 | ||||||
Deutsche Post To Outsource To UPS
Teamster Keeps Job, 'cuz Co-workers Back Him Up
UPS Lobbyist Secretly Spurred Ohio to Demand Taxes From FedEx
UPS Must Face Trial in Fight With Its 'Mom & Pop' Franchisees
How To Apply For A DOT
Diabetes Exemption
Disclaimers
N.A.B.E.R. Inc. is not anti-UPS or.anti-Teamster. but rather is dedicated to persuading both organizations to honor not only the letter but also the spirit of their agreements with UPS employees and retirees.
The information on this website does not constitute legal advice. The law is constantly changing, and we make no warranty of the accuracy of information on this site or any site to which we link. If any information on this website is incorrect, please inform us and we will correct it.
N.A.B.E.R. Inc. is not in any way, shape or form affiliated with "VICTIMS OF UPS"
National Alliance of BROWN Employees and Retirees Inc.is a not for profit corporation in the State of Illinois
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
© Copyright N.A.B.E.R. Inc. 2004-08
CLICK ON TABS TO NAVIGATE THE SITE
Change The World
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
-Margaret Mead
UPS Recovers $67k Of A UPSer' s $95k Settlement Against State Farm
UPS vs. Murphy Cited As A Reason To Rewrite The American With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Ohio Considers Anti-trust Lawsuit Against UPS
TRANSPARENT CONTRACT NEGOTIATONS
L-705 Contract Proposals
--------
From AskNABER
CORRECTION
My brother-in-law, a UPS driver for 25+ years, was diagnosed with diabetes about 15 years ago. Yesterday he became insulin dependent. If UPS fires him, what cases can he cite that support UPS having to return him to his driving position. He drives only within the state of Oklahoma.
The U.S Department of Transportation (DOT) dictates that insulin dependent diabetics can NOT work driving vehicles over 10,000 lbs.
The U.S Department of Transportation (DOT) dictates that insulin dependent diabetics can NOT work driving vehicles over 10,000 lbs.
Further:
UPS has won a court case that essentially defined that insulin dependency is not a disability. This keeps firing ID Diabetics from being an ADA (Americans with Disability Act) violation. The ADA forces companies to make "accommodations" or make job transfers for employees that become unable to do their present job because of physical limitations.
Years ago, UPS "took care of their own". Drivers unable to continue driving were given jobs as porters or other hourly inside jobs that didn't require a DOT physical certification.
UPS has won a court case that essentially defined that insulin dependency is not a disability. This keeps firing ID Diabetics from being an ADA (Americans with Disability Act) violation. The ADA forces companies to make "accommodations" or make job transfers for employees that become unable to do their present job because of physical limitations.
Years ago, UPS "took care of their own". Drivers unable to continue driving were given jobs as porters or other hourly inside jobs that didn't require a DOT physical certification.
Today, that doesn't happen.
®
"The success of the company has been because we were not working for money alone." -Jim Casey, founder of UPS
N.A.B.E.R. INC.
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF "BROWN"
EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES INC.
An Organization Formed To Share Information, Promote The Interests, And Assist With The Challenges Of Being A Current Or Former UPS HOURLY Employee.
Sign-up for Free Newsletter
Enter Your Email Address To Receive The Free Newsletter.
NEWSLETTER
3/14/08 On CNBC's Mad Money during the "Lightning Round", Jim Cramer said, "I'm going to put UPS in the solidly in the don't buy...[until the Fed gets its act together]..then it's going to $100".
FOLLOWING THE MONEY
Who is the controversial Hispanic Advocacy group "National Council La Raza" (The Race) that UPS gave $240,000? CNN's Lou Dobbs interviews La Raza's president and CEO. YouTube. According to the group's website, UPS has committed to a multi-year, multi-million dollar contribution.
ADDED 1/20/08
How Congressman Kline helped UPS
and raised money for his new PAC
According to a Harper's article, Kline was key in passing a law that lowered UPS's pension obligation. UPS has donated $15k to Kline's campaign in the last 3 years and held a fundraiser for Con. Kline's leadership PAC. The article described these leadership PACs as "unregulated slush funds." 1/26/08
Shortcut On Safety Saves $$$
NABER hears that UPS is expanding the use of retread tires on to the steer axle of package cars. The DOT used to prohibit their use on fronts until 7 or 8 years ago. While it saves the company money it is certainly not "best practice" when it comes to safety. The real question becomes 'Is a management team, that constantly pays lip service to safety, really concerned about safety if they put cheap tires on their trucks?'
Retreaded tires represent over 60 percent of the tires used on large trucks, but they are not regulated by any existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The NHTSA made research into retreaded tire safety a "priority" in 2002 and for 2005-2009. Given the speed this research is progressing, the public will never know the answer. But the amount of retreads that litter the Interstate Highways, gives us a clue. 4/27/08
Profit Numbers Fudged?
The very first quarter that Scott Davis (as CEO) reported UPS earnings the numbers were off by $65 million. 'OOPS, we entered a $65 million tax credit twice.' It is reasonable to believe someone familiar with the numbers would have had a sense that the numbers were awry. But UPSers know that that's what management does, fudge the numbers. Wall Street doesn't like accounting errors. UPS Cuts 2007 Earnings $65m, Citing Accounting Error
3/1/08
Webcast: Review of UPS/Teamster Labor Contract.
UPS Whiteboard Music
Is NABER the only ones that think it's weird that the music behind the Whiteboard commercials is the intro to a song by the musical group, "The Postal Service"? The song is "Such Great Heights" and is available on Itunes.
Benefit Cutbacks in Multiemployer Plans
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 permits certain underfunded [Teamster] multiemployer plans to eliminate subsidized [25-30 and out] early retirement, subsidized joint and survivor, lump sum and other benefits.
