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.
ing joke unless im missing something its for sure a no from me and im PT.
