Progression pay

[UnconTROLLed]

OK, here is the contract, more readable than Chery's version: http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/ups_tentative_agreement.pdf

Article 41 says, "All full-time employees who have attained seniority as of August 1, 2008 will receive the following general wage increases..." Not you. But it ALSO says "Full-time employees still in progression on the effective date of this Master Agreement shall receive the above contractual increases." So your steward and center manager are wrong and you SHOULD should have gotten $0.35 8/1/08, going from $14.70 to $15.05.

Red sees the following, "They will be paid no less than what they are entitled to in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below.", and believes that this means you are entitled to the following schedule from section 2(c): "The progression for employees entering a package car driving, or feeder, or other full-time job (other than an air driver or a job covered by Section 3 below) position after August 1, 2008 shall be as follows:

Start $16.10
Seniority $17.25
Twelve (12) months $18.45
Twenty-four (24) months $20.75
Thirty-six (36) months Top Rate"

...but he seems to me to be wrong. You transferred on 6/28/08, and your transfer date is your full-time start date "for purposes of applying the above progression", namely that for "all full-time employees, except apprentices, who are in the progression as of August 1, 2008", which includes you:

" Rate in Effect
on July 31, 2002
Start 70%
Seniority 75%
Seniority Date plus one (1) year 80%
Seniority Date plus eighteen (18) months 90%
Seniority Date plus two (2) years Top Rate "

...and there is no reason to think your transfer date is not your start date, or "entering" date, for ALL purposes, since those terms have no contradictory definitions. Thus the category "employees entering a package car driving, or feeder, or other full-time job (other than an air driver or a job covered by Section 3 below) position after August 1, 2008" does NOT include you.

So, again, your steward and center manager are wrong and you SHOULD should have gotten $0.35 8/1/08, going from $14.70 to $15.05. But that should only have lasted until 8/21/08 when you should have gone to $15.75. And since you were in pre-seniority progression on 8/1/08 you should have gone to $16.10 on 2/1/08. Then you should go to $16.80 8/21/09. Etc.

Unfortunately less than post-7/08 hires. But that's what it says. Or so it seems to me.

It doesn't matter what he says to a center manager or BA. Neither want to hear it. Believe me they are laughing all the way to the bank.

This reminds me of a situation I had (unrelated, very) but along the same lines in deception.

I signed a bid sheet for an air driver/inside 22.3 combo job. The union told me I HAD TO COMPLETE ANOTHER 2 YEAR PROGRESSION for Article 40. I told them I was friend/T and through progression already, but they said Article 40 overrode Article 41 and you have to do seperate progressions. Article 40 says all language within this article supercedes anything else, that was the bottom line.

Is that BS? Of cousre it is, everyone knows that once you are a top rate full-time employee and did your 30 days and passed your driving test that you are not required any more friend/T progressions. Infact the contract is clear, A friend/T employee is not required to do any progression twice!


it's our locals way of saying "we make the deals with UPS, contract or not and you can like it or leave it"

 

[jasyatz]

OK, here is the contract, more readable than Chery's version: http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/ups_tentative_agreement.pdf



So, again, your steward and center manager are wrong and you SHOULD should have gotten $0.35 8/1/08, going from $14.70 to $15.05. But that should only have lasted until 8/21/08 when you should have gone to $15.75. And since you were in pre-seniority progression on 8/1/08 you should have gone to $16.10 on 2/1/08. Then you should go to $16.80 8/21/09. Etc.

Unfortunately less than post-7/08 hires. But that's what it says. Or so it seems to me.

Just happened that 3 guys from the hall showed up at the hub this morning. They had the same opinion as you (and I) regarding the progression. The only difference was that I wasn't entitled to the .35 bump until seniority was reached on 08/28/08), I should have ALSO gotten the bump at seniority for the progression raise and the additonal bump of .35 on 02/01/08 to bring me up to the 75% seniority rate of top rate according the the contract. They also question why it took 7 weeks for me to gain seniority when I worked every day (but not 8 hours) from the start of school until 08/28/08. They have initiated an investigation and a work/time study to determine EXACTLY how many days I worked from the start of school until the date UPS calims is my seniority date.

