realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
You sound like an IBT cheerleader. Is's all about you.
Latest news calls to reject contract...
- Thread starter jrred
- Start date
You sound like an IBT cheerleader. Is's all about you.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I am the furthest thing from an IBT cheerleader but, yes, it's all about me. Are you paying my mortgage, leasing my car, funding my 401k and Roth IRA? It is most certaily all about me.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I just went to my local (162) contract meeting.
As a full-time driver in the Western Conference, this agreement will be a great deal for me. I will continue to be covered (with full maintainence of benefits) under the Oregon Teamster Employers Trust for medical insurance, which provides excellent coverage. I will get pension and pay increases, improved language regarding the use of technology for discipline, and improved language regarding optional holidays.
Unfortunately....this comes at the expense of screwing over a significant number of my fellow employees in other parts of the country on their medical coverage, and offering what I feel is still a grossly substandard starting wage for new PT employees. For that reason, I am reluctantly voting "no" on the offer.
Here's the thing though; unlike a lot of people on this forum, I didnt have my mind made up before I got all the facts. There are people on this forum who would have voted "no" on world peace and a cure for cancer simply because hall was involved in it. There are also people who will vote "yes" on anything just because the IBT is telling them to.
Did Hoffa and Hall "sell us out"? No. They negotiated what they felt was the best offer they could get given the economy, the current uncertainty regarding healthcare, and what they perceived to be our collective willingness to go out on strike. Its pretty easy for someone who has never negotiated a contract in their life to sit behind a computer and bloviate loudly about what Hoffa and Hall "should have" done for us. The bottom line here is that we collectively have the final say in the matter with our vote.
As a full-time driver in the Western Conference, this agreement will be a great deal for me. I will continue to be covered (with full maintainence of benefits) under the Oregon Teamster Employers Trust for medical insurance, which provides excellent coverage. I will get pension and pay increases, improved language regarding the use of technology for discipline, and improved language regarding optional holidays.
Unfortunately....this comes at the expense of screwing over a significant number of my fellow employees in other parts of the country on their medical coverage, and offering what I feel is still a grossly substandard starting wage for new PT employees. For that reason, I am reluctantly voting "no" on the offer.
Here's the thing though; unlike a lot of people on this forum, I didnt have my mind made up before I got all the facts. There are people on this forum who would have voted "no" on world peace and a cure for cancer simply because hall was involved in it. There are also people who will vote "yes" on anything just because the IBT is telling them to.
Did Hoffa and Hall "sell us out"? No. They negotiated what they felt was the best offer they could get given the economy, the current uncertainty regarding healthcare, and what they perceived to be our collective willingness to go out on strike. Its pretty easy for someone who has never negotiated a contract in their life to sit behind a computer and bloviate loudly about what Hoffa and Hall "should have" done for us. The bottom line here is that we collectively have the final say in the matter with our vote.
UPS Preloader
Well-Known Member
Thank you...
kingOFchester
Well-Known Member
My mind was made up when I was supplied information from my local. I did not need to have my hand held at a meeting to understand what was being presented to me. I was able to read, comprehend and investigate ALL information that was being provided. Perhaps your local did not keep you guys up to date like my local has done. A local that is willing to encourage its members to vote no. I was considering voting against them in the upcoming election. Now I am seriously reconsidering.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I didnt need my hand held at a meeting. I can read and think for myself. However...sometimes it is useful to have the intent of the language explained... in context...by someone who was actually involved in negotiating it. Reading the raw language of a contract proposal doesnt always give you all of the facts; a lot of times it can be beneficial to hear about any grievances that were filed and upheld/denied under the old language so that you can understand the intention of the new language. Any idiot can take two or three sentences of a 100 page contract out of context and jump to any sort of conclusion he wishes to about the merits of the contract as a whole. The wise person listens to the people who helped write and negotiate it so that those people can explain what the companies initial offer was in comparison to what was finally agreed upon.
All that being said, my local was recommending a "yes" vote on the offer, but for the reasons I stated before I will be (reluctantly) voting "no". Its certainly not the worst offer in the world and I personally will have little to complain about if it passes, but I think we could do better. I do feel gratitude for the fact that its 5-year duration will extend over 1 year past the point at which I reach PEER 80 eligibility, which means that in theory at least it could be the last contract I will ever vote on.
3 done 3 to go
In control of own destiny
I will not go for that again. I wasn't in favor of it. I voted no to that also. We will lose hundreds a yr. For the rest of my career,anyway. The union needs to manage things better. Even Ny state had record monies raised in their pension plans. Story was in times union. Why can't the teamsters.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
According to our BA the last year of the economic turndown will come off of our books at the end of this year and our pension fund will show greatly improved numbers in early 2014.
