Idea for Increasing Part-timer Turnout for the Current Contract

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
This is part of the reason I'd like to see a "full scale" for part timers that they reach after a progression.


As a driver I feel anyone that does this job deserves the same pay as me. We'd probably see more part time unity if they had something similar.
And yes, that is exactly what the union needs. It'll be more money for the union via dues, more unity between the part and full-timers (which is sorely lacking), and better quality workers all around. Divide-and-conquer strategies wouldn't work if this were the case, because everyone would be united from the start.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Do you even understand what I'm saying? When did I complain that people doing the same work should be making less than me? You have reading comprehension problems or something? I said I was glad starting pay was increased for part-timers, even though I started at $9.50 skilled, $8.50 unskilled. I'm simply arguing that veterans shouldn't be stuck at the pay rate they were hired at while fresh-off-the-street new hires are making close to 50% more than them.
When has that ever happened?
Seems like you're inventing a problem to be upset about. How bout take a chill pill and wait to see what they negotiate.
 

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
It hasn't happened yet, but it's one of the more concrete things we have so far. Too many things point to the need to increase starting pay rate for part-timers. That's probably the most solid thing we have so far, that the new hire starting rate WILL increase. $15 is the amount that is quoted by the union (or at least some factions of the union) most often, so that's what I'm going with. Like I tell my charges at my hub, we need to see what is in the proposal first, but I also tell them that if there is no catch-up raise for current part-timers, we all MUST vote no.
 

Tony Q

Well-Known Member
Tell the new new they are going to get a raise that is rather significant and that they can vote from their smart phone.
 

mikejonesjr

Well-Known Member
The wording in the last 2 contracts has been something like....
starting pay $11 / seniority+1 year $11.50 / seniority +4 years $13 etc etc.
So I dont see why this year it would change it may be seniority +4 years is $17 so no someone working here 5 years will make more than a new hire. Plus the union did mention a catch up raise for part timers.
 

Blackstream

Well-Known Member
Might wanna be careful about trying to herd the part timers to vote. If what this Tony Q guy keeps saying is true, and this contract does a lot to address PT wages and imbalances and stuff, recruiting the PTers might actually turn a no vote into a yes vote. If there's a legit top scale to the tune of $25-30 in there for PTers mixed in with the 22.4, I would bet on an overwhelming yes vote percentage from PTers... for most of us that would be double to triple our current pay instantly... a huge game changer and very hard to look at objectively. I doubt there'll be a top scale like that... but you never know tbh.
 

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
That's the point, that's exactly what the company is looking for. You think they're going to spin the 22.4 language as anything other than "More full-time jobs for part-timers"? They know that the part-timers have traditionally been overlooked for at least 30 years. Seeing as how it's partially the full-timers' fault for pushing through contracts that piss on their part-time brothers and sisters, you think those same part-timers, especially long-time part-timers, are going to care if they pie is sliced more evenly? Again, I wouldn't vote "yes" to a contract that includes 22.4 language that weakens the union as a whole, but don't be surprised if a lot of part-timers do take it upon themselves to vote and pass through that kind of language so they can finally start getting theirs. It shouldn't be surprising at all to the full-timers when (if) that happens. If you see historic turnout rates for part-timers voting, you'll know why...
 

Blackstream

Well-Known Member
I don't think many part timers will jump at 22.4 jobs though ... literally anyone here can already become a driver if they want. There's people hired this year going driving. So the only reason people aren't going driving is either they don't want to drive period no matter how it's packaged (pun intended), or there's some aspect of the job holding them back that needs to be addressed, most likely the volume of hours they work.

22.4 depends on the execution, but it'll probably just look like an even :censored2:tier version of going driving to them. Still work stupidly long hours every day, but now half of your day is at a :censored2:ty 'why bother?' rate compared to the other half of your :censored2:ty day? Unless somehow 22.4 is guaranteed to only be 8-9 hours total max, even when volume picks up and routes get cut.

The only way I can see a hybrid 'PT driver' job working, is if your job is to take over the truck so that the FT driver can go home at a reasonable hour, and you drive his truck from 5-8 or whatever till it's finished. Then you're basically guaranteed to not work stupid hours.
 

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure most locations have full-time job opportunities the way the one you're at has. But wait, so they're paid inside rate for their inside work and a lower-tier driver rate for driving work? That was never my understanding of how they would be paid, and you're right, that would change things considerably.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
That hasn't happened since the 60's and 70's.

