Sandy Pope, Hoffa or Gegare Fix My 22.3 Job and YOU Have My Vote!

[bigblu 2 you]

Ok, got it now and thanks for explaining. So many loopholes and not enough duct tape for 22.3s.

dont worry.management at ups would never exploit a loophole.throw that duct tape away.

 

[JonFrum]

Maybe I didn't explain that well. The jobs I have seen are Inside-Outside, however the outside (typically higher paying unless you were hired before ~1992) is only an occasional air run/shuttle. Therefore it is more accurately described as an inside/inside job, which should be the prevailing top 22.3 inside rate.

The company puts these jobs up as there is no definitive language in the contract regarding "two part time jobs put together"....so they can work you 7.99 hours inside and .01 outside and it's a "combo".

In this case, the jobs are 8 hours inside and NONE outside most days.

This is cost-savings and exploitation of the lack of contract language.

For example: Your inside rate is $21/hr, however the 22.3 next to you with less seniority is making nearly $26/hr for the same job because their bid is inside-inside.

At the risk of sounding like an unsympathetic Business Agent, if someone bid a job knowing it pays only $21 an hour for the Inside portion (of an Inside/Outside job,) he shouldn't be surprised to learn he is making only $21 an hour for the Inside portion.

If the problem is his other Outside portion is often nonexistant, then he is, on those days, working and Inside-Inside 8-hour guaranteed Article 22.3 job, and should be making $25.365 per hour for all eight hours. You normally get the rate of the job you are actually doing. Thus a feeder driver who works in package all day get the lower package car driver rate; and a package car driver who works in feeders all day gets the higher feeder rate.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

At the risk of sounding like an unsympathetic Business Agent, if someone bid a job knowing it pays only $21 an hour for the Inside portion (of an Inside/Outside job,) he shouldn't be surprised to learn he is making only $21 an hour for the Inside portion.

If the problem is his other Outside portion is often nonexistant, then he is, on those days, working and Inside-Inside 8-hour guaranteed Article 22.3 job, and should be making $25.365 per hour for all eight hours. You normally get the rate of the job you are actually doing. Thus a feeder driver who works in package all day get the lower package car driver rate; and a package car driver who works in feeders all day gets the higher feeder rate.

The 22.3 language was to take two part-time jobs and combine them, correct?

The 22.3 jobs were not created to have two or even three "WAD" portions , right?

I could go on...any suggestions?

These jobs will be bid down to the lowest common demoninator in February-June and that low totem pole person may be making concievably 9-$12/hr ALL HOURS 40 hours, while the FT'er doing the same job next to them is making over $26/hr.

This does not affect me, I'm safe seniority wise with around 50 FT'ers lower on the list. But I do think there is a problem with this job creation procedure and it exploiting people into poverty level paycuts.

 

[JonFrum]

Well, if an Article 22.3 person is working an Inside-Inside job on a particular day, or days, and does not receive the Inside-Inside payrate in his check, then file a grievance.

If you want to really get their attention, file a grievance claiming that the full-timer in question was actually not doing his bid job of Inside-Outside, so he is actually just a regular (non-Article 22.3) full-timer and should get the appropriate wage rate of the New England Supplement Article 67, Section 6, which is almost $31 an hour.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Well, if an Article 22.3 person is working an Inside-Inside job on a particular day, or days, and does not receive the Inside-Inside payrate in his check, then file a grievance.

If you want to really get their attention, file a grievance claiming that the full-timer in question was actually not doing his bid job of Inside-Outside, so he is actually just a regular (non-Article 22.3) full-timer and should get the appropriate wage rate of the New England Supplement Article 67, Section 6, which is almost $31 an hour.

local president said "article 40 has no teeth" We are not guaranteed any amount of hours on each job, only 8 hours for the day. I said it's garbage because the 22.3 is supposed to be two distinct part-time jobs combined into one.
UPS has figured out most of the language loopholes.

 

[JonFrum]

The "Yes" voters deleated most of the Article 22.3 Contract language, so there is no longer a specific requirement that combo jobs have two roughly equal segments. However, the Union should want to keep the distinction, and vote to retain it in grievance and panel hearings.

When the 22.3 jobs were initially created in April of 2000, there was a lot of talk about a "easy/hard" rule, as if this was an eleventh commandment. No one had heard of it before that. And it wasn't in the Contract. But it was spread, and taken as a "given." Why don't you try filing a grievance if an Inside/Inside job doesn't have a so-called "easy" segment.

You could also file citing Article 47 of the New England Supplement based on Maintenance Of Standards and Protection of Conditions. As well as the labor relations doctrine of Past Practice.

And finally, Article 22.3 says a list of all 22.3 jobs should have been sent to the International by UPS in February of 2008. File to see if the altered jobs were specifically listed as jobs to be preserved. (I assume they were if they have lasted this long.)

 

[UnconTROLLed]

The "Yes" voters deleated most of the Article 22.3 Contract language, so there is no longer a specific requirement that combo jobs have two roughly equal segments. However, the Union should want to keep the distinction, and vote to retain it in grievance and panel hearings.

When the 22.3 jobs were initially created in April of 2000, there was a lot of talk about a "easy/hard" rule, as if this was an eleventh commandment. No one had heard of it before that. And it wasn't in the Contract. But it was spread, and taken as a "given." Why don't you try filing a grievance if an Inside/Inside job doesn't have a so-called "easy" segment.

You could also file citing Article 47 of the New England Supplement based on Maintenance Of Standards and Protection of Conditions. As well as the labor relations doctrine of Past Practice.

And finally, Article 22.3 says a list of all 22.3 jobs should have been sent to the International by UPS in February of 2008. File to see if the altered jobs were specifically listed as jobs to be preserved. (I assume they were if they have lasted this long.)

I have to fault the union for selling out the new blood in Februarys bids. Thankfully it won't be my battle to fight, because the local pres already said there are no 22.3 ins/air grievances to be had.