$8.50 'till 2013? What are they thinking?

[area43]

Hello, BrownCafe. I am a part time UPS employee that will have 10 years seniority in a couple of months. Like most part timers I’ve spent the past several years working other jobs to supplement my income, but UPS has always been my bread and butter. Thankfully between my pay rate and ability to work doubles I am now able to work only at UPS. Barring something seriously unforseen happening I should be eligible to go full time during this contract. All and all UPS has been a decent job, and aside from the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get a driving job at my location I have very little to complain about. Now that the introduction is out of the way I’ll move on to the reason I’m posting this...

I find it unacceptable that the proposed contract (according to makeupsdeliver.com) does not raise the starting pay for part time employees. $8.50 in today’s dollars is chump change. Some of the old timers around here can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the starting pay in 1985 was $8.00 an hour. That’s a $.50 increase in 22 years. On July 24, 2009 the federal minimum wage is going to be raised to $7.25 an hour. What are both UPS and the Teamsters thinking? No one in their right mind is going to do entry level hub/center work for $1.25 more than minimum wage. A year in to this contract fast food and mall jobs will pay more than that. Most of our NON-UNION competitors now have a starting rate higher than $8.50, and any that don’t will raise their starting pay in 2009. If the leaked details are true UPS won’t even have the benefits argument to fall back on since new hires will have to wait a year for those.

Let me break down what $8.50 is in real dollars. When I was hired 10 years ago at $8.50 that was $10.68 in today’s dollars. To flip that on it’s head asking a new hire to come in at $8.50 now would be like asking me to come in at $6.76 in 1998. Since starting pay went up $.50 in the 1997 contract, I feel this should give everyone an idea of how much things have changed since the last increase.

It gets more outrageous when you compare the $8.00 starting pay in 1985 to $8.50 now. In today’s dollars an entry level part time job paid $15.53 in 1985. That means that in actual dollars UPS’s starting pay has went down $7.03 in the past 22 years.

I’d like to urge any of my union brothers that read this to vote “no” on this contract, and let your local reps know that this is a factor in your “no” vote.

I would also urge any UPS management that reads this to understand that a $7.03 decrease in the starting pay (in real dollars) over the last 2 decades as well as delaying benefits for a year is a recipe for disaster. Once 2009 comes around there is no way you will get anyone to work for $1.25 an hour more than minimum wage. You get what you pay for, and $8.50 an hour starting pay without benefits will get you employees that cannot find a better job at Walmart or McDonnald’s. Is that what you want the future of your company to be based on?

*all numbers come from halfhill.com’s inflation calculator.

Hi KTB. Welcome to the Brown Cafe. First, I started in 1985 pt(preload) at $8.00 an hour. I know it has been a while since you posted this thread. I hope your still around to answer my post. Ok, how much do you make an hour as of now? Its been a while but when I worked pt I started at $8 and finshed I believe around $11 or $12 an hour. Full benefits and 4 wks paid time off after my first year,(2 wk vac, 1 wk sick, and 1 wk ph's and all holidays, example, July 4,labor day, etc etc) those must be factored into your hourly pay. Many pt jobs do not offer any paid time off. I worked pt for 2.7 years before I went driving.

Ok, let me throw some numbers out to you. There are roughly 450,000 UPS employees. I have heard there are again roughly 3 ptimers to every 1 ftimer. That is about 300,000 pt ers. Most all of those have UPS insurance. It would be interesting to know the exact amount. I also would like to know how many of those pt ers are married? How many have children? I'll just take a conservative guess. Out of the 300,000 lets say there is a 100,000 spouses and children combined. That means that would be 400.000 pt workers/dependents to be covered by UPS. BTW, Pters, at least when I was a pt er I had better insurance than the ft er. Execellent coverage. Ok, 400,000 pt workers/dependents. The reason I mention this is because we all know health care has gone through the roof. Ask some of our ft retired employees that. Many are paying $400 or more a month in premiuns(only covers husband and wife/no children). In years past they used to pay nothing. KTB, how much do you pay in premiuns a month? Yes, I know there hasn't been a big hourly increase in 22 years, but how much has health care increased over the last 22 years - 200%, 300% or even 400%. KTB, Maybe that is where your hourly raise has gone to. To offset the high cost of health care.

