Yes or NO on NEW CONTRACT?

[blue efficacy]

Cezanne, I ll have to disagree with you. Like I said before you cannot separate the two. Buy out and the National Contract. Thats why they were both neg. at the same time. UPS knew they could use this to their advantage. They had every right to do so. Great Day!!!! Do you think UPS was just going to sweep those billions under the rug. The Nat. contract reflects the Buy out of 6.1 billion. Ooops, I mean 8 billion. Thats even more of a reason to vote YES. This Nat. contract is lacking economic punch for the rest of us due to the fact our Brothers and Sisters at Central States need help. Cezanne, by you voting no, sends a strong message of . back to our fellow hourly Cs Teamsters.

By voting YES, you're sending a strong message of FU to your PT and 22.3 Teamsters, and even more so to future Teamsters.

 

[filthpig]

I am thankful that the vocal minority will not determine if this contract passes or not.

 

[browned out]

I got my ballot today along with 4 pieces of pro contract propaganda. Just like 1997. Two heavy duty packets from UPS corprate, 1 from UPS Michigan District and 1 from the Teamsters. They use scare tactics to prompt a yes vote.

I hope voters are not stupid enough to fall for this. By the looks of the vote on this site; we are not going to go for this crap. It is up to us to spread the word and educate these next few days and weeks to our teamster brothers and sisters to vote no.

We are not lucky to have this job. We are not the struggling auto industry or real estate industry. We bust our ass and UPS's turnover rate proves it. Anyone can get hired at UPS but not everyone has the work ethic to stick it out. We deserve better.

VOTE
No
Nada
Nyet

 

[browned out]

TIE GUY

The CS pullout is locked in. The Union has conceded that and a no vote will not change that. UPS will not allow that to go back to Central States.

 

[Damok]

TIE GUY

The CS pullout is locked in. The Union has conceded that and a no vote will not change that. UPS will not allow that to go back to Central States.

Where in the world did you get this information from? I don't believe I've ever read anything stating this point. If you, or anyone else, has a link I'd appreciate it. I was under the impression that the CS buyout/pullout was tied to the contract.

 

[tieguy]

TIE GUY

The CS pullout is locked in. The Union has conceded that and a no vote will not change that. UPS will not allow that to go back to Central States.

Regardless of whether you're right or not; my point still stands so what is your question?

 

[sawdusttv]

Regardless of whether you're right or not; my point still stands so what is your question?

The new CS pension plan is not locked in to anything. The employees in the CS plan will get to vote on it!

 

[tieguy]

The new CS pension plan is not locked in to anything. The employees in the CS plan will get to vote on it!

and the contract offer is still structered the way it is because we are spending 6 billion dollars and more to fix this pension plan and to beef up others.

 

[sawdusttv]

and the contract offer is still structered the way it is because we are spending 6 billion dollars and more to fix this pension plan and to beef up others.

Tie,
Go sell that snake oil somewhere else. The company admitted a couple of years ago that we were being paid less that half of what we should be getting, here in the CS plan. So the company and the union have BOTH been short changing us for years! Now that we are wanting our money, they are crying poor, poor, pitiful, Multi-Billion dollar company.

 

[sawdusttv]

Tie,
let me clear something up for you.
We did not ask the company to turn our pension over to the teamsters and CS. That was a decision totally between UPS and the teamsters, and for 30 years before our people started drawing on this pension fund, everything was wonderful. As soon as we started drawing the crying started. Anyone with any intelligence knows that UPS was well aware of these problems and since they are the one that made the decision to turn it over, the company should have stepped in long ago and done something. Not waited until it was time for us to start drawing our pension.
This mess was created by the company and the union, not the hourly employees. We did our part. We busted our butts and backs for 30 years or more. Now that it is time to reap the benifits of that hard work the company and union are telling us that the benifits are not there.
We earned this pension, and to insinuate that it is our responsiblity to fix the problem is utterly crazy! We should not be expected to make any concessions what so ever. It is the companies and unions responsibility to fix the problem and give us what is rightfully ours, and quite frankly, we don't care which one foots the bill, or if they share in it. But it should not be us, the hourlies paying for it.

 

[Mystakilla]

Your so right there sawdusttv, however, WE the hourlies will be paying for the mistakes of both the company and union officials.

its really sad.

 

[browned_out]

Firsr off this 6.1 billion is nothing more than a loan, Ups will recoup this money and more in the long run. This loan is for 5 years, if this contract is accepted we will begin paying on that loan with split raises, 3 year progression for new drivers, freezing the starting pay of p/ters, no health care for 1 year for new p/t hires, no benefits for family for 1 1/2 years,etc, etc. You get the point. Is this really the best contract??? Think long and hard about your decision.