Thanks for the info, I'll keep you all posted on the details..

 

[gandydancer]

Just happened that 3 guys from the hall showed up at the hub this morning. They had the same opinion as you (and I) regarding the progression. The only difference was that I wasn't entitled to the .35 bump until seniority was reached on 08/28/08), I should have ALSO gotten the bump at seniority for the progression raise and the additonal bump of .35 on 02/01/08 to bring me up to the 75% seniority rate of top rate according the the contract. They also question why it took 7 weeks for me to gain seniority when I worked every day (but not 8 hours) from the start of school until 08/28/08. They have initiated an investigation and a work/time study to determine EXACTLY how many days I worked from the start of school until the date UPS calims is my seniority date.

Thanks for the info, I'll keep you all posted on the details..

OK, 8/28 not 8/21 since you were talking work not calendar 20 days.

Don't know why you should have to wait until seniority to get the contract raise. "Full-time employees still in progression on the effective date of this Master Agreement shall receive the above contractual increases." Doesn't say anything about having seniority. It's well established that you are "in progression" before attaining seniority.

Anyway, looks like Red's grievances are headed for the toilet. TDU just released the minutes of the February National Grievance Committe http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf and the third and fourth cases, on p.6, are rejections of claims by drivers making $16.10 that they ought to be making the $17.25 made by drivers less senior than they.

 

[gandydancer]

...I signed a bid sheet for an air driver/inside 22.3 combo job. The union told me I HAD TO COMPLETE ANOTHER 2 YEAR PROGRESSION for Article 40. I told them I was friend/T and through progression already, but they said Article 40 overrode Article 41 and you have to do seperate progressions. Article 40 says all language within this article supercedes anything else, that was the bottom line...
it's our locals way of saying "we make the deals with UPS, contract or not and you can like it or leave it"

Article 40, Preamble "In order for the Employer, the Union and the employees to further benefit from the expanding air operations, the following Sections shall supersede language on the same subjects in the Supplements, Riders and Addenda, unless specifically stated otherwise in this Article."

Article 41, Section 2 "b.) No employee shall be required to complete a full-time progression more than one (1) time even if he or she transfers between full-time jobs except as set forth in this paragraph. The sole exception is when an employee is awarded a package car or feeder driver job and has not previously held a full-time job which includes driving duties. In such event, the employee will have a break-in rate equal to the employee?s current wage rate until six (6) months from the date the employee entered the job. The employee will then go to the prevailing top rate. A part-time air driver who has completed the Article 40 progression, bids a full-time inside job and then a driver job within two (2) years shall have the same break-in period."

What part of "in the Supplements, Riders and Addenda" did your Local not understand? Article 41 is not a Supplement, Rider or Addenda. Sheesh.

 

[705red]

OK, 8/28 not 8/21 since you were talking work not calendar 20 days.

Don't know why you should have to wait until seniority to get the contract raise. "Full-time employees still in progression on the effective date of this Master Agreement shall receive the above contractual increases." Doesn't say anything about having seniority. It's well established that you are "in progression" before attaining seniority.

Anyway, looks like Red's grievances are headed for the toilet. TDU just released the minutes of the February National Grievance Committe http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf and the third and fourth cases, on p.6, are rejections of claims by drivers making $16.10 that they ought to be making the $17.25 made by drivers less senior than they.

I heard about this two weeks ago. Our grievance's were deadlocked at panel last month and i am waiting to staple the ibts ruling to each individual grievance to give back to the members.

Its bad when the ibt sells out on the contract and again sells out what the contract says! Good bye jimmy and ken, your days are numbered! Do not come to chicago asking for support! The only person i had respect there for was Cheryl Johnson and she just resigned!

