July 10th contract teleforum call

[upsbeernut]

Sorta like a public release game beta. If there’s anything wrong with it, the excuse is that it’s pre-release. But it’s still the same that’s put out in its final form the next month. The excuse was just used so more folks would buy it.

They dangled money like a carrot

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Haven't heard a peep from our BA or Head steward about anything. Everyone comes to me about what little information I've read about the contract from @Tony Q and other "leaks"

Few are talking about true info because of the backlash and punishment from powers that be.
You can't believe anything on the internet or by word of mouth.

When the changes are formally released thru your local then it's down to interpretation and is subject to how much you can believe your local's rendition or their integrity (or lack of).

The total brownout coupled with taking the first offering down to the wire plus the ability to make it easier for everyone to vote is telling imo.

It's just game on (again) and without knowing any true info outside what is posted from the ibt it'll be up to the stewards to separate the pepper from the fly poop and they will have to do it quickly.

The strength of the Teamsters Union is it's members so if this passes or fails it's truly on us, not your local or the ibt, to make it happen.

No matter what tony q or anyone else says, to be fair, we've got to wait to read the whole thing in it's entirety or posting for or against it now is a waste of time imo.

 

[MenInBrown]

I don’t understand why we have to wait to read the entirety of the contract. What they have already released is a NO for whatever else is in there. They have already released a concession. Seriously, what else do you need to vote NO. #nextquestion

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I don’t understand why we have to wait to read the entirety of the contract. What they have already released is a NO for whatever else is in there. They have already released a concession. Seriously, what else do you need to vote NO. #nextquestion

Package car drivers across the country made it clear, they don't want the excessive

overtime and don't want to work weekends. A solution was reached to accommodate

that while creating more full-time jobs and fulfill the contractual requirement to fill more

22.3 positions ala the 22.4 positions.


One piece of language is released.... and that is the reason to vote no ?

Like that somehow "taints" the rest of the contract as being bad ?



-Bug-

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Package car drivers across the country made it clear, they don't want the excessive

overtime and don't want to work weekends. A solution was reached to accommodate

that while creating more full-time jobs and fulfill the contractual requirement to fill more

22.3 positions ala the 22.4 positions.


One piece of language is released.... and that is the reason to vote no ?

Like that somehow "taints" the rest of the contract as being bad ?



-Bug-

It's bad enough they won't be making as much money as we are, it's even worse they have no 9.5 protection. Not only are we throwing our future generation under the bus we are also backing up and running over them again.

Jmho.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

It's bad enough they won't be making as much money as we are, it's even worse they have no 9.5 protection. Not only are we throwing our future generation under the bus we are also backing up and running over them again.

Jmho.

I understand that point of view, but 22.3's or feeder drivers don't have 9.5 protection.

Just as I said before.... nobody is forced to bid the job. But, there will be people that do

want full-time work and this is just another avenue while they wait for a RPCD job.


This is new language and will probably be tweaked next time around.

Just like in any other contact. Article 40 is a prime example.



-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

Package car drivers across the country made it clear, they don't want the excessive

overtime and don't want to work weekends. A solution was reached to accommodate

that while creating more full-time jobs and fulfill the contractual requirement to fill more

22.3 positions ala the 22.4 positions.


One piece of language is released.... and that is the reason to vote no ?

Like that somehow "taints" the rest of the contract as being bad ?



-Bug-

We already had a system to combat excessive OT, with the vast majority of the package car drivers in my building "opting-not to opt-in".
I suspect those stats are consistent with the rest of the country, so I'm not sure that your assertion is "clear"?

This is just an excuse, a "bait and switch" if you will, to implement a two tier wage scale.

Pandora's Box, that need not be opened, in my opinion...




~Bbbl~™

 

[burrheadd]

I'd honestly like to see some facial expression or body language when they lie to us and tell us its a good contract.

Won’t be any of that

The handlers have got them all coached up on how to sell this

 

[Pizza]

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

It's just game on (again) and without knowing any true info outside what is posted from the ibt it'll be up to the stewards to separate the pepper from the fly poop and they will have to do it quickly.

You have to vote yes to find out what's in it!

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

I understand that point of view, but 22.3's or feeder drivers don't have 9.5 protection.

Just as I said before.... nobody is forced to bid the job. But, there will be people that do

want full-time work and this is just another avenue while they wait for a RPCD job.

I agree with this and I don't think it is a bad idea. I am okay with what I've seen so far but there is one important piece missing. This is supposed to be a combo job and a way to alleviate the things you mentioned, not a way to just use 22.4's as lower paid RCPD's. There needs to be language that limits the number of hours they can drive per day. If they drive for more than say 4 hours there needs to be a penalty strong enough that it makes it more expensive to use a 22.4 than an RPCD such as time and a half or double time for all hours worked over 4.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

We already had a system to combat excessive OT, with the vast majority of the package car drivers in my building "opting-not to opt-in".

