PVDs and the contract

[UPSER1987]

Sorry I wasn't ting on PVDs here. I was trying to say the reason seasonal drivers are running shuttles is because bid drivers have bid routes to run. And it wouldn't make any sense for UPS to have the bid drivers run the shuttles while dumping seasonals on routes they have no knowledge of.

Yeah poster #119 wants to give up his bid route (hopefully so after 35 years) so he can run a shuttle . Lol. His signature even says gravy route. Some people just aren’t made to be decision makers lol

 

[BlackFriday]

Go get 'em tiger. Lol.

Whew! I've been waiting a long time for your approval.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

Whew! I've been waiting a long time for your approval.

Approval? Lol. Go get 'em tiger.

 

[UPSER1987]

Approval? Lol. Go get 'em tiger.

I believe the sarcasm went right over your head.

 

[BlackFriday]

Approval? Lol. Go get 'em tiger.

Oh poo, just when I thought we were making a breakthrough.

 

[35years]

Sorry I wasn't ting on PVDs here. I was trying to say the reason seasonal drivers are running shuttles is because bid drivers have bid routes to run. And it wouldn't make any sense for UPS to have the bid drivers run the shuttles while dumping seasonals on routes they have no knowledge of.

Yeah poster #119 wants to give up his bid route (hopefully so after 35 years) so he can run a shuttle . Lol. His signature even says gravy route. Some people just aren’t made to be decision makers lol

Decisions have to conform to the contract. Seniority and all that, or are you clueless mr part time "supervisor".

Does it make good business sence to work any seniority driver making $60 an hour OT rate + benefits over a temp making $20?

Yet UPS does pay us the big bucks because of the union contract.

By the way how many actual "decisions " does UPS allow part time supervisors to make?

 

[542thruNthru]

I believe the sarcasm went right over your head.

Lol!!! I believe the sarcasm went right over your head.

 

[UPSER1987]

Decisions have to conform to the contract. Seniority and all that, or are you clueless mr part time "supervisor".

Does it make good business sence to work any seniority driver making $60 an hour OT rate + benefits over a temp making $20?

Yet UPS does pay us the big bucks because of the union contract.

By the way how many actual "decisions " does UPS allow part time supervisors to make?

You spelled “sence” wrong.





Keep delivering cardboard.

 

[35years]

You spelled “sence” wrong.





Keep delivering cardboard.

For $60 an hour

Yesum boss man.

Must have hurt your feelings. Sorry, boss.

And your sentence is grammatically incorrect.

It should read: You spelled "sence" incorrectly. Or, you could say "wrongly" instead of "wrong"

Did they cover grammar at community college?

Helping

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

Oh poo, just when I thought we were making a breakthrough.

Lol. Go get 'em tiger.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

I believe the sarcasm went right over your head.

I believe you would be wrrrrrrrr...mistaken. Lol.

 

[Backlasher]

At the September membership meeting, a couple days after the decision, our UPS BAs were on the same page: 'No PVDs this peak'. That position changed in the mean time, and those of us who are interested were told that the decision was 'limited to the 804' and that either there is a national, or else Central region, grievance re: PVDs awaiting a hearing. It is bizarre: the arbitrator specifically underscored Art 26.1 NMA, stating that PVDs are plainly package drivers, the company requires them to use their personal vehicles to make deliveries, and therefore the company is violation of Art 26.1. What's the position of the 542?

Than this needs brought to the NLRB! It's a violation of the Master Contract. That covers Nationally and over ALL other locals. It cannot be limited to 804. It doesn't matter if only local 804 grieved it and won. It was won because the the NMA Art 26.1. The other issue is that PVDs are wearing personal clothing and not wearing a uniform. If ups wants to butch about drivers wearing a brown hoodie, than UPS needs to honor the contract and slap some brown uniforms on those PVDs.

 

[Commercial Inside Release]

current PVD jobs...

There you go @rod

 

[trotsky]

Saw 3 pvds still running when I punched friday. Im sure the co will say they are in training for management id guess

 

[Wally]

Saw 3 pvds still running when I punched friday. Im sure the co will say they are in training for management id guess

We are down drivers due to Biden failing to get rid of the kung flu as he promised. PVD's are a good temp solution as drivers get paid to sit home.

 

[PT Car Washer]

We are down drivers due to Biden failing to get rid of the kung flu as he promised. PVD's are a good temp solution as drivers get paid to sit home.

