[PEN-L:11713] Re: UPS

[Ellen R Shaffer <eshaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A minor point re: the pension fund story - as I understand the press
reports, the employees UPS wants to strand in the pension fund are not
only from "less prosperous" firms, but also from those that are no longer
in business, and therefore not making contributions.  These folks depend
(as you know, Doug) on the funds investment earnings, and on current
contributions from existing employers.  This is how a multi-employer
joint trust is supposed to work. I have no independent info on how the
membership of the
fund breaks down, but my guess is that if UPS pulled out the remaining
members could be in seriously bad shape; and that, as Mike says, UPS is
more worried about control issues than about depriving their employees of
their just pension rewards, or possibly even than how much this is really
costing the the company.

By the way, on the issue of putting the strike to a vote: has UPS asked
its shareholders what they think?  Do institutional investors still exist
out there?

On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Michael Eisenscher wrote:

> Doug,
>
> I don't believe you've got it right.  The company wants out of the joint
> trust, but so far as I know has not offered any particular increase.  What
> they claim is that if they were freed from the drain created by less
> prosperous firms' employees in the joint trust, their contribution would buy
> a higher pension benefit than employees can now get from the trust.  To the
> extent that UPS contributes more to the trust than they would otherwise have
> to if they were to fund only their own employees, this may be true.  The UPS
> claim that benefits could be raised by as much as 50% is highly doubtful,
> however.
>
> There are other issues, however, at stake that go beyond the IBT merely
> seeking to protect an otherwise vulnerable trust fund.  UPS seeks to
> withdraw, not because they are so eager to increase employee pensions, but
> because they recognize that only if they can control and administer their
> own company fund will they have a chance to make significant changes in the
> funding formula.  The immediate payback is that they may be able to get by
> with a smaller contribution to fund current benefit levels -- the amount of
> savings dependent on actuarial calculations for the given census of current
> employees and retirees.  But the real gain would come down the road when
> management demands that the fund shift from a defined benefit to a defined
> contribution basis, and by raising the eligibility standards by, for
> example, increasing the number of hours per year required before an employee
> is eligible to participate.  I'm sure there are others on the list who can
> think of more creative ways UPS management would be able to secure rewards
> once they are freed from the joint trust.  Typically, in single employer
> plans, management also has greater control over investment policies.
>
> Carey was not responsible for raping the various Teamster pension trusts.
> Clearly he has an interest in defending their integrity against further
> erosion than has been suffered as a consequence of deregulation and
> prior-administration looting.  But I don't think that explanation is
> adequate.  Putting aside the history of corruption, the principle of a joint
> trust is not unlike that of an insurance company, which seeks to spread risk
> and protect investments in the interests of highest possible
> returns/payouts.  It is an act of class solidarity for UPS employees to
> remain in the joint trust.  There was a time when they benefitted from the
> superior strength within the trust of the over-the-road trucking employer
> contributions prior to deregulation.  It's now their turn to step up to the
> plate in defense of those drivers whose employers have folded in the wake of
> deregulation.  That form of class solidarity galls UPS management, and
> clearly they will try to appeal to the narrow self-interest of their
> employers, even if they have to inflate their claims in order to sway
> opinion. I don't think they will succeed.
>
> In the final analysis, there are many more issues at stake than just the
> pension (see previous posts).  The union has done a credible job of
> preparing their members for this struggle.  In my visit to the picketlines
> and monitoring of internet traffic, I've found most union members to
> recognize what the company is up to and they will resist it as long as they
> can.   If UPS is prepared to go the distance to impose its will, it may find
> that when the smoke clears it will pay a heavy price regardless of the
> outcome.  Their 80% market share is at stake, as is the good will of their
> employees and customers, which should not be underestimated.  After all, to
> the customer, the delivery driver is UPS, and one of the company's secrets
> of success has been its ability to maintain employee loyalty and morale as a
> means to holding onto its customer base.  Angry, embittered returning
> strikers (or untrained scabs) do not make very good embassadors.
>
> In solidarity,
> Michael
>
> At 09:51 AM 8/12/97 -0700, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >I heard a report that UPS has offered a big increase in pensions to
> >full-time employees, but one which woul require the company leave the
> >Teamsters' collective pension fund - a move that would cause that poor,
> >looted fund to collapse. So if this proposal were to be put to a vote, it
> >would win, which is why Carey is trying to prevent a vote.
> >
> >Any thoughts/comments on this?
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >--
> >
> >Doug Henwood
> >Left Business Observer
> >250 W 85 St
> >New York NY 10024-3217 USA
> >+1-212-874-4020 voice  +1-212-874-3137 fax
> >email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
> >web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
> >
> >
> >
>
>