Another point I want to add. UPS has never expected or planned on Pters to stay past 2 or 3 years. In my center maybe a third have gotten married had children and have no intentions of ever going ft. This has been a big burden. I have no problem with employees working 10 15 20 even 25 years pt, but you must take that into consideration the added health care cost to UPS. People are raising families on the pt insurance. One spouse works pt for the ins. and the other has their ft career job/own business some where else. To offset rising health care cost, I believe UPS made the changes to a 12 month(ind)/18 month(family) wait list for coverage. If your intentions are to go full time and the center you are presently working at has a long wait I would repectfully tell you to relocate to a center that has lesser waiting peroid. Relocation, isn't always fun. It takes you out of your comfort zone, but it could pay off in the long run. Reason being. Shorter time peroid to go ft.

In closing, I have stated this before. UPS could have very well wanted to give higher raises for part timers, but as you know we have a pension and health care crisis on our hands. UPS has to predict the future(next 5 years). Its not always easy. Its just like trying to predict the stock market.

 

[sawdusttv]

Look guys, crucify me if you want, but I believe that there is to much time being spent on parts of the contract that effect employees that don't even work at UPS yet, and not enough time on the parts that effect us that are here NOW.
A.K.A.----- $8.50 hr starting pay for part timers, no insurance for a year and 18 months for family.
These people do not work here yet!
If they choose to take a job for $8.50 starting pay with no insurance that is their business. If they don't like the pay or benifits, then they don't have to take the job. If they do take the job, that was their decision. Why should I feel bad about that, or waste my time fighting that battle? If they take the job and find out that they don't like the situation, then speck up and the rest of us will stand behind you. But fighting a battle for a ghost that doesn't exist yet is not in our best interest.

 

[blue efficacy]

Look guys, crucify me if you want, but I believe that there is to much time being spent on parts of the contract that effect employees that don't even work at UPS yet, and not enough time on the parts that effect us that are here NOW.
A.K.A.----- $8.50 hr starting pay for part timers, no insurance for a year and 18 months for family.
These people do not work here yet!
If they choose to take a job for $8.50 starting pay with no insurance that is their business. If they don't like the pay or benifits, then they don't have to take the job. If they do take the job, that was their decision. Why should I feel bad about that, or waste my time fighting that battle? If they take the job and find out that they don't like the situation, then speck up and the rest of us will stand behind you. But fighting a battle for a ghost that doesn't exist yet is not in our best interest.

And here I thought originally the intention of organized labor was to make life better for ALL workers.

 

[ogrelord]

Look guys, crucify me if you want, but I believe that there is to much time being spent on parts of the contract that effect employees that don't even work at UPS yet, and not enough time on the parts that effect us that are here NOW.
A.K.A.----- $8.50 hr starting pay for part timers, no insurance for a year and 18 months for family.
These people do not work here yet!
If they choose to take a job for $8.50 starting pay with no insurance that is their business. If they don't like the pay or benifits, then they don't have to take the job. If they do take the job, that was their decision. Why should I feel bad about that, or waste my time fighting that battle? If they take the job and find out that they don't like the situation, then speck up and the rest of us will stand behind you. But fighting a battle for a ghost that doesn't exist yet is not in our best interest.

But why shouldn't we care about who going to work next to us. Sawdust just think if the union didn't care way back when. there would be no 5 day work week, no overtime. fired for any reason. cause no matter what there going to be a teamster (except right to work states). So we need to watch out for are brother, like they watched out for us.