 

[wannabeups]

Thank God somebody else is talking about this. I found this in the contract and brought it to our local (243). All I have heard out of them so far is "We have a call in to hall". We have heard that for 3 months or more now. Our steward could care less about it. He laughs and says "you guys are going to lose that grievance." I call the hall at least once a week regarding this and same answer every time. Instead we have seasonals making the same as us, and if they get hired they will make more. We are at 16.08, and 75% of current scale is 21 and change. I really hope 705 gets this handled, then maybe we will have a leg to stand on. As of right now this only effects 5 of us new guys, so we get treated like dirt. What happened to a Teamster is a Teamster? Not a Teamster with 20 years has more right than a Teamster with 1?

I am slowly learning that unless you have alot of whiskers (seniority) the UNION could care less about you. And a majority of the older guys don't care as long as it doesnt effect THEM.

Us younger guys should NEVER FORGET this. Once we get to where the older guys are, make sure we do things different and treat the younger guys better.

Remember ALL of this. Once their retirement benefits, pension etc. start to go down, stand back and let them rot.

 

[gandydancer]

I heard about this two weeks ago. Our grievance's were deadlocked at panel last month and i am waiting to staple the ibts ruling to each individual grievance to give back to the members.

Its bad when the ibt sells out on the contract and again sells out what the contract says! Good bye jimmy and ken, your days are numbered! Do not come to chicago asking for support! The only person i had respect there for was Cheryl Johnson and she just resigned!

Not that it makes any sense for less senior drivers to make more than their seniors, and it was crazy to make the progression for the entire life of the '02-'06 contract based on the '02 rate (the new hires that were screwed starting in '03 are no longer new hires, but they got screwed just the same), but the NGC has it right -- that's the way the contract reads. If 705 noticed that this was going to happen before their separate ratification and didn't provide clearly overriding language... well, what's your excuse?

 

[wannabeups]

I heard about this two weeks ago. Our grievance's were deadlocked at panel last month and i am waiting to staple the ibts ruling to each individual grievance to give back to the members.

Its bad when the ibt sells out on the contract and again sells out what the contract says! Good bye jimmy and ken, your days are numbered! Do not come to chicago asking for support! The only person i had respect there for was Cheryl Johnson and she just resigned!

How would one go about starting an investigation? Contact the FBI, DOJ, department of Labor, or just fire off letters to the media. I just have this feeling down in my gut. Can't explain it, that maybe hall and Jimmy Hoffa are getting kick backs some kind of. It seems as though the IBT are only out for themselves. HOFFA AND hall sold us out.

It is funny we are bumped back to hub, with pay drastically reduced. Yet we are expected to pay full union dues. (The feeder rate). When in the contract is say 2 and 1/2 time your hourly wage plus $5 for the strike fund.

 

[gandydancer]

...It is funny we are bumped back to hub, with pay drastically reduced. Yet we are expected to pay full union dues. (The feeder rate). When in the contract is say 2 and 1/2 time your hourly wage plus $5 for the strike fund.

Not in the contract. Strictly bylaws. And if your pay rate drops so should your dues.

 

[705red]

Not that it makes any sense for less senior drivers to make more than their seniors, and it was crazy to make the progression for the entire life of the '02-'06 contract based on the '02 rate (the new hires that were screwed starting in '03 are no longer new hires, but they got screwed just the same), but the NGC has it right -- that's the way the contract reads. If 705 noticed that this was going to happen before their separate ratification and didn't provide clearly overriding language... well, what's your excuse?

Gandy it was addressed during our separate contract talks. Ups had left out some wording and we wanted it back in with the understanding that it speaks for it self. Its clearly worded, no less than what they are entitled to below. The chart below has the new progression rate.

I knew going in that we would not get better wages than the national and i was fine with it. I was hoping that we would be able to get them in full instead of split. But that did not happen. When it boils down to it our economics are very similar to the national language.

