PROPOSAL: ARTICLE 37-read and discuss

[BigBrownSanta]

In our current contract, overtime can be relieved in the months between january and october, now however, the TEAMSTERS have agreed to cut this time down to six months (jan thru june) which is a net loss of 5 months.

I believe you've misread this portion. There are two 5 month periods. One begins Jan 1 and the other begins Jun 1. Both periods run for 5 months.

2 REQUESTS per month is clearly written. Not UNLIMITED REQUESTS.

Requests, not 8.0 hours.

Once you have placed your TWO requests for the month, granted or denied, you are DONE.

I am not going to say you are wrong. I have seen many instances of this type of interpretation happen. Grant in my mind means "to give what is requested" not "allow you to request". But, if what you are saying is true, then that violates the spirit of this whole article which is to be relieved from overtime. If we are going to be screwed on "what the definition of "is" is", then tell me exactly why are we paying union dues?

This sentence was in part a compromise in 2002 with the company.

Tell me again, why are we paying union dues...?1

For some reason, I do not believe the company will pay all their drivers 4 (2 denied requests x 2 hours penalty pay) free hours pay per month. Of course, I could be misinterpreting that also.

 

[BrownShark]

I believe you've misread this portion. There are two 5 month periods. One begins Jan 1 and the other begins Jun 1. Both periods run for 5 months.


I am not going to say you are wrong. I have seen many instances of this type of interpretation happen. Grant in my mind means "to give what is requested" not "allow you to request". But, if what you are saying is true, then that violates the spirit of this whole article which is to be relieved from overtime. If we are going to be screwed on "what the definition of "is" is", then tell me exactly why are we paying union dues?


Tell me again, why are we paying union dues...?1

For some reason, I do not believe the company will pay all their drivers 4 (2 denied requests x 2 hours penalty pay) free hours pay per month. Of course, I could be misinterpreting that also.

Brother Santa,

Indeed, this is the reason WE need to demand that our language is clear, defined and without mis-interpretation.

None of us are really "wrong" , the fact that these types of articles are constructed in a fashion that neither defines or clears up an issue in order for everyone to read, interpret & apply equally is a problem in negotiations.

You have made all good points.

"For some reason, I do not believe the company will pay all their drivers 4 (2 denied requests x 2 hours penalty pay) free hours pay per month. "

With respect to this, you are correct.

Can you imagine what that would cost if this happened? In every article there are always trade offs or "offsets" that end up in the language.

Its not always fair, or in trade terms "not everything that is fair is equal".

With respect to your opinion on 9.5 requests, here is the new language and I can assure you, there is NO two 6 month periods for relief of OVERtime.

"SUCH REQUESTS MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR THE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIODS BEGINING ON EACH JANUARY 1 AND JUNE 1 OF EACH YEAR. NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO EACH JANUARY 1ST AND JUNE 1ST, EACH PACKAGE CENTER WILL POST A "9.5 OPT IN / OPT OUT" LIST FOR THE APPLICABLE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIOD. EACH FULL-TIME SENIORITY DRIVER IN THE CENTER MUST MAKE AN ELECTION TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT OF THE 9.5 LANGUAGE IN THE SUBSECTION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO THE APPLICABLE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIOD. THOSE FULL TIME DRIVERS WHO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF THE 9.5 LANGUAGE IN THIS SUBSECTION WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO FILE A GRIEVANCE ALLEDGING EXCESSIVE OVERTIME EITHER UNDER THIS SUBSECTION OR UNDER AN EXCESSIVE OVERTIME PROVISION IN THE SUPPLEMENT, RIDER OR ADDENDUM.


**After this period, all drivers will NOT BE ABLE TO GRIEVE excessive overtime. It has been reduced to 6 months and 6 months only. Starting on June 2, all drivers will be subject to whatever dispatch the centers and IE can come up with.

November and December have always been excluded for peak periods and the new language DOES NOT provide relief for the months of June, July, August, September & October.

This agreement by the Teamsters with the company HURTS us drivers and weakens our position for overtime relief.

I agree that the spirit and intent is to help drivers, but the language only confuses the issue and complicates an otherwise simple process.

But, thats why its constructed this way.

Peace.

 

[BigBrownSanta]

With respect to your opinion on 9.5 requests, here is the new language and I can assure you, there is NO two 6 month periods for relief of OVERtime.

