anonymous4
Well-Known Member
I don't know what you're talking about sorry.
Contract Talks begin 27-September-2012
- Thread starter 728ups
- Start date
Wasn't doing it to be a d***. He looked lost and confused so I said "why don't you just throw up this steel" politely. The guy was cool but had only been there for 3 months! I mean how can you lead when you've got almost no experience?
curiousbrain
Well-Known Member
I'm not disagreeing.
We really need language on combo. jobs and to have these jobs re-filled when an employee leaves or passes away. Also, I do believe health care will be the greatest issue and we need a union friendly President; Romney hates unions and would reem us! I also wish we could re-gain our power and respect-it really feels like UPS pees on us daily and tells us it is raining-we are very vulnerable and helpless in the workplace; even with a contract. They simply ignore it.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
You really don't know anything about UPS or "Our" contract.... Do You ? *smile, grin, laugh*
Now I get it.... A Teamster groupie.... A wanna be.... *Ha !*
-Bug-
Catatonic
Nine Lives
So you don't know either?
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I know more than most....
But, not as much as a few....
-Bug-
And you are as good once as you ever was ...
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
What prevents us from having a contract that allows transfers? Why don't we have this? FedEx and the Post Office do. Real simple:
Transfer if there is an opening, less preference than someone bidding on that job from that building (or local, if the local covers more than one hub), but more than someone hired off the street (make it so a transfer counts as the "off the street" hire for the 1 street hire for every 6 internal promotion, or whatever the ratio is).
If you transfer, you keep your company time, level of sick/personal/vacation days per the local contract (sort of like how a driver bidding into a 22.3 job who was at top rate goes to the top rate of that 22.3 position, which is probably less than a driver's top rate, and vice versa), but is slotted at the bottom of seniority lists, as if he was a street hire. This respects the time he has put into the company, hut doesn't disrespect the local force who may already be working up the ladder in their local and shouldn't be unfairly pushed back by a "new guy".
I'd also like to see the ability to use vacation "days" as opposed to "weeks".
Transfer if there is an opening, less preference than someone bidding on that job from that building (or local, if the local covers more than one hub), but more than someone hired off the street (make it so a transfer counts as the "off the street" hire for the 1 street hire for every 6 internal promotion, or whatever the ratio is).
If you transfer, you keep your company time, level of sick/personal/vacation days per the local contract (sort of like how a driver bidding into a 22.3 job who was at top rate goes to the top rate of that 22.3 position, which is probably less than a driver's top rate, and vice versa), but is slotted at the bottom of seniority lists, as if he was a street hire. This respects the time he has put into the company, hut doesn't disrespect the local force who may already be working up the ladder in their local and shouldn't be unfairly pushed back by a "new guy".
I'd also like to see the ability to use vacation "days" as opposed to "weeks".
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
Nothing prevents it. In fact I'm on the FT transfer list
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
If all hourly employees in the contiguous US were covered by the UPS Pension I would agree with you but the fact that there are some pension plans which are better than others.
What's wrong with off the street hires?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
If all hourly employees in the contiguous US were covered by the UPS Pension I would agree with you but the fact that there are some pension plans which are better than others.
What's wrong with off the street hires?
They all seem to be "Mr. Know-it-alls", if you know what I mean.
themidnightoil
Well-Known Member
If all hourly employees in the contiguous US were covered by the UPS Pension I would agree with you but the fact that there are some pension plans which are better than others.
What's wrong with off the street hires?
the thing that seems unfair to me is how we are 1 Union working for UPS and some Locals have amazing pension plans and others are very poor. I vote for a master contract that includes the same pension for the whole country.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I take it you live in a local whose pension is not very good.
Solidarity only goes so far.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
This would tie in quite nicely with the new lower starting wage, longer progression and lower top out for new FT employees hired as of the ratification date of the new contract.
Current employees would keep their current pensions.
Screw solidarity.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
themidnightoil;
In reference to your....
"I vote for a master contract that includes the same pension for the whole country"
...I suspect the only way that could happen (and even then it would probably take a while) is if the pensions were effectively removed from any-and-all union influence. And, for that to happen, the contract would have to cover the Teamsters willingness to relinquish that influence. Personally, in terms of both the company and it's employees, I think it would be better if they did....but I don't see it as likely to happen.
In reference to your....
"I vote for a master contract that includes the same pension for the whole country"
...I suspect the only way that could happen (and even then it would probably take a while) is if the pensions were effectively removed from any-and-all union influence. And, for that to happen, the contract would have to cover the Teamsters willingness to relinquish that influence. Personally, in terms of both the company and it's employees, I think it would be better if they did....but I don't see it as likely to happen.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
That would be called "Local Union Autonomy"
I thought you knew how this whole Union thing worked ?
-Bug-
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
BigUnionGuy;
And in what way are you implying that I don't? Because I didn't mouth the words "Local Union Autonomy"?
Beyond that, the issue goes well beyond one of local autonomy, and into the issue of the Teamsters utilizing multi-employer pension funds...and then not sustaining the contributing employers. Although we're seeing somewhat of a divergence in that direction now (referring to the recent new member limited liability thing with Central States), the existing employer liability, coupled with the fact that there are already several times more current beneficiaries than contributing members in certain of the plans, "work" against Teamster "willingness". And that lack of willingness - albeit perhaps best for the union overall (I'm not qualified to judge that) - is definitely costly to members still employed by contributing firms like UPS; they're getting the shaft by virtue their having to cover for their fellow union brothers and sisters economic short-sightedness. And by "short-sightedness", of course, I'm referring to their putting their employers out of business. Outside of UPS, ABF, and the remains of the YRCW system, there just aren't many of the Teamster transportation employers of a few decades ago still standing.
And in what way are you implying that I don't? Because I didn't mouth the words "Local Union Autonomy"?
Beyond that, the issue goes well beyond one of local autonomy, and into the issue of the Teamsters utilizing multi-employer pension funds...and then not sustaining the contributing employers. Although we're seeing somewhat of a divergence in that direction now (referring to the recent new member limited liability thing with Central States), the existing employer liability, coupled with the fact that there are already several times more current beneficiaries than contributing members in certain of the plans, "work" against Teamster "willingness". And that lack of willingness - albeit perhaps best for the union overall (I'm not qualified to judge that) - is definitely costly to members still employed by contributing firms like UPS; they're getting the shaft by virtue their having to cover for their fellow union brothers and sisters economic short-sightedness. And by "short-sightedness", of course, I'm referring to their putting their employers out of business. Outside of UPS, ABF, and the remains of the YRCW system, there just aren't many of the Teamster transportation employers of a few decades ago still standing.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
That was not written at a six grade level ... few will be able to comprehend this unless they have teenager at home. Just saying.
Similar threads
