Is telematics over supervison?

[705red]

actually, it is a counter point to mva1985's view that he is well within his rights under the contract to curse at management during union meetings because he is a steward.

Actually its not, article 37 which you peak of does not cover an employee who is acting as a steward. This topic has been discussed by a lot of people and everyone seems to understand what a stewards job is except for 1 person. You might not agree that a steward uses fowl language but that does not fall under article 37. The steward is protected by article 4 here which talks about stewards and the NLRB.

 

[tieguy]

Put down the twarot cards, at no time in my career at UPS have I ever considered going in to management! Only people that cant do what I do every day make that decision, .

Only those people Red? Its clear you want to be a manager which is why you got into management on the union side. You'll never make the same money being in the unions version of management unless the mob kicks in some serious cash for you.So you a frustrated management wannabe became a shop steward and you try to annoy the company with every opportunity in order to get your revenge for not being selected.

 

[SWORDFISH]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1) Personal abusiveness[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]. During a closed grievance meeting to discuss Union matters a Steward possesses a special status. The parties meet as equals and a Steward has wide latitude in what he does and says. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]However, when a grievance meeting or discussion is not closed, but is observable by other employees - whether in a grievance meeting or on the workroom floor - a Steward has less immunity and must not become personally abusive. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I consider it personally abusive when you curse in my office, so don't do it. [/FONT]

+1 Neither party should engage in that.

You have no clue...... you just look to cause problems on this website........ you are nothing but an " ELECTRONIC TOUGH GUY" , the real world face to face you are probably a coward..... very sad

Sounds as though your describing yourself.

Only those people Red? Its clear you want to be a manager which is why you got into management on the union side. You'll never make the same money being in the unions version of management unless the mob kicks in some serious cash for you.So you a frustrated management wannabe became a shop steward and you try to annoy the company with every opportunity in order to get your revenge for not being selected.

-1, I believe Red is right where he should be. To be on the otherside may mean more money but what selling of ones soul that seems to be the cost of getting thier isnt worth it to some. As to where he can make great differences in peoples lives for the good and still make a good living. I have great respect for RED

 

[SWORDFISH]

It takes time to build this area that you speak of. I have been working real hard over teh last 6 years as a steward and it paid off. Once people see that you will have their back and you are not scared to confront management on issues they will help. Every new driver I give a copy of the contract to with my cell number written in the inside of it. Now I get calls from almoost every driver in my center when a sup shuttles them packages or late air. 90% of my center showed up in person to vote for our strike vote back in 08.

It also helps to have a strong union behind you.

I agree and while I have made strides forward in this direction the part about getting others on board is very slow. They see all the abuse that I go through and it discourages them even though Im always winning they dont like the waves it causes. I was responsible for making sure everyone had a contract even though the union was nice enough to wait over a year before we had one available(the current one the previous one they got to us in a timely manner). I dont know about in your area but in our area the union allows to much harassment which discourages people from fighting them. Anyone that stands up against them in my area they starting making up things and throwing suspensions and working terminations at them. I try to assure them that they are all bark but people are just to fearfull. I do however believe like I think your saying once I get the ball rolling w/ the some momentum, the union will grow in power. I have been trying for about 3 years and I think it will take longer than yours because our guys are used to the old CMs that didnt create the hostile environment that we now work in.

Some people may take certain people as radical union members but if you where in certain environments you would understand the comments much more. For instance I may have a whole different attitude in a center environment such a Dragon says he creates. However in a hostile environment you gotta be ready for a fight.

 

[fxdwg]

Sword is a Mediator. His word should be honored and agreed to by both sides.

 

[brownIEman]

Actually its not, article 37 which you peak of does not cover an employee who is acting as a steward. This topic has been discussed by a lot of people and everyone seems to understand what a stewards job is except for 1 person. You might not agree that a steward uses fowl language but that does not fall under article 37. The steward is protected by article 4 here which talks about stewards and the NLRB.

I disagree, I see nothing in Article 4 which countermands the Article 37 requirement to treat people with respect. Please educate me as to which part of Article 4 does this?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I would think that two adults should be able to discuss a situation without either resorting to the use of curse words.

 

[moreluck]

Well, H. E. double toothpicks !!

 

[tieguy]

you don't think you sell your soul with union management? Some of your guys speak the purple kool aid talk better then any company management person could ever do.

 

[JonFrum]

I disagree, I see nothing in Article 4 which countermands the Article 37 requirement to treat people with respect. Please educate me as to which part of Article 4 does this?

It's a good thing any time management reads Article 4 because it means you saw these exerpts. . .

ARTICLE 4. STEWARDS
Recognizing the importance of the role of the Union Steward in resolving problems or disputes between the Employer and its employees, the Employer reaffirms its commitment to the active involvement of union stewards in such processes in accordance with the terms of this Article.

The Employer shall not use interruption of its operation as a subterfuge for denying such right to the steward.

When requested by the Union or the employee, there shall be a steward present whenever the Employer meets with
an employee concerning grievances or discipline or investigatory interviews. In such cases, the meeting shall not be continued until the steward or alternate steward is present.