 

[BrownShark]

Firsr off this 6.1 billion is nothing more than a loan, Ups will recoup this money and more in the long run. This loan is for 5 years, if this contract is accepted we will begin paying on that loan with split raises, 3 year progression for new drivers, freezing the starting pay of p/ters, no health care for 1 year for new p/t hires, no benefits for family for 1 1/2 years,etc, etc. You get the point. Is this really the best contract??? Think long and hard about your decision.

BrownedOut,

Indeed, you have hit the nail on the head!

If you have the time, and energy, any person can figure out that with all the concessions given to the company, they re-coup the 6.1 billion over 5 years and "we" helped pay this back if the contract goes thru in its current state.

I prefer to walk on aug 1 2008.

 

[TheVoice]

And so it is. Here I am at a crossroad of sorts. A road between that which my instinct, my research, my experience, my education, my sense of probability all telling me I should vote No, and the elitist, the old guard telling me vote yes.

Indeed, there are concerns about the political climate & its repercussions in a worst-case scenario. Among concerns of a impotent negotiating committee, fat-cats with their hidden agendas.

A decision to live with, is on the mind of those that vote with conscience. The gamble of many for the good of all, or most. A means to an end, the categorical imperative of our destiny by way of the finality of a vote.

And with it all, I chose NO.

The Voice

 

[insight]

If I read Sawdusttv correctly, folks relying on now and will draw on in future are being left in the dust to fend for themselves with the declining health of CS? UPS pulling out means it just dumps everyone with no recourse? That's crazy!

 

[Cezanne]

Just got hold of a informational sheet about this new IBT/UPS pension plan. Everybody in the Central States area was under the assumption that those years were paid at 55 or 60 dollars per service year, truth is that they are paid under the old formula of a percentage of a standard thirty year pension at the level when you left the UPS Pension Plan to go full time. For example; if you have 10 years part time that would equal 1/3 of roughly 1,000, about 330 dollars, you would then add that to your full time years to get a set pension benefit. The problem with that is that back in the late seventies the part time pension plan was paying less than it is today, so your credit for those part time years will be less. From my understanding nothing was mentioned about the 6 percent deduction for every year prior to age 65, which was in place prior to these negotiations.

 

[tbird2000]

For me it's not UPS or the poorhouse. I fuel our jets outside at night and when the snow is coming down and the wind is a blowin' and I'm freezing my ULD off, I think "Is it worth it?" . Benefits are great, don't get me wrong, but when I'm wet and cold am I really thinking about my pension? No, I'm thinking about my reward via direct deposit on Friday morning for last weeks torture. What I'm getting at is the split raises, they really expect me to bust my ass through peak and rack up hours of overtime when I know I could be taking home more if my raise came all at once? It would really piss me off if this split raise became a reality, at my gateway they cut our hours hardcore after Jan. 1st. When the other half of my raise kicks in (Feb. 1st) I'll be getting booted out after 3 hours. Maybe I am looking at this too one-sided, it's the side that is telling me to vote "no"

 

[Cole]

First of all folks, why argue with management peeps like Tie Guy? They sure can't and wont be objectionable on it, and I don't mean that in an insulting way, since they got prime stock and bonuses etc...We have our own interests too.

As far as the comparison to 97 "all over again", huge difference, the Union has recommended a yes vote, and that wasn't the case as we all know in 97. That being said they could talk out some of the language in Art 37, a,d others that leave us almost completley vulnerable to the "company's discretion" etc...

 

[gandydancer]

...I didn't think it was sarcasm. I only hoped it was a sarcastic remark.
Maybe we should pack them a lunch also, before they get on the little bus on the way to work.

Neither I nor the poster you first responded to are advocating coddling new hires. The point is that if you don't pay them enough contract wages UPS has to come up with other ways to get workers. And when they've done this in the past this has included shuttles and off-contract discretionary payments. And I, for one, don't want the company picking and choosing who gets what benefits or money. I want it in the contract.

 

[sawdusttv]

First of all folks, why argue with management peeps like Tie Guy? They sure can't and wont be objectionable on it, and I don't mean that in an insulting way, since they got prime stock and bonuses etc...We have our own interests too.

As far as the comparison to 97 "all over again", huge difference, the Union has recommended a yes vote, and that wasn't the case as we all know in 97. That being said they could talk out some of the language in Art 37, a,d others that leave us almost completley vulnerable to the "company's discretion" etc...

That's right, Why would the union tell us in 1997 to vote no and then in 2007 we are offered much less and they are saying vote yes?
I SMELL A RAT!!!!!!!!