"SUCH REQUESTS MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR THE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIODS BEGINING ON EACH JANUARY 1 AND JUNE 1 OF EACH YEAR. NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO EACH JANUARY 1ST AND JUNE 1ST, EACH PACKAGE CENTER WILL POST A "9.5 OPT IN / OPT OUT" LIST FOR THE APPLICABLE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIOD. EACH FULL-TIME SENIORITY DRIVER IN THE CENTER MUST MAKE AN ELECTION TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT OF THE 9.5 LANGUAGE IN THE SUBSECTION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO THE APPLICABLE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIOD. THOSE FULL TIME DRIVERS WHO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF THE 9.5 LANGUAGE IN THIS SUBSECTION WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO FILE A GRIEVANCE ALLEDGING EXCESSIVE OVERTIME EITHER UNDER THIS SUBSECTION OR UNDER AN EXCESSIVE OVERTIME PROVISION IN THE SUPPLEMENT, RIDER OR ADDENDUM.


**After this period, all drivers will NOT BE ABLE TO GRIEVE excessive overtime. It has been reduced to 6 months and 6 months only. Starting on June 2, all drivers will be subject to whatever dispatch the centers and IE can come up with.

You're going to have to explain this one to me.

"SUCH REQUESTS MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR THE FIVE (5) MONTH PERIODS BEGINING ON EACH JANUARY 1 AND JUNE 1 OF EACH YEAR. NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO EACH JANUARY 1ST AND JUNE 1ST.


Jan 1 - May 31 = 5 months or 1 period

Jun 1 - Oct 31 = 5 months or 1 period

Nov - Dec = 2 months or peak

 

[BrownShark]

Brother Santa,

You are correct, and I stand corrected. Seems I overlooked the "s" in periods and misunderstood the plural nature of the sentence.

This is how it happens..we read too fast and overlook a small detail and it changes everything.

Still, looking at it this way, locking us in to two (2) 5 month periods is not acceptable.

If UPS and the Teamsters were to really address the issue of excessive overtime, they would consider using this as a tool to do so:

"No driver Shall be dispatched over 10.5 hours On-road in any given week with the exception of November and December which are to be considered Peak Months of service."

This way, the company would be forced to utlilize its cover force to complete the days volume without running its drivers into the ground.

In addition, new drivers would have to be hired and these drivers are key to not only control the daily volume for the company, but to insure that "new" blood contributes full time $$$ to our pension funds.

Any delay in getting new full time drivers onboard hurts the pensions in the long run. Adding 12 months to the progression scale helps the company delay the compensation to the pension fund (full time) and saves it thousands per employee over the duration of this contract.

At 10.5 hours on-road, its not too long, and definately not too short.

Working drivers 12 hours on-road has been and always will be a danger to our drivers and an inconveniece to the customers who rely on us.

Peace.

 

[Pasaholic]

It always makes me laugh when the drivers complian about overtime and making $45.oo a hour? If you don't like makeing a extra $10,000 a year then quit or just work 4 days and calll in on friday.
Don't wish for something, you might get it.

 

[BigBrownSanta]

BrownShark - Believe me, I'm not against you. I very much plan to vote NO on this contract. But in the event it passes, I am also looking for ways to utilize the language to my favor.

I don't know if your interpretation or my interpretation is going to stand, but I am going to do exactly what I said. One way or the other I will find out, and if I do win, then maybe my requests for an 8 (8.5) hour day won't be arbitrarily refused in the future.

 

[gandydancer]

...Any delay in getting new full time drivers onboard hurts the pensions in the long run. Adding 12 months to the progression scale helps the company delay the compensation to the pension fund (full time) and saves it thousands per employee over the duration of this contract.

Please clarify. To what degree is pension contribution affected by a driver being in progression?

One of the major selfish reasons to vote against the new contract (at least outside Western States , where there is a "maintenance of benefits" provision) is the affect on YOUR benefits of the health plans losing the net contribution of new hires, for a year. If pension plan stability is also undermined by the proposed contract I'd like to know, so that I can make that argument, but I have to understand it first, and I confess I don't.

With regards to the "granted more than two(2) requests" language, it seems to me that the clear intent of the language is to say that the Company need not grant any driver an 8-hour (actually, up to 8.5 hour) dispatch more than twice a month, and since it's 2002 language that point must be well litigated by now. With all due respect to a reluctance to exchange well-litigated language I think it is (a) pretty inexcusable not to make this particular exchange, when it can so clearly be misread and when it is so easy to correct, and (b) think that a driver's remedy for not receiving an appropriate dispatch is clearly inadequate. Requests inappropriately denied or not fulfilled due to overdispatch ought to accumulate, as additions to the 2/month, in addition to the money penalty. But getting anything from this contract other than keeping Central States afloat awhile longer and not under Federal control (something that affects their own income directly, I suspect) doesn't seem to have been a priority for the Teamster nomenklatura.

My understanding is that as a full-time inside worker I could, after being worked more than 9.5 hours... three?...times in any one week, file an excessive overtime grievance and would thereafter get penalty pay for any occasion (outside of peak) where I was worked more than 9.5 hours. Is that national or only local practice? The language doesn't seem to explicitly cover inside employees at all.