I read the same article on the NYS Pension and hope to read a similar article about our fund in the near future.
I read the same article on the NYS Pension and hope to read a similar article about our fund in the near future.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
They cannot tax people?
They can only tax 25% of your mod income from BC (for healthcare only)Tell them you want to work under the table!!
CaptainObvious
Well-Known Member
Sober,
I'm curious if they covered the language in Article 34 section(friend) at your meeting.
(friend) The agreements on Maintenance of Benefits for Teamster Health and Welfare Plans in the Western Conference of Teamsters Supplemental Agreement and in the Northern California Supplement Agreement shall continue in full force and effect dur- ing the life of this Agreement. The increase in the Northern California Supplemental Agreement any Supplement, Rider or Addendum as a result of a Maintenance of Benefit increases shall be allocated as follows: fifty cents ($0.50) per hour to Health and Welfare in each year of the contract. The remainder of the con- tribution increase set forth in Section 1.(a) each year will be paid into pension. If this hourly amount does not cover the required increases in cost required by the Health & Welfare Plans, then the remainder of the forty dollars ($40.00) per week increase will be diverted to a health and welfare contribution, instead of being available for pension.
Would like to hear your thoughts towards this either way .
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I'm OK with it. Worst case scenario is a slight decrease in the amount of the raise we get in pension contributions, which will still be over $9 an hour by the end of the contract.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Then maybe you should belong to a ME-ION instead of a UNION. You do know what a UNION is don't you?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
oldupsman
Well-Known Member
Sober I agree with you that there is some good stuff in this contract. Especially on the national level. And my local President made that clear.
But for our local it's all about the health care issue. For us to dump our UPS plan for the garbage that is TEAMCARE, well it would just be flat out stupid.
Sober, on one issue, you and I are miles apart. That issue aside, I appreciate your thought and efforts to understand and apply the new contractual language to yourself. I also admire your thought of your fellow brothers and sisters who would be adversly affected by this contract. Unlike DAVE, who maintains a ME, MYSELF & I Mentality with this proposal, other members are NOT his concern and I respect your concern for others.
We stand together in our beliefs on this contract. I do not have a child with Diabetes and I will not have to make the numerous trips to the hospital or pharmacies to maintain that childs health. I will not be the one who ends up in BK court when the copays, deductibles and 20% wipe out my family.
What I can do, is think RATIONALLY as a brother to a fellow employee and put myself in "his/her" shoes.
Yes, I am not currently sick, nor is any of my family members, but I WILL NOT SELL OUT for $3.90 and SCREW my brothers and sisters of this UNION.
Its more than just "complaining". Its understanding how the words have meanings.
Further, You mention "interpretations" explained by those that negotiate them, but unfortunately, when those "interpretations" reach the hub levels, the meanings change. hall can explain away everything in the contract to his hearts content, but the reality remains the same. The managers and supervisors of UPS ( who were NOT at negotiations ) will still attempt to twist the words and meanings like the always do because the language isnt crisp, self defining or clear cut.
Article 6 when modified in 2008, included the first use of technology language. I COMPLAINED over and over about the language and many understood its ramifications. Some voted NO, but the majority accepted hallS explanations about this technology when he said "this technology will only be used for safety".
But what came of that explanation from the GUY who negotiated this language?
Well, thats simple. In my locals jurisdiction, 55 drivers were terminated from information obtained via DIAD, GPS, SPARKS and TRACE reports. 55 drivers in 8 years. Further, PRODUCTION harrassment increased by 100%. Warning letters, suspensions and such became the norm despite hallS explanations.
Same thing is happening today with the NEW article 6 language that I ONCE AGAIN call for our brothers and sisters to reject!
They DIDNT improve article 6, and instead made it easier for the company to use it against us. Lets examine the language:
Section 6. Technology and Discipline
No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely upon information received from GPS or any successor system
unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an
employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company).
The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The
degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not bechanged because of the use of GPS.
The Company acknowledges that there have been problems with the utilization of technology in the past. Therefore, at the request
of the Union’s Joint National Negotiating Committee Co-Chair a meeting will be scheduled with the Company Co-Chair to discuss
any alleged misuse of technology for disciplinary purposes and what steps are necessary to remedy any misuse.
