Just to be clear regarding my family i thought i had it good
initially:
they did not want teamster pension-
don't know why they wanted out of this
they did not want teamster medical-
I can only speculate, they wanted control over the plan so they could make changes as they see fit, to increase my personal contribution, so what good would the slight increase in wages been?
Sick pay- This one hits me hard
SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS!!!
THE ONLY REASON THEY WANTED TO ELIMINATE SICK PAY WAS SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY IT WHEN YOU TAKE OREGON FAMILY LEAVE FOR THE BIRTH OF A BABY, ADOPTION, OR PLACEMENT OF A FOSTER CHILD. PERIOD.
It pissed me off when they denied it to me so i could be at home after our child was born 8 years ago. THE OREGON LAW SAYS you are entitled to your sick pay benefit when you take family leave!
So if this company cared about me and my family why did they force me to return to work 4 days after major c-section surgery? I had no paid time coming but I was entitled to my sick pay. so as a result I had no choice financially but to return to work while my wife struggled to take care of our children 4 days after surgery. Would that be acceptable to you?
Retirement health care-because of my loyalty to this company I planned on having this benefit in the future.
So if thinking about my family means fighting to keep those benefits that kept me here for so long than so be it.
When all is said and done if we go back union thats the best possible outcome, if they close their doors second best, if they end up non union I will probably not return two reasons i cost them alot of money regarding the paid family leave issue or I could not see me working for a company who treats their employees like dirt.
ALLTHE MORE REASON TO A TEAMSTER
The company wanted out of the pension because of the cliff vesting five year rule. If the funds deposited for union employees that quit prior to five years were returned, or even followed the employee to their next union position, they might have looked at it differently.
The question of health benefits is one of economics as well. If all of the employees of the company were on the company health plan, the company would have greater buying power, which would bring the cost for per employee down.
I can't speak to the sick pay issue. I don't really see both sides too well. Some companies have paid sick leave, some do not. The management of those that do probably spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that it can be misused, and it can be very difficult to police. In most instances, it isn't the weeklong illnesses that create issues for companies, because most require a doctor's note for three days or more. No, it is the day here, day there, always for a three day weekend occurances that make everyone else suffer. As with anything else, you deal with those individuals as individuals, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I want to understand the issue regarding Oregon law. I know that the FMLA allows a company to have employees burn all of their available paid time off before taking FMLA. Are you saying that Oregon Law requires it? Also, is there a distinction between your own illness vs. that of a family member or the birth of a child relating to taking paid sick time? I would think that you are not eligible to take paid sick time unless you are actually sick. Taking it for the birth of a child would not be covered. I might be wrong there, please correct me if I am.
The retiree health benefits are tricky. Most drivers don't stay in the field until they are 65 and eligible for Medicare. After 20 years plus in the job, many can't continue because of the physical nature of the work. There has to be some bridge until age 65. Again, I see both sides of this, but my thought is that if the company was serious about negotiating, then there should have, at the least, been a clause for grandfathering in those already retired. Perhaps it wouldn't have flown, but it would have been a step to the middle.
I know that most on this board don't believe a word that the company has said in the last two years. This lack of trust, and it cuts both ways, is what will eventually bring this company down, if it happens. Not mismanagement, not the union demands, not the competition, but rather no mutual trust and lousy communication. It is very sad to see.