If the national just would have topped out all seniority employees currently in progression like it has been done through previous contracts none of this would have been an issue.

Its sad that this is how the national has ruled, but in selling out the younger members this way they have just created a bigger movement of younger teamsters to get involved. Which will ultimately lead to their getting voted out of office!

Any one else hear that they just gave themselves raises? Rumor has it they were given raises after February 1st that way it will not show up on their lm forms until next year! Wondering if their raises are split?

 

[gandydancer]

... Its clearly worded, no less than what they are entitled to below...

No, Red, it's not clear that it says what you want it to mean. It doesn't say "below", it says "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", and Article 41, Section 2 contains both 2(a) and 2(c), with the former saying in its text that it applies in this case and the latter saying in its text that it does not. The clear meaning of the text is that 2(a) applies when it says it does and 2(c) applies when it says it does, and that understanding is completely consistent with "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", If UPS or the IBT told you different before you signed on then they lied to you. What's your excuse for being surprised? This is UPS and the IBT we're talking about!

It's elementary when signing a contract that you are not to rely on oral representations not contained in the contract. Many contracts say just that, explicitly. If you are offered a contract that seems to say the opposite of what you are told it means you need to get a signed MOE or codicil "clarifying" the true meaning. All you needed was a MOE stating that what was meant was "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2(c) below". Now, do you have this or not? If you don't, what's your excuse?

You're a good guy, Red. But you need to suck it up and recognize that you (collectively, whoever was doing the negotiation for 705) fell down on the job this time. The first step to not letting it happen again is to acknowledge that you screwed up, and not keep asserting that the language you signed off on was clear, or good enough. It wasn't.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I'm starting to think that it really doesn't matter what the contract says. Why do I think this? Just look at all the blatant contract violations that are deadlocked right now.


http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf

 

[gandydancer]

I'm starting to think that it really doesn't matter what the contract says. Why do I think this? Just look at all the blatant contract violations that are deadlocked right now.


http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf

It's not the deadlocks that bother. The next step is an arb and a decision. What bothers me are all the contract violations "sent back" into limbo. Look at all those over-9.5s that have been settled six times before with UPS paying after failing to heed the first instruction to comply (e.g., N-107-09, and surrounding cases) that this time are just referred back to the lower level. Wthell does that mean???? Open and shut -- don't force them to dicker to get part of what they're owed, pay them already! Eight months' delay isn't enough?

 

[705red]

No, Red, it's not clear that it says what you want it to mean. It doesn't say "below", it says "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", and Article 41, Section 2 contains both 2(a) and 2(c), with the former saying in its text that it applies in this case and the latter saying in its text that it does not. The clear meaning of the text is that 2(a) applies when it says it does and 2(c) applies when it says it does, and that understanding is completely consistent with "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", If UPS or the IBT told you different before you signed on then they lied to you. What's your excuse for being surprised? This is UPS and the IBT we're talking about!

It's elementary when signing a contract that you are not to rely on oral representations not contained in the contract. Many contracts say just that, explicitly. If you are offered a contract that seems to say the opposite of what you are told it means you need to get a signed MOE or codicil "clarifying" the true meaning. All you needed was a MOE stating that what was meant was "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2(c) below". Now, do you have this or not? If you don't, what's your excuse?

You are partly correct, oral conversations during negotiations are binding to a point. We are going through this now with our retiree's pension increase. I'm not sure what an moe is to be honest, I'm assuming it is similar to a letter of understanding. Which we received for several other issues, like air drivers are not to pick up or deliver grounds and brown hoodies to be worn in cold weather.

I sat back and read up on the new contract language that was accepted on the national language, and we were lucky enough to have time and watch how it was implemented on the national level seeing the contract was ratified 9 months early. The real problem here lies is we had a handshake agreement in place before any news of wages broke. If im correct i believe we were the first to file over this language and some other locals followed suit. Its just another perfect example of the ibt screwing with the members.

