Seniority...... who's got what???

[rama'nfeeders]

One of many things will happen: whoever puts in the most proposals will get there say, the company will and can deny any change because they can because it's there company and they can run it the way they see it fit, or redline. To all package car drivers who don't want this at all PLEASE PUT YOUR PROPOSAL TO MAINTAIN ARTICLE 45 SECTION C WHEN PROPOSALS GO OUT NEXT SPRING. This group who want change is only for themselves they look at the off the stretch guys who they can jump over plain and simple. The reason the company has to hire off the street Feeders Drivers goes way back and it still continue that the guys/girls who come over and are intimidated by the equipment or the road itself. We are our worst enemy when it comes to this. To answer the question about why you can't transfer building to building or center to center in package is to protect the ones who are already in there respective centers. Protect what you got because if something changes you just can't turn around and change it back. Think first before you jump on a bandwagon that is crooked!!!

 

[Bubblehead]

Not sure what you mean. Mine was a yes or no question, is that how they want it?

Your question was rhetorical, asked to set up future posts.

It is impossible to separate Seniority from the experience that is attached to it.

It actual is, unless you have a "pro-management mentality".

You are wrong he has 25 years seniority as a feeder driver. You cannot separate the seniority from the job being done during the acquisition of said seniority. It just isn't reasonable and doesn't make sense.

I think you may be confusing this "experience" thing, as if we are in presenting a resume or application with a new company?

It's pretty obvious that you aren't even a Teamster or a member of any union.

I have always had you figured for a disgruntled management employee, perhaps in building maintenance, who became uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of our company.
Someone with a delusional false sense that these perceived shortcomings could be overcome through internal processes, namely the 800 helpline.

 

[Bubblehead]

Redline is the only equitable and fair thing to do in any seniority change, and everyone knows that.

Equitable for who, those with, or those without???
It can't be "equitable" for all either way
With that in mind, there's no way "red line" would be equitable in the scenario I outlined below.
I think that you are sitting on one side of the fence, while mistakenly assuming to be objective?
I understand that it is counter-intuitive to think things may not have been "equitable" for all in the past, it hasn't, but it can be corrected going forward.

In late 2014, 35 feeder drivers were hired off street here.
This was due to an expanded and unprecedented need in feeders and a lack of package drivers willing to make the move.
If the Company were honest, I don't believe they wanted 35 additional package car driver training for this staffing expansion and the residual effects in packages.

How can anybody think that these off street hires should have any type of seniority rights over me if I were to bid into feeders?

In the end, in my honest opinion, I think our Union has been too ingrained with the notion of precedence and oblivious to past decisions that were not sound in their merit.
We should not be bound to validate the future, on prior mistakes, in the name of politics and re-election.

 

[East coast navy]

You are wrong he has 25 years seniority as a feeder driver. You cannot separate the seniority from the job being done during the acquisition of said seniority. It just isn't reasonable and doesn't make sense.

He has what the contract offers him or her... It can change if the majority wants it.

 

[oldupsman]

You are wrong he has 25 years seniority as a feeder driver. You cannot separate the seniority from the job being done during the acquisition of said seniority. It just isn't reasonable and doesn't make sense.

You couldn't be more wrong. I get a kick out of feeder drivers who think they're superior drivers
to package car drivers. I've had more than one package car driver who moved into feeders say they wished
they had done it sooner because it's easier, especially physically.

Personally. I think each has it's own set of issues. Depends which set of issues you want to deal with.
But both takes superior driving skills in todays world.

 

[542thruNthru]

You are wrong he has 25 years seniority as a feeder driver. You cannot separate the seniority from the job being done during the acquisition of said seniority. It just isn't reasonable and doesn't make sense.

Hmm seems you are the one that is wrong.

 

[Inthegame]

Equitable for who, those with, or those without???
It can't be "equitable" for all either way
With that in mind, there's no way "red line" would be equitable in the scenario I outlined below.

Being that you have a system in place that allows carrying company seniority, every one of those 35 off the street hires is fully aware of their position and knows going in they will be continually stepped over by less senior department transfers. That's equitable to them as they chose that job. Changing the system mid stream is the issue.

I think that you are sitting on one side of the fence, while mistakenly assuming to be objective?

Objective? How about subjective being that I lived this situation. After serving my sentence in packages, I went to feeders in a classification seniority system, with at least 35 guys ahead of me that I could have leapfrogged had we carried seniority. It was my choice, knowing the consequences.

I understand that it is counter-intuitive to think things may not have been "equitable" for all in the past, it hasn't, but it can be corrected going forward.

And redlining gets that done, but subjectively you're using the term "corrected". There is nothing incorrect about either seniority system. Classification seniority is widespread among crafts throughout union and non-union shops. However, addressing your position, redlining does get the change you think proper, just not in the self serving time frame.
Isn't that rather telling?
If an issue is so egregiously "incorrect" wouldn't the prudent approach be to at minimum fix it eventually?

