710, 705?

[upschuck]

Because I was told I was going to get a $1.40. Now all of a sudden it's $1.20. I was outright lied to, tell me how that's fair?

Is that what everyone else got? I'm guessing some got diverted into the pension fund.

 

[AnonyMusser]

Is that what everyone else got? I'm guessing some got diverted into the pension fund.

That makes no sense.

 

[upschuck]

That makes no sense.

Some troubled pension funds got some of the raise money to prop them up to help them to get into better shape, as much as half the first year raise if I recall correctly. It should have been in the contract, though.

 

[hondo]

Because I was told I was going to get a $1.40. Now all of a sudden it's $1.20. I was outright lied to, tell me how that's fair?

If you are a preloader/sorter, my calculations show you should be @ $14.20 according to the contract language. Whoever said you were to get $1.40 was making a blanket statement either because they don't understand it, or it takes too long to explain it.

You actually got 3 raises. It's complicated language that the IBT negotiated in 2007, so we got stuck with it.

Is that what everyone else got? I'm guessing some got diverted into the pension fund.

@upschuck: no raises diverted to benefits for PT or FT. And PT are in the company's plan, not the Local's.

 

[AnonyMusser]

Some troubled pension funds got some of the raise money to prop them up to help them to get into better shape, as much as half the first year raise if I recall correctly. It should have been in the contract, though.

That would involve payroll slashing people's hourly rates to that difference off the books.

 

[AnonyMusser]

If you are a preloader/sorter, my calculations show you should be @ $14.20 according to the contract language. Whoever said you were to get $1.40 was making a blanket statement either because they don't understand it, or it takes too long to explain it.

Ok, well I looked at 22.5b and that $.50 would be seniority + 4 and first progression of this contract at $.70. That took me 2 minutes to make sense of. This other guy had no excuse not to do that math for me when he had access to the agreement language.

 

[CardboardSlinger]

I think there was some misunderstanding/miscommunication between you and your BA (at least I'd like to give her/him the benefit of the doubt). You should be getting a retroactive back pay check, however you don't get the raises in 22.5(a). You still follow the wage schedule in 22.5(b).

I did try to clarify with my BA but he kept repeating that since I was in progression and my raises were given on schedule (at the old contract rates), that I would not be receiving any check. He said the retro check was for people who were past their progression period. Thinking back, the only way I can see that maybe there was a miscommunication is if he thought I was asking if I would receive the raises in 22.5(a), like those who were not in progression. I am aware that I will not and I will follow the raises in 22.5(b). But the way he made it sound, I will not be receiving any check at all for the hours when I was paid less than the rates in the retroactive contract.

I hope that you are correct and I will be receiving a check for those hours. Those hours add up a lot over the 1 year plus that I was paid at lower rates than the new contract rates.

I did check my pay stub on UPSers and received my bump in pay so going forward, I am at the correct rate of pay.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Some troubled pension funds got some of the raise money to prop them up to help them to get into better shape, as much as half the first year raise if I recall correctly. It should have been in the contract, though.

This was the case in my local. We voted to divert part of our raises to shore up our troubled pension fund. This was not in either the supplement or NMA.

 

[upschuck]

If you received a bump in pay going forward, you should get one going backward, retro, unless there is language saying otherwise, which I doubt.

 

[Inthegame]

This was the case in my local. We voted to divert part of our raises to shore up our troubled pension fund. This was not in either the supplement or NMA.

Wage diversions to Pension plans are covered in NM Art 34 Sec 4.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Wage diversions to Pension plans are covered in NM Art 34 Sec 4.

I was referring to the specifics of our rehabilitation plan.

 

[Inthegame]

I was referring to the specifics of our rehabilitation plan.

With dozens of plans, I wouldn't think the specifics of any rehabilitation plan could possibly be in the National Master.

 

[hondo]

Because I was told I was going to get a $1.40. Now all of a sudden it's $1.20. I was outright lied to, tell me how that's fair?

I can't get a straight answer from anyone why my raise is shorted.

I had an 'Aha!' moment. You did not get shorted.

On July 31, 2013 you were @ $12.00 (3 yr preloader/sorter, old contract). You have actually received $2.20 in raises, not $1.20 or $1.40.

I would have to type a wall of text to explain to you how it works out, and don't have time for that now. There were some flyers (PDF files) on the IBT website (teamster.org?) that kind of explained it, with examples. Another poster on here, "Bagels" posted an excellent breakdown of it once; try searching for that.

Oh, and they really, really, really screwed up my pay rate.

 

[silenze]

Can't be any worse than what happened to seasonal workers. I got like 1200 and then the next week they took 800 back.

 

[AnonyMusser]

I would have to type a wall of text to explain to you how it works out, and don't have time for that now.

Well you wouldn't, because I already posted yesterday I looked at the wages section and made sense of it. =P

 

[Inthegame]

Can't be any worse than what happened to seasonal workers. I got like 1200 and then the next week they took 800 back.

Were you entitled to $1200 retro pay? If not correcting the amount is proper, just as it is when one is shorted.
Didn't think any "seasonal" worker got retro.

 

[first lady hh 3]

Unless we can get something like one punch a month like we currently have on healthcare or a 401k match regardless how minimal it may be. You know something that could benefit you and the rest if the country for your next contract. Better to try and fail that not try at all. I mean no offense but I often wonder what side you are on other than you're own.

NOT on my watch! We've been working OUR asses OFF! Next contract...THESE INCOMPETENT ####'s will be voted out n WILL NOT HAVE ANY SAY, BUT WE'RE GONNA MAKE them come down to OUR level, PERIOD
.

 

[first lady hh 3]

I fully expected to be pretty much unaffected by this contract (not even pay issues). Boy was I wrong. Anyway, I've heard the explanations for the changes, and will just have to see how it works out.

Duh...

 

[first lady hh 3]

My guess is it passes. Too many people worried about money they don't have. They aren't concerned about much else because that check is already spent.

If I am hearing correctly 705 received the one punch a month on Teamcare. That was one of the things I was hoping changed knowing Teamcare was inevitable.

Those who vote yes will complain and cry foul soon after ratification and want back what we gave up next time around. You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink. I just pray that no one gets a long term illness because you'll need to punch in once a week to keep your health insurance.

It's one punch per week..r they trying to 'sell you guys on that, to?

 

[710 steward]

It's one punch per week..r they trying to 'sell you guys on that, to?

The "rumor" that got to our center was your leadership got you guys once a month. I was mistaken if you are saying otherwise.