Contract proposals for 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I'm not. You need to read what is written, not what you imagine.
NM At 38 Sec 2... "The Employer agrees to pay the required pension contribution to the employee(s) original pension trust fund as set forth in the trust agreement, provided there is no conflict with any collective bargaining agreement and/or trust agreement."

That language does not say that the employee will receive all of their pension from their former pension fund.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
With all due respect to @Inthegame....

I thought the issue, was some sort of "pension portability"

in regards to a transfer.


The Art 38 language quoted, was regarding a change of operations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.



-Bug-
 

Inthegame

Well-Known Member
With all due respect to @Inthegame....

I thought the issue, was some sort of "pension portability"

in regards to a transfer.


The Art 38 language quoted, was regarding a change of operations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.



-Bug-
You are correct, and I should know better than to try to enlighten the all knowing one.
We have feeder drivers who have "transferred" out of our local to follow work and are firmly still in our pension plan (and will receive ALL of their earned pension from their original plan). My point was the lack of a national plan doesn't stop the ability of a full time transfer if it was an available option outside of the change of ops language.
Must be too abstract of a concept for the resident know it all to grasp...
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
Is the ability to transfer to another location, high on the list ?

Or, do the issues of pension stability and healthcare take precedent ?



-Bug-
 
1

10 Pt

Guest
Is the ability to transfer to another location, high on the list ?

Or, do the issues of pension stability and healthcare take precedent ?



-Bug-
Thanks for that.

The transferring issues affects some.
The pension and healthcare issues affect all.

I would like to see (and it's unlikely to be agreed to of course) besides the accident language, for any member who is taken out of service for any "investigation" to be paid their guarantee while sitting at home uncharged. Maybe that will speed up their abusive investigation time.
We are always guilty until proven innocent and that's garbage.
 

Coldworld

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that.

The transferring issues affects some.
The pension and healthcare issues affect all.

I would like to see (and it's unlikely to be agreed to of course) besides the accident language, for any member who is taken out of service for any "investigation" to be paid their guarantee while sitting at home uncharged. Maybe that will speed up their abusive investigation time.
We are always guilty until proven innocent and that's garbage.
Many jobs put employees on paid leave while investing issues.... maybe it would stop them from trying to fire people on trumped up charges
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that.

The transferring issues affects some.
The pension and healthcare issues affect all.

I would like to see (and it's unlikely to be agreed to of course) besides the accident language, for any member who is taken out of service for any "investigation" to be paid their guarantee while sitting at home uncharged. Maybe that will speed up their abusive investigation time.
We are always guilty until proven innocent and that's garbage.

....and if the charges are then proven does the member have to pay them back...?
 

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
I would like to see (and it's unlikely to be agreed to of course) besides the accident language, for any member who is taken out of service for any "investigation" to be paid their guarantee while sitting at home uncharged. Maybe that will speed up their abusive investigation time.
We are always guilty until proven innocent and that's garbage.
I'm pretty sure that as it stands now the only contractual language (in either the National Master or the CRSA that governs my region) that provides for an employee to be "taken out of service pending investigation", is in relation to a "serious accident"?

I do however share your sentiment, as we presently have two drivers "out of service pending investigation" as we speak in my backwards Local for circumstances other.

The way I read it, the Company should have two choices in instances other than a serious accident.

One, allow them to work until their investigation is completed, or two discharge them under Art 17.....

.....anything other unduly denies them benefits and creates punitive damage.

What am I missing here @BigUnionGuy, @Inthegame?
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
I'm pretty sure that as it stands now the only contractual language (in either the National Master or the CRSA that governs my region) that provides for an employee to be "taken out of service pending investigation", is in relation to a "serious accident"?

I do however share your sentiment, as we presently have two drivers "out of service pending investigation" as we speak in my backwards Local for circumstances other.

The way I read it, the Company should have two choices in instances other than a serious accident.

One, allow them to work until their investigation is completed, or two discharge them under Art 17.....

.....anything other unduly denies them benefits and creates punitive damage.

What am I missing here @BigUnionGuy, @Inthegame?


Taken out of service.... for what ?

The company is required to make a "declaration" of charges.



-Bug-
 

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
Taken out of service.... for what ?

The company is required to make a "declaration" of charges.



-Bug-
"Taken out of service, pending investigation", over a HR complaint made on June 15th....

....no alternative work, no letter or hearing to date.


Therefore, no pay or benefits, plus many other punitive damages going forward, without the Company ever taking a position.

I don't get it?



~Bbbl~™
 

BakerMayfield2018

Fight the power.
"Taken out of service, pending investigation", over a HR complaint made on June 15th....

....no alternative work, no letter or hearing to date.


Therefore, no pay or benefits, plus many other punitive damages going forward, without the Company ever taking a position.

I don't get it?



~Bbbl~™
Unless claiming that they are concerned for the safety of other employees and or customers I don't know how they can do this.
 
1

10 Pt

Guest
....and if the charges are then proven does the member have to pay them back...?
Depending on issue and the outcome of the charges.
Out of service due to an 800 call that is unsubstantiated is garbage. And with one of the drivers that Bubblehead is talking about I would bet the company has shot themselves in the foot and I hope the company shells out a chunk large enough that drops the stock price.
More Barney Fife antics.
IMG_20170624_143259.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top