Under the PPA, multiemployer plans that are significantly underfunded are considered to be in "critical status." If certain procedures are followed, these plans can eliminate subsidized early retirement benefit (and/or subsidized survivors benefits) for workers who have not yet retired. Workers will still get all earned benefits if they wait to collect the pension until normal retirement age, usually age 62 or 65, but the pension will be reduced (typically by 6 percent a year) if collected at an earlier retirement age.
If a plan is severely underfunded (for example less than 65 percent funded) or projected not to meet the IRS required funding within four years, then the plan trustees must provide notice to workers that the plan has entered critical status. They can then recommend cutbacks to the union and employers contributing to the plan. The union and employers must agree to the cutbacks in collective bargaining. Finally, a notice must be provided to workers at least 30 days before the benefits reductions take effect.
If these procedures are followed, the plan trustees can reduce the benefits for anyone who was not retired and collecting benefits on the date when the trustees first provided notice that the plan had entered "critical status," even though that date was [years] before the cutbacks were agreed to by the union and employers. SOURCE
A provision in the pension law known as the anti-cutback rule prohibits plans from reducing or eliminating certain already-earned benefits. These include special early retirement benefits, such as 30-and-out pensions, and unreduced widows and widowers benefits...
[But] Under the PPA, [Teamster] multiemployer plans that are significantly underfunded are given an exception to the anti-cutback rule’s protection for already-earned subsidized early retirement and survivors benefits. SOURCE
UPS and the Teamsters Union joined forces to support the "red zone exception". With the Central States buyout behind us, it almost seems as if UPS and the Teamsters had some kind of back-room agreement about the buyout before contract negotiations began.
(EMPHASIS and COMMENTARY Added.)
UPS Is Gonna Miss The Profit Numbers Again
Scottie Davis pre-announced that UPS will not achieve the profits the company expected in the 2nd quarter. The slowing economy and rising gas prices were the reasons given. The stock fell to a 4 year low.
UPS mistated 2007 profits when a tax credit was entered twice. The company earned $4.11/share for the year and not $4.17/share as is reported on Yahoo and MSN. 6/24/08
Contraceptive Coverage
Add Delaware to the list of states where UPS no longer covers contraceptives as part of its Prescription Drug Coverage. Coverage lapsed on May 1. Participants were not even given written notification of the change. A Summary of Material Modification (SMM) to the Summary of Plan Document (SPD) is required by law when a major change is to be implimented to a Health Plan. At least one UPSer's spouse was taken by surprise when she went to pick up her prescription.
Make no mistake, UPS (not the drug plan provider) calls the shots as to what is covered and what is not. UPS is self-insured. The company has been cutting healthcare coverage for woman for years. Prescription coverage for contraceptives was affirmed by the EEOC on 12/14/2000. If UPS insurance denied prescription benefit for contraceptives after that date, you may be eligible for reimbursement. You will need documentation of your purchase of the prescription contraceptives
According to an EEOC website http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/02annrpt.html
"In a cutting-edge case dealing with insurance coverage of oral contraceptives, EEOC contended that UPS's Flexible Benefits Plan discriminated against women unlawfully. EEOC v. United Parcel Service. Under the Plan, female employees and the spouses of male employees were denied coverage for oral contraceptives prescribed to treat female hormonal disorders. The Plan did not exclude any prescription treatments for male hormonal disorders."
UPS has also allegedly been denying coverage for perscriptions under the premise that the level of benefits is not a contractual issue. UPS's Summary Plan Document that spells out that healthcare is a contractual agreement.
"As a bargaining unit employee of UPS, you're eligible to participate in the UPS Health and Welfare Package per the terms of your collectively bargained agreement. Please see your insert for specific details of your group's eligibility for coverage." (UPS SPD 2004)
"Your Prescription Drug Benefit Plan" distributed by Medco Health for UPS states that "Some medications are covered by your plan only for certain uses or in certain quantities. Your plan sets all coverage parameters." (MEDCOHealth.com)
UPS seems to be dropping this prescription benefit, region by region or district by district instead of nationwide. Could it be that they would attract too much attention and the EEOC would again take them to court? Eight years after the original court decision this practice is still going on. UPS has used the same tactic to deny woman insurance coverage to PAP Smears and Mammograms. When will some agency, some woman's group, or even UPSers themselves take up the fight to this seeming obvious injustice?
UPS vs. Murphy Cited As A Reason To Rewrite The American With Disabilities Act (ADA)
"to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in ... Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999), ... that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures." SOURCE In layman terms, if the disability's limitations are lessened by treatment the employee is not protected by the ADA.
NABER suggests you read the following article before buying any company's life insurance, or disability insurance.
Employers Use Federal Law To
Deny Benefits
Dying of cancer, Thomas Amschwand did everything he was told to make sure his wife would collect on the life insurance policy he had through his employer.
"He was obsessed with dotting every `i' and crossing every `t'," Melissa Amschwand-Bellinger recalled about her husband, who died in 2001 at age 30.
But Spherion Corp., the temporary staffing company where Amschwand worked, told Amschwand-Bellinger she would not receive any of the $426,000 in benefits she believed she was due. When she went to court, Spherion succeeded in getting her lawsuit thrown out. The Supreme Court on June 27 refused to review the case.
Amschwand-Bellinger received a refund of the few thousand dollars in insurance premiums she and her husband dutifully had paid. The total, she said, would not cover the costs of his funeral.
The story has played out often under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Designed to protect employee benefits, the law has been used by employers as a shield against suits.
Federal appeals courts, interpreting Supreme Court decisions dating to 1993, consistently have said companies that offer health, life and retirement benefits under ERISA cannot be sued for large amounts of money, or damages. Instead, they can be sued only for typically smaller sums such as Amschwand's insurance premiums...
