My UPS hub is going on strike.

[542thruNthru]

At least you could decipher his ramblings.

It's actually kind of fun being on his ignore list. I can say anything I want to him and not have to put up with those ramblings.

 

[msbusterbrown]

First, it is not off subject and I can deny it's relavence, since a payroll error is not relavent to override no strike/no lockout language. There is clear and distinct language regarding payroll errors. If the company said, " you, this is what we're paying you..." and it didn't meet contractual or legal obligations, that would be relavent. This is not what happened.

Second, don't come in here waving your ing finger at me about "read your contract" and then ask me a question about blatant language in the conract regarding payroll errors.

Ok ok lol I know what it says. I guess on here we are assuming that we all know the contract by heart, my apologies for pointing out what you already know and me wanting you to show me exactly what you’re referencing. Off on the wrong foot.
Back to the issue written, I’m in disagreement that the posters issue is simply a payroll error.
It sounds like they are heading towards what they believe to be a strike offense, their union must know between the national and local what they are facing and their course of action.
Also, I wholeheartedly believe that the part-timers are seeing an unjust pay reduction.

 

[542thruNthru]

Ok ok lol I know what it says. I guess on here we are assuming that we all know the contract by heart, my apologies for pointing out what you already know and me wanting you to show me exactly what you’re referencing. Off on the wrong foot.
Back to the issue written, I’m in disagreement that the posters issue is simply a payroll error.
It sounds like they are heading towards what they believe to be a strike offense, their union must know between the national and local what they are facing and their course of action.
Also, I wholeheartedly believe that the part-timers are seeing an unjust pay reduction.

Did you local file the grievance? Do you know when it will be presented in Nationals?

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Ok ok lol I know what it says. I guess on here we are assuming that we all know the contract by heart, my apologies for pointing out what you already know and me wanting you to show me exactly what you’re referencing. Off on the wrong foot.
Back to the issue written, I’m in disagreement that the posters issue is simply a payroll error.
It sounds like they are heading towards what they believe to be a strike offense, their union must know between the national and local what they are facing and their course of action.
Also, I wholeheartedly believe that the part-timers are seeing an unjust pay reduction.

If the company admits that the pay should be brought up to minimum wage as the law suggests, and they deliver back pay with any applicable penalties (if any apply), then the issue is resolved. Essentially, it amounts to a payroll error.

Regardless of feelings, the company is in no way obligated to keep the MRA in place. I think PTers are underpaid too, but I also see their apathy overall and have a hard time standing up for someone who refuses to stand up for themselves.

I like your spunk, you should get involved with your local PTers and try to light their fire and get them as interested as you are. Maybe you can make a difference, it always starts with one.

 

[msbusterbrown]

Did you local file the grievance? Do you know when it will be presented in Nationals?

Yes.No.

 

[burrheadd]

Can’t we all just agree that capnfapn is the best screen name ever?

Nah @SaladTosser got him beat

 

[542thruNthru]

Yes.No.

Well I'm not a expert but I believe the grievance will have to be heard at nationals first which I believe meets 4 times a year and the company has a right to postpone it once. Then depending on the outcome could be sent to arbitration.

So it could be years like the PVD grievance.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

You're my rock.

 

[msbusterbrown]

Regardless of feelings, the company is in no way obligated to keep the MRA in place. I think PTers are underpaid too, but I also see their apathy overall and have a hard time standing up for someone who refuses to stand up for themselves.

I disagree. I do think Article 22 S 5 (e) guards the MRA from being taken away.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

I disagree. I do think Article 22 S 5 (e) guards the MRA from being taken away.

You might be right, and I hope you are, I just don't understand it that way. I'm very interested to see how this grievance plays out. But, as @542thruNthru said, it could be a long wait.

 

[Swanson]

I can thank our mayor for the raise to 16.04 on July 1st

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

I can thank our mayor for the raise to 16.04 on July 1st

It's not worth all the rest of the your government makes you live with.

