Any other centers using AI for their routes

[10:30 resi]

We are according to the contract. New language.

You only get a penalty under a specific set of circumstances.
e.g. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they give you 8 hours of work. Now there are only two days left in the week and it's impossible for you to go over 9.5 three times so Thursday and Friday they give you 13 hours of work.
If you have just been filing any time you go over 9.5 twice in a week without documenting some mitigating circumstance you are not going to get paid but it is because you have a misunderstanding not because the 'union is screwing us over'

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

Duplicate

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

You only get a penalty under a specific set of circumstances.
e.g. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they give you 8 hours of work. Now there are only two days left in the week and it's impossible for you to go over 9.5 three times so Thursday and Friday they give you 13 hours of work.
If you have just been filing any time you go over 9.5 twice in a week without documenting some mitigating circumstance you are not going to get paid but it is because you have a misunderstanding not because the 'union is screwing us over'

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in the national or southern that says any of that.

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

You MAY be entitled. If you can prove it’s excessive and retaliatory.

Anything over 9.5 is excessive overtime. Simple. logic dictates that in an article that is addressing anything over 9.5 as worthy as penalty pay, ANYTHING over 9.5 would be deemed excessive.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Anything over 9.5 is excessive overtime. Simple. logic dictates that in an article that is addressing anything over 9.5 as worthy as penalty pay would be deemed excessive.

You mean, normal people logic? Remember we’re dealing with UPS. The way that this particular provision is written open to a lot of interpretation.
The company has already expressed their opinion that if it was just over 9.5 contract would’ve said so.

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

You mean, normal people logic? Remember we’re dealing with UPS. The way that this particular provision is written open to a lot of interpretation.
The company has already expressed their opinion that if it was just over 9.5 it would’ve said so.

Oh, I fully expect UPS to play games. But it is sad, and rather disturbing, when union members can’t seem to grasp the idea. Particularly those that are supposed to be representing us on the issue.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Oh, I fully expect UPS to play games. But it is sad, and rather disturbing, when union members can’t seem to grasp the idea. Particularly those that are supposed to be representing us on the issue.

Really the language should’ve been more clear if it was after 9.5 it should’ve said so.

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

Really the language should’ve been more clear if it was after 9.5 it should’ve said so.

Not necessary. The entire point of the language was to keep them from working us over 9 1/2 hours. The language that says they are not to work aus the other two days was there prior and the new penalty language was the only strengthening it needed.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Not necessary. The entire point of the language was to keep them from working us over 9 1/2 hours. The language that says they are not to work aus the other two days was there prior and the new penalty language was the only strengthening it needed.

Well, so far, nobody agrees that 9.5 is excessive I’ve been told possibly 10.5 lol .

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

Well, so far, nobody agrees that 9.5 is excessive I’ve been told possibly 10.5 lol .

Well, they they are weak and scared to acknowledge/force something that is crystal clear.

Let me put it to you another way. If that is the route the union is taking then they are acknowledging that UPS can work us over 9 1/2 hours two days a week every week with no recourse, despite having two pieces of language in the article that specifically addresses that. If that is the case, WTF even bother putting that in there?

The entire thing started with the language saying they are not to work us over 9.5 the other two days. Then they added a language that included penalty for just that. It’s Crystal clear in both the grammar/language aspect and in regard to context.

If the union agrees with the company on this issue, then that will be one of their biggest failures in recent memory.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Well, they they are weak and scared to acknowledge/force something that is crystal clear.

Let me put it to you another way. If that is the route the union is taking then they are acknowledging that UPS can work us over 9 1/2 hours two days a week every week with no recourse, despite having two pieces of language in the article that specifically addresses that. If that is the case, WTF even bother putting that in there?

The entire thing started with the language saying they are not to work us over 9.5 the other two days. Then they added a language that included penalty for just that. It’s Crystal clear in both the grammar/language aspect and in regard to context.

If the union agrees with the company on this issue, then that will be one of their biggest failures in recent memory.

What's crystal clear is the phrase, "...in order to retaliate against..."

Good luck.

 

[Thebrownblob]

What's crystal clear is the phrase, "...in order to retaliate against..."

Good luck.

Yep, throwing in retaliate definitely didn’t help. Soon I’m sure the company will say “we can’t retaliate we don’t control it’s all done automatically by AI”.

 

[100%ORIONComplianceGuy]

What's crystal clear is the phrase, "...in order to retaliate against..."

Good luck.

Yep, throwing in retaliate definitely didn’t help. Soon I’m sure the company will say “we can’t retaliate we don’t control it’s all done automatically by AI”.

The penalty is for being worked over 9.5 hours. Not for retaliation.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Yep, throwing in retaliate definitely didn’t help. Soon I’m sure the company will say “we can’t retaliate we don’t control it’s all done automatically by AI”.

Yeah, it's the company's solver bullet. Kinda ed us.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

The penalty is for being worked over 9.5 hours. Not for retaliation.

Read it. You'll understand.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The penalty is for being worked over 9.5 hours. Not for retaliation.

I can see you haven’t had to sit across the table from UPS very many times regarding language in the contract.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Read it. You'll understand.

Remember, we weren’t going to have cameras in the cab either and now we do.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Remember, we had a decision that said you had 2 9.5 grievances before you got paid for your excessive overtime. Everything is not as black-and-white as some people would imagine.

 

[Brown Down]

It's one of the biggest problems we keep letting vague language into these damn contracts acting like it'll work out and it never has. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy think of UPS will do things the right way

 

[Thebrownblob]

Yeah, it's the company's solver bullet. Kinda ed us.

I think we will get a reasonable decision eventually. But undoubtably some will not be happy.