 

[RockyRogue]

My understanding is that as a full-time inside worker I could, after being worked more than 9.5 hours... three?...times in any one week, file an excessive overtime grievance and would thereafter get penalty pay for any occasion (outside of peak) where I was worked more than 9.5 hours. Is that national or only local practice? The language doesn't seem to explicitly cover inside employees at all.

I'd be VERY surprised if this language applied to inside employees. The 22.3 workers at my hub were under a standing '8 and skate' order from management. I think what you're seeing is local practice, not national. -Rocky

 

[gandydancer]

I'd be VERY surprised if this language applied to inside employees. The 22.3 workers at my hub were under a standing '8 and skate' order from management. I think what you're seeing is local practice, not national. -Rocky

Interesting. I've started another thread seeking info on this '8 and skate' business, as you call it. There are all sorts of issues about designating work as part-time or 22.3 that haven't been addressed at all in the new contract (never mind not honoring clear language that was in the contract already).

 

[Brown Dog]

Here, it's 3 over 9.5 in any 5 consecutive work days. Not just a work week. Meaning it could be over 9,5 on wed and thur and then the following tue

 

[tieguy]

Brother Guy,

Ok, let me see if I can clear this one up for you.

"... NO PACKAGE CAR DRIVER WILL BE GRANTED MORE THAN TWO (2) REQUESTS PER MONTH. "

Sentence structure my brother. As a former Executive Officer, Business Agent and shop steward for over 15 years now, and with the added advantage of sitting at the 92,97 & 2002 table, I think I know a little something about sentence structure.

To begin with, lets take the sentence apart and find out what it means.

"....NO PACKAGE DRIVER - this clearly defines the "WHO" in the sentence.

".....WILL BE GRANTED - this defines what the "ACTION" will be

"...MORE THAN TWO (2) -this describes the "NUMERICAL" limitations of the sentence

"...REQUESTS - this defines the "WHAT" in the sentence

"....PER MONTH.- this describes the "PERIOD OF TIME" in the sentence.

These ingredients formulate a sentence. From this formulation you can establish what are the limitations of the actions.

2 REQUESTS per month is clearly written. Not UNLIMITED REQUESTS.

Requests, not 8.0 hours.

Once you have placed your TWO requests for the month, granted or denied, you are DONE.

This sentence was in part a compromise in 2002 with the company.

You think the company wants everyone making 20 requests a month each? In a 95 man center that would be 1900 requests a month.

Out of that 1900, they would have to approve 190 days at 8.0 hours.

This is why it does not say that. Think about it.

In a 95 man center, the most requests that could be made is 190.

Once again, dont over think the sentence.

Peace.

This is the type of misinformation that hurts this discussion. The language clearly limits the number of requests that will be granted to two a month. It does not limit the number of requests made each month. If you really are more then a misinformation troll then tell us what local you were a BA for?

 

[GuyinBrown]

Brother Guy,

"....NO PACKAGE DRIVER - this clearly defines the "WHO" in the sentence.

".....WILL BE GRANTED - this defines what the "ACTION" will be

"...MORE THAN TWO (2) -this describes the "NUMERICAL" limitations of the sentence

"...REQUESTS - this defines the "WHAT" in the sentence

"....PER MONTH.- this describes the "PERIOD OF TIME" in the sentence.

Clearly we will continue to disagree on the "what" portion. I ( and everyone I know, including management ) define the "request" as the 8 hour day we desire and not the action of asking for it. Thus, my ( our ) interpretation would be that you are not limited to two attempts to obtain your reduced workload, but the company is under no obligation to provide you with more than two of those 8 hour days per month.

We can continue to argue back and forth if you wish, but you're not going to change my mind any more than I'm going to change yours. It's a difference of opinion over the interpretation of a word. I will concede that it could have been written more clearly, but if it ever went as far as arbitration it is clear that the intent of the language is to allow the driver two 8 hour days per month. You, of course, will disagree with that, but as I said neither of us are going to change the other's mind.

 

[1989]

8hr requests arn't a problem where I've worked. Both times I've asked for one, I got it. I just ask the night before.

 

[govols019]

Now you will just have to ask the week before.

 

[trickpony1]

This is the type of misinformation that hurts this discussion. The language clearly limits the number of requests that will be granted to two a month. It does not limit the number of requests made each month. If you really are more then a misinformation troll then tell us what local you were a BA for?

A reasonable person might think that with all the "hot shot" attorneys from both sides watching and weighing every word in the new proposal that vague and obscure language such as this would not appear. There is a reason why it is in there Tie.
Who would have thought that the word "handicap" would be changed to "physical disability". No one really paid any mind to that but, once again, there is a reason why that language changed also.
Sometimes it's the subtle things that end up doing the most damage.
Brownshark might actually be right. Based on my experiences and other posters who have had the language explained to them this way, "....that's what it says but that's not what it means......" , it is the gray areas that usually go in the companys favor.