A vote no is not a vote to strike, it's a vote for them to rework the contract

 

[GuyinBrown]

But why shouldn't we care about who going to work next to us. Sawdust just think if the union didn't care way back when. there would be no 5 day work week, no overtime. fired for any reason. cause no matter what there going to be a teamster (except right to work states). So we need to watch out for are brother, like they watched out for us.

I think you're mistaken if you believe they were looking out for unhired employees "way back when". They were taking care of the current employees needs with little ( if any ) thought to who might be employed down the road. What's good for them will be good for those that will eventually become union members at some point in the future.

 

[Damok]

A vote no is not a vote to strike, it's a vote for them to rework the contract

I have yet to see anyone give any kind of outline for how this will happen. It's real easy to come here and say that but it's a lot harder to actually lay out what you want and you expect and what you can reasonably hope for.

* "Hey re-work the contract"

** "Ok, what do you want us to re-work? What are we allowed to do in the give and take of these new negotiations?"

* "Ummmm... well.... you see.... hadn't really thought that part out"

 

[sawdusttv]

I think you're mistaken if you believe they were looking out for unhired employees "way back when". They were taking care of the current employees needs with little ( if any ) thought to who might be employed down the road. What's good for them will be good for those that will eventually become union members at some point in the future.

That is exactly right GUY!
There are plenty of people that will fill those jobs at $8.50 an hour and no insurance for one year. So, if they take the job at that rate, they must not have a problem with it, so why should we. If people start turning down those jobs, the company will be forced to inprove the situation, so lets work on improving our situation and in turn, by doing so we will be improving the new hires future.

 

[Damok]

That is exactly right GUY!
There are plenty of people that will fill those jobs at $8.50 an hour and no insurance for one year. So, if they take the job at that rate, they must not have a problem with it, so why should we. If people start turning down those jobs, the company will be forced to inprove the situation, so lets work on improving our situation and in turn, by doing so we will be improving the new hires future.

I think a solid start to saving our pension is a great way to improve our futures... and I'm talking about our futures beyond the next 5 years.

 

[sawdusttv]

I have yet to see anyone give any kind of outline for how this will happen. It's real easy to come here and say that but it's a lot harder to actually lay out what you want and you expect and what you can reasonably hope for.

* "Hey re-work the contract"

** "Ok, what do you want us to re-work? What are we allowed to do in the give and take of these new negotiations?"

* "Ummmm... well.... you see.... hadn't really thought that part out"

That's right!
The union acts like they value our opinions and do a good job of finding out what we want and fighting for those things.
I SAY "THAT IS A BUNCH OF MANURE."

They sent one little questionaire out that I suspect never gets read, and preach, come to the meetings were if you get up to the mic and say something we don't like, we'll cut you off and have you removed from the building.
The teamsters don't care about us or our opinion. Lining their pockets and getting what they want is all they are concerned with.
This contract proposal that they are trying their best to shove down our throats should be all the proof you need.

 

[sawdusttv]

I think a solid start to saving our pension is a great way to improve our futures... and I'm talking about our futures beyond the next 5 years.

I would agree with you on that Damonk, except for one thing. I have not seen that solid start yet.
Do you think reinstating the 3000 at 30 any age with 200 dollars a person for insurance is a solid start? I think not! They had that 11 years ago, only they paid 50 dollars a person for ther insurance. So a man and his wife paid 100 dollars of the 3000 for insurance, we will pay 400 of the 3000. this is in CS mind you. That isn't including taxes, survivor benifit, etc... So, you see they are still trying to give us less than what we had 11 years ago, and you call that solid?

 

[Damok]

That's right!
The union acts like they value our opinions and do a good job of finding out what we want and fighting for those things.
I SAY "THAT IS A BUNCH OF MANURE."

