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