 

[tieguy]

A reasonable person might think that with all the "hot shot" attorneys from both sides watching and weighing every word in the new proposal that vague and obscure language such as this would not appear. There is a reason why it is in there Tie.
Who would have thought that the word "handicap" would be changed to "physical disability". No one really paid any mind to that but, once again, there is a reason why that language changed also.
Sometimes it's the subtle things that end up doing the most damage.
Brownshark might actually be right. Based on my experiences and other posters who have had the language explained to them this way, "....that's what it says but that's not what it means......" , it is the gray areas that usually go in the companys favor.

Your explanation and the other posters ranting and ravings is what is known as a misrepresentation of information by **** house lawyers. Its a common occurance at contract time as the ignorant now try to define old language as new language and start spinning their conspiracy theories. What the posters here now need is objective interpretation not histronics and misrepresentation.

 

[gandydancer]

.... Based on my experiences and other posters who have had the language explained to them this way, "....that's what it says but that's not what it means......" , it is the gray areas that usually go in the companys favor.

And the non-grey areas, if the Union is in the bag. Article 22, Section 3, has (until/unless the new contract is accepted) the following unambiguous language: "No part-time employee shall be laid off or suffer the loss of a job as a result of creating a full time job under this Article or Article 40." So we've got this guy who's been driving irreg train for twenty years, but they create new 22.3's in the last go-round with "irreg" as the definition of their first half and bump him to the sort isle. And he grieves it and loses because the union guys don't back him, saying that as long as he's got a job he hasn't lost his job. Never mind that the "or" in the contract language cannot be explained if "layoff" and "losing your job" mean exactly the same thing.

 

[BrownShark]

Brothers and Sisters,

We had our membership meeting on Sunday October 28th.

As expected, only about 75 UPS members showed up to hear and discuss the contract.

Our local officers began the meeting by making a TON of excuses about labor in America, they blamed Pres Bush for the Union troubles in America.

After this, they made a stunning statement to us. They said that this offer was "probably" the best offer that we would get from UPS and if we rejected it, the company would walk from the table and return in July and we would be on strike.

The crowd did not react as they might have wished. These type of scare tactics dont work here in Los Angeles.

We began going thru the contract, it was clear they were not here to explain to us how we got this new language, and they finally went ahead a made this clear: "we are not here to argue the language, we are just here to show you what we have and if you want to vote no then vote no"

When we covered the article 37 language, EVERYONE complained about the 9.5 opt in / opt out section.

The union confirmed my positions on what could happen with dispatching and they could not explain why in the opt out section it was necessary to make a driver waive all rights.

In addition, with respect to our debate on 8.0 hours in this thread, the union confirms and affirms that ONLY TWO REQUESTS can be made each month and a maximum of 4 hours penalty pay a month can be recieved.

They were very clear on this. If not, a driver could in effect, put in a grievance for a total of 32 hours a month if he put one in everyday all month and he was denied each time.

Keep in mind the size of our centers vary from 10 to 125 and the 8.0 requests are going to be different in each.

To make it all short, all the language was not defended and they kept repeating the same thing "if you dont like it, vote no, but we might end up on strike".

The real kicker after the whole split wage thing, was that the COMPANY was insisting that after this vote, the contract would then GO INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1 2008 but economic issues would NOT go into effect until July 1 2008.

Brothers and Sisters, given that I have read the whole contract and each package and Sort riders as well as the Western Conference and it is clear that we were sold out and sold short.

I hate to say that, but it appears this way. Too many concessions in all areas. Here in my local, we had exclusive language that protected our members.

It was and has been an addendum in the package rider that provided expedited arbitration for issues in our local.. We never participated in the panel system and we had the benefit of an arbitor making a binding decision within 30 days.

Now, our local officers gave this back and they claimed the company was ready to walk over this issue. The result is to doom our members with a panel system that can take 8 to 12 months to settle a grievance.

THANK YOU EXECUTIVE BOARD.

Brothers and Sisters, I hope your meetings went better than ours.

Peace.

 

[Mystakilla]

I cant believe they wasted time to even write that into the contract. As far as overtime, some people want it and some people dont! yeah maybe 45 bucks an hour sounds good until you get hit with the taxes on top of that, its just not worth it when you start pushing over 54 hours a week.

 

[Damok]

I cant believe they wasted time to even write that into the contract. As far as overtime, some people want it and some people dont! yeah maybe 45 bucks an hour sounds good until you get hit with the taxes on top of that, its just not worth it when you start pushing over 54 hours a week.

Yeah I hate extra money... (just send me yours if you don't want it)