The legal principle that a steward is management's equal when acting in his official capacity as a steward, and that he is entitled, where appropriate, to use salty language and raise his voice in meetings, is contained in the NLRA, as decided in case law by the NLRB.

 

[Coldworld]

It would be nice to be in an area where the union was strong(I should say the people). We have people like 2units running the show in my area. Most of our work force is nonconfrontational, stay under the radar, cause no trouble, never challenge the boss that rarely ever follows contract unless I make him(very few others will). Its a union nightmare.

This statement pretty much voids the argument from some mgt that ups would take a friendlier attitude toward their employees if there was no union at ups....it would be an absolute nightmare, a thousand times worse than whats been going on the last year.

 

[brownIEman]

It would be nice to be in an area where the union was strong(I should say the people). We have people like 2units running the show in my area. Most of our work force is nonconfrontational, stay under the radar, cause no trouble, never challenge the boss that rarely ever follows contract unless I make him(very few others will). Its a union nightmare.

This statement pretty much voids the argument from some mgt that ups would take a friendlier attitude toward their employees if there was no union at ups....it would be an absolute nightmare, a thousand times worse than whats been going on the last year.

No, it really doesn't. If there were no union there would be no need to push as hard as we do to get every drop of productivity out of each worker. Course, you would get paid a lot less.

 

[Coldworld]

No, it really doesn't. If there were no union there would be no need to push as hard as we do to get every drop of productivity out of each worker. Course, you would get paid a lot less.

I really dont believe that brown, this company started off from the get go with founders who were really interested in efficiency...dont you remember the package car that Jim Casey cut in half to observe how preloaders were loading cars and find ways to cut down on steps and handling. I do agree that folks would be paid much less but I would bet the bank that management wouldnt be making the amount of money that they make either, plus there wouldnt be as many in the management ranks either. I would be more than happy to take a pay cut to the same kind of pay and benefit package that a fedex express driver makes as long as ups loads my truck with the appropriate work load that the average fedex express driver does on a daily basis, but ups would NEVER agree to that and theres a reason for it. If you consider that on many routes a ups driver is doing colse to 1.5 to 2 times the anount of work that an average fedex driver does that usually means more stops, much more pieces, more pickups and much more volume picked up I'd say ups is getting the better deal. Take the average wage for a fedex express is 22-27 an hour. Does ups pay me 50 dollar an hour to deliver a package, Im doing twice the work as fedex drivers.

 

[brownIEman]

I really dont believe that brown, this company started off from the get go with founders who were really interested in efficiency...dont you remember the package car that Jim Casey cut in half to observe how preloaders were loading cars and find ways to cut down on steps and handling. I do agree that folks would be paid much less but I would bet the bank that management wouldnt be making the amount of money that they make either, plus there wouldnt be as many in the management ranks either. I would be more than happy to take a pay cut to the same kind of pay and benefit package that a fedex express driver makes as long as ups loads my truck with the appropriate work load that the average fedex express driver does on a daily basis, but ups would NEVER agree to that and theres a reason for it. If you consider that on many routes a ups driver is doing colse to 1.5 to 2 times the anount of work that an average fedex driver does that usually means more stops, much more pieces, more pickups and much more volume picked up I'd say ups is getting the better deal. Take the average wage for a fedex express is 22-27 an hour. Does ups pay me 50 dollar an hour to deliver a package, Im doing twice the work as fedex drivers.

You are comparing apple and oranges. Or, more accurately, apples with sliced apples. Yes, you do maybe 1.5 to 2x the pickup and delivery, by piece, as a Fedex Express driver. But you do not do twice the work by piece that an Express driver and a ground driver combined do. And that ground driver, being a contractor, is a fixed cost by piece, it is a heck of a deal for them. Since the vast majority of your pieces are ground, I would ask, would you be willing to accept the compensation package of a Fedex Ground driver, if we loaded you up the way they are with the addition of a few air packages?

The business model we all work under is this - UPS pays service providers well above the rest of the industry, and we make it up by bleading every drop of blood we can get from that stone. Unfortunately, often times that equation is uncomfortable for people on both sides of the management line. I know for sure getting after the employees who report to me is not something I have ever been overly comfortable with. But I have spent the past year trying to explain what the results I am expected to achieve for the organization are, and asking my employees for those results in a positive, freindly manner. I have, and continue to provide recognition in the form of pizza or breakfast (out of my own pocket) for hitting milestones on the way to those goals. Guess what I have learned? None of it achieves the results achieved by the management that get, let us say, more intense, and start down the discipline path at the drop of a hat.

I truly wish it were otherwise...

 

[705red]

Only those people Red? Its clear you want to be a manager which is why you got into management on the union side. You'll never make the same money being in the unions version of management unless the mob kicks in some serious cash for you.So you a frustrated management wannabe became a shop steward and you try to annoy the company with every opportunity in order to get your revenge for not being selected.