They sent one little questionaire out that I suspect never gets read, and preach, come to the meetings were if you get up to the mic and say something we don't like, we'll cut you off and have you removed from the building.
The teamsters don't care about us or our opinion. Lining their pockets and getting what they want is all they are concerned with.
This contract proposal that they are trying their best to shove down our throats should be all the proof you need.

I have never had the bad experiences you describe at your local so I would have to disagree. I'm sorry you have come to believe that our union has such a low opinion of us. I'm certainly not saying it's perfect and talk of leadership change certainly isn't scarce but but right now we have one very important issue to focus on. As hard as it might be you have to separate that.

 

[Damok]

I would agree with you on that Damonk, except for one thing. I have not seen that solid start yet.
Do you think reinstating the 3000 at 30 any age with 200 dollars a person for insurance is a solid start? I think not! They had that 11 years ago, only they paid 50 dollars a person for ther insurance. So a man and his wife paid 100 dollars of the 3000 for insurance, we will pay 400 of the 3000. this is in CS mind you. That isn't including taxes, survivor benifit, etc... So, you see they are still trying to give us less than what we had 11 years ago, and you call that solid?

It's certainly more solid than having them go back to the table in hopes that they get something better. Do you honestly believe that a better deal will come out of that...these same people that you decry as not caring a whit about us? I find it hard to believe that you can reconcile their uncaring attitudes with a solid renegotiation.

 

[sawdusttv]

It's certainly more solid than having them go back to the table in hopes that they get something better. Do you honestly believe that a better deal will come out of that...these same people that you decry as not caring a whit about us? I find it hard to believe that you can reconcile their uncaring attitudes with a solid renegotiation.

I agree that it is taking a chance, but in this case I feel that it is a chance that must be taken. Logic would dictate that the pot would be sweetened in order to get a favorable outcome.

 

[tieguy]

And here I thought originally the intention of organized labor was to make life better for ALL workers.

would you risk your mortgage for someone that does not work here yet?

 

[ogrelord]

would you risk your mortgage for someone that does not work here yet?

Don't we already? when people quit every day don't we have to replace them? There are pleanty of people who work for ups now that don't care, do we want more? we have a dress code. a facial hair code, what the trucks look like code, and why? cause ups wants to stand out from the others. why would we want to hire the same as the others. we want better workers. this contract forces us to hire people who won't care, now working PT at ups will be like working PT anywhere. Go ahead and sell out the part time work this time, and see how they vote next contract.

Don't take care of a borther, see how they take care of you next time!

Vote NO

 

[Damok]

I agree that it is taking a chance, but in this case I feel that it is a chance that must be taken. Logic would dictate that the pot would be sweetened in order to get a favorable outcome.

I appreciate your response and can certainly respect it. I also appreciate you responding civilly and with thought... although we disagree on the best way to reach the same end it's nice to know that decent discussions can still be had

 

[sawdusttv]

I appreciate your response and can certainly respect it. I also appreciate you responding civilly and with thought... although we disagree on the best way to reach the same end it's nice to know that decent discussions can still be had

AGREED!

 

[blue efficacy]

would you risk your mortgage for someone that does not work here yet?

Your company doesn't pay most part timers enough to own a house, even with another job.

 

[tieguy]

Your company doesn't pay most part timers enough to own a house, even with another job.

If you find a part time job that allows you to own a house then take it by all means.

Contract negotiations always take care of those who are here. Those who have not been hired and have not joined the union do not attend meetings nor vote. Therefore the union always negotiates for those who are here. And they will negotiate the rights of the unborn away if it gives those who are presently working a better package. Thats why your starting wage has not gone up in so long. The money that could be spent on increasing the part time starting wage is instead funnelled elsewhere to serve the needs of those already here.

 

[fly on the wa..]

Actually, the company insisted on keeping the starting wage and extending the time for p/t employee benefits and dependant benefits. We think that UPS shot themselves in the foot on this one and will have even more trouble attracting and retaining quality employees than they do now. It will be interesting to say the least when the impact is felt in a few years.