In the end, in my honest opinion, I think our Union has been too ingrained with the notion of precedence and oblivious to past decisions that were not sound in their merit.

And I hope they stay oblivious to past decisions that are not sound in merit.

We should not be bound to validate the future, on prior mistakes, in the name of politics and re-election.

There's your subjectivity creeping back in. I know of no local union election that swung either way on this issue.

 

[Integrity]

Hmm seems you are the one that is wrong.

Apparently in Local 177 I am not, at least for now.

 

[Bubblehead]

Being that you have a system in place that allows carrying company seniority, every one of those 35 off the street hires is fully aware of their position and knows going in they will be continually stepped over by less senior department transfers. That's equitable to them as they chose that job. Changing the system mid stream is the issue.

I seriously doubt whether any those off street hires even considered any of that?
They were likely happy for the opportunity to be "at the end of the line", as they should be.
I don't see it as being "stepped over", rather assuming their "rightful place".
Changing the system midstream isn't the issue, it's overdue.

Objective? How about subjective being that I lived this situation. After serving my sentence in packages, I went to feeders in a classification seniority system, with at least 35 guys ahead of me that I could have leapfrogged had we carried seniority. It was my choice, knowing the consequences.

This is the mentality that needs to abandoned.
"Because it happened to me"?

And redlining gets that done, but subjectively you're using the term "corrected". There is nothing incorrect about either seniority system. Classification seniority is widespread among crafts throughout union and non-union shops. However, addressing your position, redlining does get the change you think proper, just not in the self serving time frame.
Isn't that rather telling?
If an issue is so egregiously "incorrect" wouldn't the prudent approach be to at minimum fix it eventually?

Gets it done for who?
You continue to protect the "haves", while ignoring the "have nots".

But OK, sure.
I guess it's a refreshing change to see somebody considering the unborn for once.

And I hope they stay oblivious to past decisions that are not sound in merit

Nice twist on a poorly worded sentence, that I believe you understood, but fair enough.

There's your subjectivity creeping back in. I know of no local union election that swung either way on this issue.

How would you, or I for that matter, definitively know outside our own backyards?
But would you honestly bristle at the notion that any given Local incumbent would run from any "notion" as polarizing as this one during an election year?

 

[Inthegame]

I seriously doubt whether any those off street hires even considered any of that?
They were likely happy for the opportunity to be "at the end of the line", as they should be.
I don't see it as being "stepped over", rather assuming their "rightful place".
Changing the system midstream isn't the issue, it's overdue.

This is the mentality that needs to abandoned.
"Because it happened to me"?

Gets it done for who?
You continue to protect the "haves", while ignoring the "have nots".

But OK, sure.
I guess it's a refreshing change to see somebody considering the unborn for once.

Nice twist on a poorly worded sentence, that I believe you understood, but fair enough.

How would you, or I for that matter, definitively know outside our own backyards?
But would you honestly bristle at the notion that any given Local incumbent would run from any "notion" as polarizing as this one during an election year?

That may have set a record on missed points, but this horse has already been beaten so I'll only focus on the last. In my experience, I've not heard of any board losing office over a proposed change in seniority practice.

This is a neutral issue for local officials as relatively few members care about this. Those who really want one seniority list will be countered by those who really want classification seniority, so there's little political up or downside.

Petitions often don't explain all the ramifications and savvy E-boards understand this. I suspect this motion will die in an Executive session when the board determines what proposals move forward, or gets tossed when the company counters too much for anyones taste.

 

[East coast navy]

That may have set a record on missed points, but this horse has already been beaten so I'll only focus on the last. In my experience, I've not heard of any board losing office over a proposed change in seniority practice.

This is a neutral issue for local officials as relatively few members care about this. Those who really want one seniority list will be countered by those who really want classification seniority, so there's little political up or downside.

Petitions often don't explain all the ramifications and savvy E-boards understand this. I suspect this motion will die in an Executive session when the board determines what proposals move forward, or gets tossed when the company counters too much for anyones taste.

I disagree... If the majority is big enough and doesn't get what they want... Fingers will point somewhere... If they point at the hall... Someone might start an up rising...

 

[East coast navy]

That may have set a record on missed points, but this horse has already been beaten so I'll only focus on the last. In my experience, I've not heard of any board losing office over a proposed change in seniority practice.

This is a neutral issue for local officials as relatively few members care about this. Those who really want one seniority list will be countered by those who really want classification seniority, so there's little political up or downside.

Petitions often don't explain all the ramifications and savvy E-boards understand this. I suspect this motion will die in an Executive session when the board determines what proposals move forward, or gets tossed when the company counters too much for anyones taste.

This horse has a lot of ride still in it..

 

[Capone]

That may have set a record on missed points, but this horse has already been beaten so I'll only focus on the last. In my experience, I've not heard of any board losing office over a proposed change in seniority practice.