Tie I do not do what I do for the money. The average agent here in 705 makes much less than they would if they were driving feeder or package car. We do what we do because we believe in something thats bigger than me, you or anyone else here. We believe in going to work, doing our jobs and to be treated like decent workers that work under a CBA.

I only come on to this site to annoy you and 2 bits, I try to help everyone else!!!!!!!

 

[705red]

I disagree, I see nothing in Article 4 which countermands the Article 37 requirement to treat people with respect. Please educate me as to which part of Article 4 does this?

It's a good thing any time management reads Article 4 because it means you saw these exerpts. . .

The legal principle that a steward is management's equal when acting in his official capacity as a steward, and that he is entitled, where appropriate, to use salty language and raise his voice in meetings, is contained in the NLRA, as decided in case law by the NLRB.

IE, you failed to comment on what Brother Jon posted while I was away from the computer for a few days. Any reason?

Jon thanks for posting this.

 

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by JonFrum It's a good thing any time management reads Article 4 because it means you saw these exerpts. . .

The legal principle that a steward is management's equal when acting in his official capacity as a steward, and that he is entitled, where appropriate, to use salty language and raise his voice in meetings, is contained in the NLRA, as decided in case law by the NLRB.

IE, you failed to comment on what Brother Jon posted while I was away from the computer for a few days. Any reason?

Jon thanks for posting this.

Jon's post referenced NLRB case law as a basis for his position, though he did not supply any links or specific case references. I was actually planning on googling some NLRB case issues regarding steward/management interaction prior to replying and have not yet had time.

However, since you seem anxious, I will give you my impressions on the subject in the absence of such information.

I can absolutely accept the principle that a Steward is considered managements equal when meeting to represent a union employee. What I do not accept or understand is this idea that that status relieves him from the contractual mandate to treat others with respect.

If I am meeting with a fellow supervisor, my equal, and I fly off the handle and curse at them, they have every right to complain to our boss and or HR, and I very well could be subject to discipline for that behavior even though we are equals. It appears to me that you, mva and jonfrom feel you are not equal but superior when meeting for union issues with management.

 

[JonFrum]

I don't defend a steward's right to initiate unprofessional speech or behavior. I was assuming the steward was reacting to something outrageous that management did or said.

By the way, normally a meeting in the manager's office means an employee is in trouble and may possibly be disciplined or fired. Management has the upper hand and doesn't have to worry about being disciplined or fired even if the facts prove management was wrong. Thus a steward may be a little hot under the collar to begin with just because management fired the first shot before the meeting, even if management is very polite during the meeting.

 

[brownIEman]

I don't defend a steward's right to initiate unprofessional speech or behavior. I was assuming the steward was reacting to something outrageous that management did or said.

By the way, normally a meeting in the manager's office means an employee is in trouble and may possibly be disciplined or fired. Management has the upper hand and doesn't have to worry about being disciplined or fired even if the facts prove management was wrong. Thus a steward may be a little hot under the collar to begin with just because management fired the first shot before the meeting, even if management is very polite during the meeting.

If you read the contractual language, it does not say you must treat others with respect unless you are first dis-respected. It also does not say you must treat others with respect unless you are hot under the collar. Again, I believe you and red and mva hold a feeling of moral superiority over management when you meet with them.

You are also incorrect that management does not need to worry about discipline. Should the case turn into a full blown unfair labor practices violation slapped on by the NLRB, I am confident the management in question would be in for some very uncomfortable conversations with his superiors, and likely a somewhat narrowed career path.

 

[705red]

Jon's post referenced NLRB case law as a basis for his position, though he did not supply any links or specific case references. I was actually planning on googling some NLRB case issues regarding steward/management interaction prior to replying and have not yet had time.

However, since you seem anxious, I will give you my impressions on the subject in the absence of such information.

I can absolutely accept the principle that a Steward is considered managements equal when meeting to represent a union employee. What I do not accept or understand is this idea that that status relieves him from the contractual mandate to treat others with respect.

Because as a steward we are not an employee covered by the contract at this time and the only aticle in the contract that applies to us (stewards) would be article 4. We apply the contract as a tool while acting as a steward, but we are protected under the NLRB while acting in this position, which allows us more rights in doing so.

If I am meeting with a fellow supervisor, my equal, and I fly off the handle and curse at them, they have every right to complain to our boss and or HR, and I very well could be subject to discipline for that behavior even though we are equals. It appears to me that you, mva and jonfrom feel you are not equal but superior when meeting for union issues with management.

You as a sup are an at will employee because you are not union, while we are union so you cannot compare these two scenarios to each other. If you feel that we were out of line then you do have recourse, you can file a complaint with the NLRB against us. The NLRB will rule on it after interviewing all parties involved, and this is another reason why I like to have the same amount of witnesses from the union side then what management has in the room.

You as a sup might not fly of the handle in a meeting with the stewards, but trust me it does happen. I have never been the first to raise my voice or escalate the meeting but once it has happened I will be more than glad to chime in with the same right back at management.

Typically bad management are the ones that treat employees like this, especially when they have every intention on firing a driver and after they [resent tehir case and its ripped apart by myself and or the grievant they get defensive and result to intimidation.