1982. You are not very well informed for being a "big union guy".


33etnv9.jpg



Seriously ?


Full-time progression was 150 days in my state. There was no Article 41 yet in the

National Master.


There was no "progression" for part-timers. They just got annual raises.

After 1984.... they got a straight .50 per hour for 2 years, then the contractual raises.


I don't even have any idea what you are talking about


I was multi-tasking.

I can't even remember now. My bad.

Must have been looking to bust someones chops....

You were available. :biggrin:



-Bug-
 

Blackstream

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure most locations have full-time job opportunities the way the one you're at has. But wait, so they're paid inside rate for their inside work and a lower-tier driver rate for driving work? That was never my understanding of how they would be paid, and you're right, that would change things considerably.
I'm honestly not 100% on this, I've heard so many different things about these 22.4 jobs. Either way, I can't see PTers getting excited about hybrid driving jobs when they're not excited about full on driving jobs that we have now. I'm just not sure what these 22.4 jobs have to offer PTers here.
 

CitizenTruth

Well-Known Member
So as everyone already knows, part-timer turnout for voting in general has been awful for the past couple of years. I'm not going to get into the details of the chicken-or-the-egg problem of why this is the case (is part-timer turnout low because they have been overlooked by the union for a while now, or are they overlooked by the union because their turnout has been low?)

But there is one wildcard in play this time around that could possibly get part-timers to actually vote this time around, and that is the 22.4 proposal. A lot of part-timers are likely to jump at the opportunity to actually get a full-time job, even if it is paid a lower top rate than other full-time drivers.

As a part-time union steward, I think that not only part-timers, but also full-timers should do their very best to inform current part-timers that they need to vote, even if only because the catch-up raises will either be subpar or non-existent. It's quite the slap in the face of 5+ year part-timers (hell, it's a slap in the face of people hired at $10.35 or $11.00 just prior to the contract being ratified) to be getting paid the same (or as much as $4.65 less) as a new hire, so it's a good angle to play to keep them from voting "yes" on a contract that in all honesty is actually looking to sway their opinion in favor of a "yes" vote even if only through the creation of 22.4 jobs.

It's almost like UPS knows that part-timers are going to jump at the opportunity to have a full-time job and for that reason are dangling this 22.4 "carrot" in front of them to divide the full-timers and the part-timers (even though it could easily be argued that the full-timers have essentially been pissing on the part-timers by pushing through contracts that have not been taking care of their brothers and sisters in the part-time ranks).

Again, this isn't something that I'm going to argue because it's not really the point of this thread, but let's be real: Even though technically speaking part-timers could have controlled the outcome of all the contracts by sheer numbers, we've all known that they just don't vote for whatever, and the (general) full-time mentality is "As long as I get mine, screw the part-timers". And then in the same breath, they'll complain about things like load quality from workers who are getting paid peanuts, which makes no sense. It's worked so far in creating a "divide and conquer" atmosphere in my hub, and I don't imagine it's much different in other hubs (just look at all the "preload bashing threads" you see here). The idea behind a union is unity, and it just doesn't exist to the extent it could between the full-timers and part-timers.

I know I'm going to do everything I can at my hub to play that angle and make sure I turn out a 100% "no" vote if there are no proper catch-up raises for the current part-timers, and educate them on how 22.4 positions are not really in their best interests in the long run, so I hope everyone else does the same. At the end of the day, it's not just this contract that such weak language will affect, it's every contract from here forward. Concessions of that nature in a prosperous time for the company will only open the door to far worse concessions in the future. The time for true unity between the part-timers and full-timers is now!

And a TLDR version for people with no attention span:
-22.4 language in the contract seems to be geared towards increasing part-timer turnout.
-Part-timers are likely to be the ones that vote that kind of language in just for the sake of getting a livable wage working only one job.
-All employees, full and part-time, need to play the angle of poor or no catch up raises to turn out a "no" vote from the part-timers in spite of the 22.4 language.
-In addition, the general idea of how such language will weaken the union as a whole in the long run needs to be made clear to the part-timers.
-True unity, not "I got mine so screw the rest" needs to start happening, especially this time around.
What people need to realize is these hybrid drivers will have no 9.5 rights and will be working on Saturday and Sundays for less pay, vote for that? No way, this company abuses the contract language, we can't trust anything they say without clear cut language. We need to improvement''s to what we already have, like harassment and 9.5 and penalty pay for violations of the contract, not introduce something that no B.A. or shop steward doesn't have time for anyway.
 
Top