This is a neutral issue for local officials as relatively few members care about this. Those who really want one seniority list will be countered by those who really want classification seniority, so there's little political up or downside.

Petitions often don't explain all the ramifications and savvy E-boards understand this. I suspect this motion will die in an Executive session when the board determines what proposals move forward, or gets tossed when the company counters too much for anyones taste.

I agree that this is a neutral issue with the local officials ,yes it is totally between membership and that's why I feel the local should allow the membership to speak on this issue ,but as far as the company wanting givebacks I disagree ,this in no way affects The company logistically for financial , carry company seniority system actually makes it much easier in the transition of transferring ,the company wanting any kind of concessions involving the way our seniority is structured is completely wrong. Looking back at 93 when the Seniority structure was changed and giving back vacation and layoffs for those transferring into feeders there was absolutely no givebacks at all or concessions to the company because the company did not want to be involved in that type of seniority dispute ,it was between the membership .

 

[rama'nfeeders]

Hey East Coast Navy who was the elected official who supposedly did this? Please don't hide the name thing on here. If you make a statement like this you need to reveal who did this. We are all waiting......

 

[rama'nfeeders]

Who is the person who allegedly did this? Making a statement like this you need to reveal the name. We are waiting. ........

 

[Inthegame]

I agree that this is a neutral issue with the local officials ,yes it is totally between membership and that's why I feel the local should allow the membership to speak on this issue ,but as far as the company wanting givebacks I disagree ,this in no way affects The company logistically for financial , carry company seniority system actually makes it much easier in the transition of transferring ,the company wanting any kind of concessions involving the way our seniority is structured is completely wrong. Looking back at 93 when the Seniority structure was changed and giving back vacation and layoffs for those transferring into feeders there was absolutely no givebacks at all or concessions to the company because the company did not want to be involved in that type of seniority dispute ,it was between the membership .

UPS would prefer no transferring between departments at all. Anything that eases or encourages transferring cause UPS to spend time and money on additional training. They will certainly demand something in return.

 

[Bubblehead]

UPS would prefer no transferring between departments at all. Anything that eases or encourages transferring cause UPS to spend time and money on additional training.
They will certainly demand something in return.

I disagree.

Package car driving is a "young man's" game, and the last thing the Company wants is a 55 year old, 30 year driver humping bundles.
This is validated in the fact that the Company is willing to train and certify us for our CDL's.

Will the Company try and exact something at the table, perhaps, but it will hardly be the stumbling block in negotiations that some here are claiming.
I don't see it as a hard sell at all, for a savvy negotiator.

Actually if my assumptions are correct, the Company may actually be more in favor dovetailing seniority verses not, in order to attract more older package car drivers from packages to feeders.
This would allow for younger new hires to be placed in packages, rather than in feeders, as well as making it easier for the Company to satisfy the 6-1 hiring ratio requirement.

It just makes good sense all the way around.

 

[Inthegame]

I disagree.

Now there's a surprise.

Package car driving is a "young man's" game, and the last thing the Company wants is a 55 year old, 30 year driver humping bundles.
This is validated in the fact that the Company is willing to train and certify us for our CDL's.

UPS also doesn't want 55 yr olds driving any of there equipment. They train and certify because of those savvy negotiators that earn the $90 per month dues you pay.

Actually if my assumptions are correct, the Company may actually be more in favor dovetailing seniority verses not, in order to attract more older package car drivers from packages to feeders.
This would allow for younger new hires to be placed in packages, rather than in feeders, as well as making it easier for the Company to satisfy the 6-1 hiring ratio requirement.

UPS is more in favor of 55 year old Pkg drivers dovetailing into retirement rather than moving to Fdrs. High seniority/ low seniority Pkg driver moving to Fdrs has the same effect on the 6-1.

It just makes good sense all the way around.

Train a 30 yr Pkg driver to safely operate a Fdr. Then train a new hire/part timer to efficiently handle the vacated pkg job. Then train a new PT to fill the vacated PT job. Wait two years and do it all again as now 32 yr Pkg driver turned Fdr retires, which causes another opening in Fdrs that gets filled by another 30 yr 55 yr old Pkg driver.
OR...
Train one 25 year old off the street hire for Fdrs and not repeat for 30 yrs.
You were saying something about good sense?

 

[East coast navy]

Hey East Coast Navy who was the elected official who supposedly did this? Please don't hide the name thing on here. If you make a statement like this you need to reveal who did this. We are all waiting......

Can you elaborate?

 

[East coast navy]

UPS would prefer no transferring between departments at all. Anything that eases or encourages transferring cause UPS to spend time and money on additional training. They will certainly demand something in return.

Ups would also prefer that when a member transfers, he or she would stay instead of going back to package (which happens a lot in local 177)... This is a two way street... The only difference is your side is a lot tighter.