 

[PreTrippin’]

You might be right, and I hope you are, I just don't understand it that way. I'm very interested to see how this grievance plays out. But, as @542thruNthru said, it could be a long wait.

I’ve heard the guys from local 533 are taking it pretty serious. I’m with you I hope they get something done. Part time jobs need to be changed.

 

[msbusterbrown]

You might be right, and I hope you are, I just don't understand it that way. I'm very interested to see how this grievance plays out. But, as @542thruNthru said, it could be a long wait.

Well, if you’re inclined, help me. Why don’t you understand it that way?
@Bubblehead, you too, why do you disagree?

 

[Bubblehead]

You might be right, and I hope you are, I just don't understand it that way. I'm very interested to see how this grievance plays out. But, as @542thruNthru said, it could be a long wait.

I don't understand it that way either.

That is not what Article 22.5(e) says.

Ultimately I think pulling back the various MRA's like they did sucks and is an extra big slap in the face to these part-time employees immediately following the extra effort they put forth during Peak Season.

....and complete in light of the recent 4th quarter earnings report and the 49% raise in dividends given to the stock holders.

It is not a contractual violation or against the law.

 

[msbusterbrown]

I don't understand it that way either.

That is not what Article 22.5(e) says.

Ultimately I think pulling back the various MRA's like they did sucks and is an extra big slap in the face to these part-time employees immediately following the extra effort they put forth during Peak Season.

....and complete in light of the recent 4th quarter earnings report and the 49% raise in dividends given to the stock holders.

It is not a contractual violation or against the law.

What is your understanding of (e)?

 

[Bubblehead]

Well, if you’re inclined, help me. Why don’t you understand it that way?
@Bubblehead, you too, why do you disagree?

Article 22
Sections 5. Wages

(e) Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above in Section (b), as a result of a Market Rate Adjustment, shall not have their hourly rate reduced due to the implementation of this Article.

In the previous contract there was no Article 22.5(e), so when it was implemented (on April 29, 2019) anybody making more then due to a MRA will not have their hourly rate reduced.

It was a one time scenario that was addressed in this subsection, not a caveat that would apply to all future MRA's.

 

[msbusterbrown]

Article 22
Sections 5. Wages

(e) Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above in Section (b), as a result of a Market Rate Adjustment, shall not have their hourly rate reduced due to the implementation of this Article.

In the previous contract there was no Article 22.5(e), so when it was implemented (on April 29, 2019) anybody making more then due to a MRA will not have their hourly rate reduced.

It was a one time scenario that was addressed in this subsection, not a caveat that would apply to all future MRA's.

‘Due to the implementation’
Ah yes, but it doesn’t mention time for example ‘at the time of implementation’ or look back to (a) where it adds/specifies time “All part-time employees who have attained seniority as of August 1, 2018..”
In addition it mentions schedule (b) in (e) which means it’s including all the “(b) newly hired part-time employees” so all seniority part-time employees whether you fall under (a) or (b)

What do you think?

 

[rod]

We're so divided in what we want that I'm starting to have no hope for negotiations.

Longer term employees want H&W and Pension

RPCDs want more money and no 6 day work weeks/PVDs

22.4s want no more 22.4s and same protection as RPCDs

Long term Part timers wants more full time inside jobs and a catch up raise

Regular part timers want a huge pay increase.

Neither one really cares about the others wants except for a minority in each group when it comes to push and shove so we'll see what happens.

When the dust settles about the only thing you will get is maybe the right to wear dresses.
]

 

[Bubblehead]

‘Due to the implementation’
Ah yes, but it doesn’t mention time for example ‘at the time of implementation’ or look back to (a) where it adds/specifies time “All part-time employees who have attained seniority as of August 1, 2018..”
In addition it mentions schedule (b) in (e) which means it’s including all the “(b) newly hired part-time employees” so all seniority part-time employees whether you fall under (a) or (b)

What do you think?

I already told you what I think?

....you just don't want to hear it and I can understand that.