Last. Best. Final.

[CHEMA-DELMA]

We won't get that much $$, be lucky to see .75 per year

 

[Coldworld]

Mom going to get him one for his birthday

Only if mom can get his ass out of the basement to mow the damn yard.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

We won't get that much $$, be lucky to see .75 per year

You're clearly up on current events.

 

[Coldworld]

This wouldn't work as far as I know because PT insurance subsidizes FT.

PT is filled with 20 something college kids who do 3-5hours of hard exercise 5 days a week. They are the last people you'd see actually using the health plan. Take them off and now the only people on the health plan are old dudes with knee problems and families. FT would have to actually start paying for their insurance and that would NOT fly.

Theoretically that applies to pensions as well, but I am not sure if the PT and FT plans draw from the same fund or if it is separated.

Same pension fund in the west.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Same pension fund in the west.

It's just part of us being awesome af. Nbd

 

[Red Headed Stranger]

This part time thing seems simple to me; you get hired you have the option, $20/hr with benefits after whatever, 30, 45, 60 days. Or 30/hr no benefits. Once a year, like most companies, an open enrollment period. So you can opt to go from 30/hr to 20/hr with benefits. No option to go from 20 to 30 though. Problem solved, make a bit of pocket money and have benefits or make a bit more carrying cash if you know you're going to be shorter term employee.

The problem with your analogy is young, healthy, single people who would want the extra $$ instead of benefits are the same ones that are keeping the health insurance affordable for all. If all you have is older people or young families, the cost of health insurance would be exponentially greater. Again, we need to look out for our entire group of union brothers/sisters and not cherry pick so some get better this or better that. Companies love to pit "them versus us" against each other.

 

[PT Car Washer]

The problem with your analogy is young, healthy, single people who would want the extra $$ instead of benefits are the same ones that are keeping the health insurance affordable for all. If all you have is older people or young families, the cost of health insurance would be exponentially greater. Again, we need to look out for our entire group of union brothers/sisters and not cherry pick so some get better this or better that. Companies love to pit "them versus us" against each other.

Since I am on Medicare and Tricare, can I opt out of health insurance and receive a $10/hr bump in pay?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Since I am on Medicare and Tricare, can I opt out of health insurance and receive a $10/hr bump in pay?

No, but you could retire.

 

[PT Car Washer]

No, but you could retire.

Then who would teach you young pups ?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Then who would teach you young pups ?

Dave ?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Then who would teach you young pups ?

You must’ve had your Kaopectate and Geritol this morning because you’re pretty feisty.

 

[Buffet Master]

You must’ve had your Kaopectate and Geritol this morning because you’re pretty feisty.

Is Geritol even a thing anymore? Has anyone under 50 even heard of it?

 

[wayfair]

Is Geritol even a thing anymore? Has anyone under 50 even heard of it?

TRT is the new Geritol

 

[Thebrownblob]

Is Geritol even a thing anymore? Has anyone under 50 even heard of it?

I’m not sure but since he’s way over 50 I know he’s heard of it. Lol.

 

[anonymous23456]

I’m not sure but since he’s way over 50 I know he’s heard of it. Lol.

Can you use it to make oatmeal cookies?

 

[Buffet Master]

The problem with your analogy is young, healthy, single people who would want the extra $$ instead of benefits are the same ones that are keeping the health insurance affordable for all. If all you have is older people or young families, the cost of health insurance would be exponentially greater. Again, we need to look out for our entire group of union brothers/sisters and not cherry pick so some get better this or better that. Companies love to pit "them versus us" against each other.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't know that it worked like that. For some reason I assumed that it worked different with the employer paying for the benefits as opposed to individuals like most places. But thinking on it now that 2 of you guys have said this, same thing, just the source of the money is different.

 

[Trucker Clock]

From what my sources say ups had no issue paying the money. The issue came up with new jobs the teamsters wanted in the years to come. At first ups said yes we are there, then they came back and got cold feet. Again not for the money aspect but for the job creation. Could be maybe they see a downturn in volume and don’t think it’s possible. Whatever the reason yea. Take it how you will.

There already is a downturn in volume. And not all of it has to do with contract negotiations. Freight in general is hurting. And there is no crystal ball to predict the future.

If it was truly about new FT jobs and not a money issue, there could be a clause in the contract like in previous ones about creation of FT jobs based on economy, based on UPS volume. I know that would leave the door open for fudging, but to promise to create so many new FT jobs when you don't know now if they are needed or not, is ludicrous. Most of the PT jobs that could be combined into FT jobs have already been done for the 22.3. Sure, there are some, or maybe some split shifts, that can be created. But how many?

This, and a possible strike, better not be over future FT jobs, and not payrate or pension or PVD's.

 

[PT Car Washer]

There already is a downturn in volume. And not all of it has to do with contract negotiations. Freight in general is hurting. And there is no crystal ball to predict the future.

If it was truly about new FT jobs and not a money issue, there could be a clause in the contract like in previous ones about creation of FT jobs based on economy, based on UPS volume. I know that would leave the door open for fudging, but to promise to create so many new FT jobs when you don't know now if they are needed or not, is ludicrous. Most of the PT jobs that could be combined into FT jobs have already been done for the 22.3. Sure, there are some, or maybe some split shifts, that can be created. But how many?

This, and a possible strike, better not be over future FT jobs, and not payrate or pension or PVD's.

Thousands.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Most of the PT jobs that could be combined into FT jobs have already been done for the 22.3.

This is very far from true. There are tons more they could combine, to the point maybe 50k jobs could be lost, probably more. Multiple sorts, shifting, car wash, and on and on. Give them anywhere close to top rate and watch how fast jobs get combined and small centers go back to driver sort.

 

[Thebrownblob]

This is very far from true. There are tons more they could combine, to the point maybe 50k jobs could be lost, probably more. Multiple sorts, shifting, car wash, and on and on. Give them anywhere close to top rate and watch how fast jobs get combined and small centers go back to driver sort.

I work at a very large hub we have over 250, 22.3 jobs and we could probably add 250 more easily. Throughout much of the last contract, double shifting anyone that wanted to was common almost all the time.