You're a good guy, Red. But you need to suck it up and recognize that you (collectively, whoever was doing the negotiation for 705) fell down on the job this time. The first step to not letting it happen again is to acknowledge that you screwed up, and not keep asserting that the language you signed off on was clear, or good enough. It wasn't.

Thats what we get for believing hall, as he spelled out the meaning behind certain language during the national talks. I appreciate your take on me as a person, but we will agree to disagree on the definition of the language.

 

[705red]

It's not the deadlocks that bother. The next step is an arb and a decision. What bothers me are all the contract violations "sent back" into limbo. Look at all those over-9.5s that have been settled six times before with UPS paying after failing to heed the first instruction to comply (e.g., N-107-09, and surrounding cases) that this time are just referred back to the lower level. Wthell does that mean???? Open and shut -- don't force them to dicker to get part of what they're owed, pay them already! Eight months' delay isn't enough?

The reason the cases get sent back is because either one of the two sides or both sides do not want the case ruled on by the panel which will be binding for future griievance. Panel resolutions have more meaning to them.

 

[gandydancer]

The reason the cases get sent back is because either one of the two sides or both sides do not want the case ruled on by the panel which will be binding for future griievance. Panel resolutions have more meaning to them.

They could decide the case but declare it has no precedential value. Most of the actual decisions say exactly that. What's the good of sending a case back to a level where it's already been deadlocked?

MOE = "memorandum of understanding". E.g., if you look at the pdf of the 2002 contract there are attached two MOEs, an "Addendum", two "Agreement"s, and then two more MOEs. Including one about not filling 22.3 openings that I hadn't noticed before...

 

[OopsDriver]

So what's new?!? I am in the handful of driver who have a foot on either side of the Aug 1st new contract. Started driving clasees in June, made book in mid Aug, haven't gotten any raises and no one knows what cotract I am under. Either way I should be making more. I want to be under the old so I reach full rate faster. I was told to "sit tight, it's being worked on" but I can't help but feel I'm being pushed aside...

 

[JonFrum]

So what's new?!? I am in the handful of driver who have a foot on either side of the Aug 1st new contract. Started driving clasees in June, made book in mid Aug, haven't gotten any raises and no one knows what cotract I am under. Either way I should be making more. I want to be under the old so I reach full rate faster. I was told to "sit tight, it's being worked on" but I can't help but feel I'm being pushed aside...

Oops,
I answered you in your other thread and documented my points with actual quotes from the Master Contract. Basically, you are not getting screwed by the application of the Contract any more than usual.
However all New Hire full-timers have been getting screwed for years now by the fact that they have to go through a drastic two-and-a-half to three-year progression in the first place! And part-timers get even more royally screwed with their never-ending progression!
- - -
Be advised that this thread is about Local 705 only. Local 705 is not part of the Master Contract. They have a seperate Contract and a seperate grievance system. They have a contract that was effective on August 1, 2008. Our National Master Contract was effective Dec. 19, 2007. They do not have the Twilight Zone Window of Confusion from 12/19/07 to 8/1/08 that you fall into.

[I assume you are not a member of Local 705 or 710.]

 

[gandydancer]

No, it's not. 705 has the same relevant language and they end up in the same grievance system. Again, look at http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf, Case N-01-09 (p.5) et. seq. Note the $16.10. That should be oops wage. There is no longer any mystery about this. It is what it is.

 

[gandydancer]

Thats what we get for believing hall, as he spelled out the meaning behind certain language during the national talks....

Ah, yes. hall. Are you the one that quoted him saying the Company only had to maintain a total of 20,000 22.3 jobs but could shift where they were at will? Nevermind that the contract says otherwise, and that if the company could send all the top-of-progression 22.3s back to pt by replacing them somewhere else with bottom-of-progression ft they would do it to every single one. What an idiot. How much are we paying him? There's a list somewhere on TDU...