In any sentence, wording is carefully placed in to give meanings and "intent". Sometimes, words can give the wrong impressions. In this case, the words "OR" and "UNLESS" play KEY roles in this structure.
Then first part of the sentence says that "NO EMPLOYEE shall be discharged if that discharge is based SOLELY on technology"..... Some people stop reading at this point and give the sentence a meaning that is NOT implied. The sentence has a BIG caveat contained in it, and its that caveat that is the danger for the employees.
The danger comes after the word "UNLESS". After this word, additional words were placed in "AT THE COMPANY'S" request. Those words are "ANY INTENTIONAL ACT"
THAT COULD MEAN ANYTHING at the package level. These words were NOT in the original construction of this part of article 6 in 2008. Then, it futhers that danger by including the term "where he/she intends on defrauding the company".
Again, what does that mean? We have 7 cardinal sins that are spelled out, and they are spelled out to avoid giving a supervisor or manager a green light to create a scenario whereas to discharge employees. In Article 6, there are NO defining terms for technology.
Lets give an example for conversations sake.
Lets say in the morning PCM, the manager says that you cannot drive more than .5 miles to get lunch, and you disagree with that and decide to drive 2.5 miles to get lunch. Two things have happened here. First, you disobeyed a directive and committed "an intentional act" confirmed by GPS. The defrauding would be the "extra mileage" driven which would have extended your drive time.
A manager may take this opportunity to discharge you "solely" based on the GPS confirmation alone as the sentence reads. NOW , I know this may sound ridiculous, but its happened before.
Secondly, lets say its 10:29am and you have one more air stop to make by 10:30 and you are two blocks away. Obviously, you are not going to make service on that air package, so you open the stop on the wrong street and close it out, then drive to the location and it comes up good on time, OR you open the stop, scan the package and leave it open until you get to destination then close it at 10:32 showing up ontime.
GPS and sparks confirms your actions and the manager discharges you for Dishonesty for "defrauding" the company out of legitimate delivery time because of "AN INTENTIONAL ACT". Further, if the employee DENIES, LIES or OMITS information relating to information obtained via GPS or DIAD, they can be terminated.
This happens everyday somewhere in the country. The addition of the words "any intentional act" was missing in 2008 and the company "PURSUED" this language this time around because they were losing cases in arbitrations.
The UNION conceeded to these terms and this is bad for us.
NOW, the explanation from hall misrepresents the "intentions" of the language. Its the second paragraph of this section that people are confusing with the first paragraph.
The second paragraph says that "the company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence..... " Im going to stop right here, because THIS IS AS FAR AS PEOPLE ARE READING THE SENTENCE!
Two KEY words come into play at this part of the sentence.
"ANY OTHER" are two words that DEFINE the second paragraph and SEPARATE it from the first paragraph. To continue the sentence, it reads "....ANY OTHER violations warranting discharge."
What does this mean? In a stand alone sentence, this sentence means that the company can use both observation and any other evidence to confirm a discharge NOT covered in the first paragraph.
What about production? What about stealing time? What about extending workdays" What about lunch violations? What about break violations?
The company can use this article 6 language to take out whoever they want. There is NOTHING in this article that provides PROTECTIONS, rather, it makes it alot easier to take out an employee and I register my opposition to this language once again.
Remember, hall isnt going to be at the package level when a discharge occurs, but they did put in an attempt to backstop abuse ( should there be any) by including the third paragraph where they describe that a meeting will be called to examine if any abuses of this section are determined.
But thats only going to happen after a TON of people are discharged via this language. Would YOU like to be the guinea pig on the list of victims before a meeting will be called?
I think we can agree on many things, and I am sure if you consider what I explained, you may look at this differently.
Thanks for your time.
Peace
TOS
RealPerson
Well-Known Member
Hell if it would just stay the SAME would Be ok.
Less raises -- and dont come at me with the we get the full raise now at the first of the year. We USE to get our full raise after working the Entire YEAR First.
Health care left the same.
You think they will hire that many FT spots when they didn't last contract fill the ones agreed upon?
If UPS Profits were Flat across the board I could understand staying the Same, but NOT Giving back.
RealPerson
Well-Known Member
YOU Fell for the ECONOMY thing huh? Did you miss RECORD PROFITS in this so called bad Economy.. The Economy is NOT bad for UPS.
quamba 638
Well-Known Member
Great attitude!
It's like saying "I'm almost dead so I'm going to pollute, dump oil into the lakes throw trash out my window...cuz you know what?? I'll be dead in 10 years and you'll have to live with my poor decisions"!!!
Talk about a self centered prick.