Is that because of the mythical "lock in ride" perpetuated by the company ?

I suspect those stats are consistent with the rest of the country, so I'm not sure that your assertion is "clear"?

Let me phrase it a different way....

From those members that bothered to show up at their Local Union contract proposal meeting.

That sounds clearer.

This is just an excuse, a "bait and switch" if you will, to implement a two tier wage scale.

Again.... who would be forced to bid the job ?

Pandora's Box, that need not be opened, in my opinion...

Pandora's box was opened in 1982, for a 2 tier wage structure. (for part-time)


Ron Carey didn't try to correct it....



-Bug-

 

[upschuck]

Again.... who would be forced to bid the job ?

Will probably be the only way to go RPCD, from this point forward. So, if you want that position.......

 

[STL Cards]

Agreement has been released.

 

[Bubblehead]

Is that because of the mythical "lock in ride" perpetuated by the company ?

I assume that it is because many want the OT and the extra income it provides???

Let me ask you a question in the hypothetical, albeit a very real, commonplace scenario?

Let's assume "Denis" is a 20 year driver, with 2 kids in college and 10 years left on his mortgage, who has a bid route that includes a pickup log with several late commit times that affords him the opportunity to realize 50-55 hours a week.

Do you think, if these "hybrid drivers" and their flexible schedules are implemented, that this guy will still have the same hours, or will those late pickups be assigned to one of "hybrid drivers" at $20-30/hr rather than $56+ an hour OT rate for the old timer?




~Bbbl~™

 

[STL Cards]

I assume that it is because many want the OT and the extra income it provides???

Let me ask you a question in the hypothetical, albeit a very real, commonplace scenario?

Let's assume "Denis" is a 20 year driver, with 2 kids in college and 10 years left on his mortgage, who has a bid route that includes a pickup log with several late commit times that affords him the opportunity to realize 50-55 hours a week.

Do you think, if these "hybrid drivers" and their flexible schedules are implemented, that this guy will still have the same hours, or will those late pickups be assigned to one of "hybrid drivers" at $20-30/hr rather than $56+ an hour OT rate for the old timer?




~Bbbl~™

Only guaranteed 40 hours.

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

I assume that it is because many want the OT and the extra income it provides???

Let me ask you a question in the hypothetical, albeit a very real, commonplace scenario?

Let's assume "Denis" is a 20 year driver, with 2 kids in college and 10 years left on his mortgage, who has a bid route that includes a pickup log with several late commit times that affords him the opportunity to realize 50-55 hours a week.

Do you think, if these "hybrid drivers" and their flexible schedules are implemented, that this guy will still have the same hours, or will those late pickups be assigned to one of "hybrid drivers" at $20-30/hr rather than $56+ an hour OT rate for the old timer?




~Bbbl~™

I agree, "Dennis'" OT will likely be cut back. The problem is that i hear a lot more employees fed up with the OT and long hours than employees that are begging for more hours at the PCM every morning. For many people the excessive overtime issue and more time with family was number one on the list for them so how do you make everyone happy. This solution, if implemented in an agreeable way, seems address the issues of the majority.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Let me ask you a question in the hypothetical, albeit a very real, commonplace scenario?

Hypothetical questions.... are just that.

Kind of redundant.


If you want the overtime, don't sign the 9.5 list.


To many people are "overthinking" this situation.



-Bug-

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Hypothetical questions.... are just that.

Kind of redundant.


If you want the overtime, don't sign the 9.5 list.


To many people are "overthinking" this situation.



-Bug-

And do you think the company is going to give me the overtime when they can pay someone a lot less??

 

[burrheadd]

I assume that it is because many want the OT and the extra income it provides???

Let me ask you a question in the hypothetical, albeit a very real, commonplace scenario?

Let's assume "Denis" is a 20 year driver, with 2 kids in college and 10 years left on his mortgage, who has a bid route that includes a pickup log with several late commit times that affords him the opportunity to realize 50-55 hours a week.

Do you think, if these "hybrid drivers" and their flexible schedules are implemented, that this guy will still have the same hours, or will those late pickups be assigned to one of "hybrid drivers" at $20-30/hr rather than $56+ an hour OT rate for the old timer?




~Bbbl~™

I see this scenario

Start the 2nd class drivers at normal start time. While the rcpd starts at whatever time gives him 8 hours until his last pickup

I know if it changes more than an hour it can be rebid

But, do you see where this could go