuated by the employer?
The vote to give up the central states is very important and needs to be investigated before marking the ballot.
Maybe more like the islamic gihad of Teamsters ?i'm usually on geese patrol, since im a dawg highly trained to control undomesticated geese (goose=female)(gander=male)
Camel parking in the rear ?
I think I'm missing something, all of the proposal info that I've seen has been on this site, as far as the 25, 30, and 35 and out that was also on this site. I know in ohio there is no more 25, 30 and so on its 57 w/insurance and deductions before 62 or 65 but I also have a center manager that is pretty high up that has given me some info about the new proposal and he has told me that if ups is allowed to pull out of cs one option will include the paying of our pension until soc sec kicks in and then it will be deducted from our pension. Lets hope thats not true. I normally don't like to post info like that but it is a scenario that needs to be played out if we allow ups and the teamsters to go on this little venture.
Hopefully this clears up what I may have posted, not please tell me what I missed.
I agree completly except I would like to clear up the single emp-pension fund difference. what you said about single emp-pension funds controlled by their companies are as just as you described it, not very reliable. However, the difference with the way the apwa has proposed is that the company would not be in controll nor would the apwa. There maybe trustees involved but the fund would be managed by one of the 3 largest investment firms in the world. This way the problems that other companies had, which are very good examples to learn from, don't happen again. Like I've said in other threads all parties concerned would be invoved and it would be transparent but they would not be in control of to barrow against or do whatever they want to do. Everything would be as it should be and that involves more security for everyone along with maximising profits without risk of ups going out of business. Everything else you said was right on and hopefully more people take the same insiative as you have.
J
JonFrum
Guest
And could someone give us the name of this investment firm. We can then investigate its actual, historical, track record and see if it has been magically immune to market downturns and other problems, or weather it is composed of mere mortals, just like the top investment firms that ran Central States and the other Teamsters-sponsored funds.
If you have to pay a penalty the the 25/30 and 35 at any age is not still there. The any age designation means that there is no age requirement in order to recieve full benifits, only a years of service requirement with no penalties.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
I agree completely but do you think that we, the voting members, will actually get the whole and straight story, in easy to understand language, or more vague and obscure double-talk sugar-coated with a "bonus"?
barking dog
Member
More vague and obscure double-talk sugar coated with a bonus is exactly what I feel the members will see. It will come in a slick glossy brochure from the IBT and most likely will have hall picture and endorsement in it. Maybe the IBT can use the fist full of dollars again like they did when they gave two tier wages to the company and screwed the part timers. That proposal came with a cash bonus. Now years later the starting wage at UPS is the same as it was in the late 1980's and the really sad part of it is the national minimum wage has just about caught up to the UPS starting wages.
The IBT and the company are in the same bed here. It is truly disgraceful to see it happening.
Similar threads