PVD's have been gone for over a week at my building. Completely undependable. Call in anytime they want to or bring stops back whenever they feel it is quitting time.

 

[Bubblehead]

Than this needs brought to the NLRB! It's a violation of the Master Contract. That covers Nationally and over ALL other locals. It cannot be limited to 804. It doesn't matter if only local 804 grieved it and won. It was won because the the NMA Art 26.1. The other issue is that PVDs are wearing personal clothing and not wearing a uniform. If ups wants to butch about drivers wearing a brown hoodie, than UPS needs to honor the contract and slap some brown uniforms on those PVDs.

The arbitration decision you are referring applies to Local 804 and can be referenced by other locals in subsequent cases, but the decision in that case is not a far reaching mandate of any sort in my opinion.

Ultimately if you take parts of the arbitration decision you took out of context and reexamine them in full, you should conclude that the arbitrator ruled the violation of Art 26.1 of the National Master was in how the jobs were advertised as being a "requirement to use your own vehicle" and a condition of employment.
This is a caveat the Company will easily get around in my opinion by having these seasonal employees sign something stating that they voluntarily agreed to use their own vehicles....and they will for the added compensation in comparison to a regular seasonal driver in a Company rented UHaul truck for $21/hr.

....and just out of curiosity, where in the contract does it state that non-seniority employees be provided uniforms?

 

[Backlasher]

The arbitration decision you are referring applies to Local 804 and can be referenced by other locals in subsequent cases, but the decision in that case is not a far reaching mandate of any sort in my opinion.

Ultimately if you take parts of the arbitration decision you took out of context and reexamine them in full, you should conclude that the arbitrator ruled the violation of Art 26.1 of the National Master was in how the jobs were advertised as being a "requirement to use your own vehicle" and a condition of employment.
This is a caveat the Company will easily get around in my opinion by having these seasonal employees sign something stating that they voluntarily agreed to use their own vehicles....and they will for the added compensation in comparison to a regular seasonal driver in a Company rented UHaul truck for $21/hr.

....and just out of curiosity, where in the contract does it state that non-seniority employees be provided uniforms?

According to Art 11 in the master, if the company requires a uniform, the company has to provide it. It is company policy that drivers wear uniforms. I don't see any exceptions for seasonal drivers. We hire seasonal drivers and give them uniforms while driving our package cars. PVDs according to the grievance won by local 804 are to be provided vehicles by the company and not use their own vehicle. So with that being said, it means they are drivers, for the company and to use company vehicles. If seasonal drivers that drive company vehicles are to wear a uniform, well, a pvd, being that they are "supposed to be driving company vehicles", (again, according to the 804 grievance won), are no different. They are drivers for the company. The company had a uniform and appearance guidelines for it's drivers. It takes a connection of Master language and company policy.

 

[Bubblehead]

According to Art 11 in the master, if the company requires a uniform, the company has to provide it. It is company policy that drivers wear uniforms. I don't see any exceptions for seasonal drivers. We hire seasonal drivers and give them uniforms while driving our package cars. PVDs according to the grievance won by local 804 are to be provided vehicles by the company and not use their own vehicle. So with that being said, it means they are drivers, for the company and to use company vehicles. If seasonal drivers that drive company vehicles are to wear a uniform, well, a pvd, being that they are "supposed to be driving company vehicles", (again, according to the 804 grievance won), are no different. They are drivers for the company. The company had a uniform and appearance guidelines for it's drivers. It takes a connection of Master language and company policy.

There is in no Article 11 in the National Master?

....and again the arbitrator only said that drivers "can't be required" to driver their own vehicles.

Doesn't say they can't do it voluntarily.

 

[Wally]

According to Art 11 in the master, if the company requires a uniform, the company has to provide it. It is company policy that drivers wear uniforms. I don't see any exceptions for seasonal drivers. We hire seasonal drivers and give them uniforms while driving our package cars. PVDs according to the grievance won by local 804 are to be provided vehicles by the company and not use their own vehicle. So with that being said, it means they are drivers, for the company and to use company vehicles. If seasonal drivers that drive company vehicles are to wear a uniform, well, a pvd, being that they are "supposed to be driving company vehicles", (again, according to the 804 grievance won), are no different. They are drivers for the company. The company had a uniform and appearance guidelines for it's drivers. It takes a connection of Master language and company policy.

You simply do not require uniforms for pvd drivers. Case solved.