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

[East coast navy]

Now there's a surprise.
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.
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.

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?

How else is it supposed to happen... If the company doesn't want this then stop transferring completely and only hire off the street for every classification... No transferring... Then they would have to wait for all the 55 year old members to go with No where for them too go but retire... Now we are back to square one.

 

[Inthegame]

The only difference is your side is a lot brighter.

I agree.

 

[oldupsman]

Now there's a surprise.
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.
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.

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?

That line of 25 year olds who want to be feeder drivers doesn't exsit.
The company is begging for CDL drivers now. The ones they are hiring sure aren't
25 years old.

 

[oldupsman]

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.

It's the system my local has used forever and it works just fine.

 

[Bubblehead]

Now there's a surprise.

I don't understand....my standard/required message when required by an OMS message.

UPS also doesn't want 55 yr olds driving any of there equipment.

I'm all for a "55 and out" clause in the next contract???....get it done.

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.

Not if they have to hire them off the street???

It's happening, I promise.

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.

So?....are you saying that this "so-called training", "every two years" on all levels, will somehow cost more than the massive savings of a "25 year old package car driver" driving a package car until he's 40?

When we have humped bundles for 15-20 years, we should have every full time seniority right.
Tell me why we shouldn't?

 

[Inthegame]

UPS also doesn't want 55 yr olds driving any of there equipment.

Nice catch, you must have thought I had East Coast ghost writing for me.

I'm all for a "55 and out" clause in the next contract???....get it done.

Already exists in NM Art 34. It's called a service pension and that 55 yr old 30 year driver retiring tomorrow got a $400 increase per month from that scoundrel negotiator Ken H in this last concession laced NM contract.

So?....are you saying that this "so-called training", "every two years" on all levels, will somehow cost more than the massive savings of a "25 year old package car driver" driving a package car until he's 40?

I'm not saying it, UPS is; or they were when in our last local negotiations we proposed all future FT jobs get filled from PT's. UPS was adamant claiming off the street hires lowers their training costs.

When we have humped bundles for 15-20 years, we should have every full time seniority right.
Tell me why we shouldn't?

You should have and you do have those rights. Those with classification seniority have their rights and that's fine also. My issue isn't with either system. My issue is changing any system mid stream screws someone. I don't like breaking promises. And you don't either.
Figure it out Solomon, I'm going ice fishing.
Happy New Year...

 

[Bubblehead]

Already exists in NM Art 34. It's called a service pension and that 55 yr old 30 year driver retiring tomorrow got a $400 increase per month from that scoundrel negotiator Ken H in this last concession laced NM contract.

I started when I was 20 and wont meet those requirements until I'm 58.
I'm betting that puts me in a better position than most?

I'm not saying it, UPS is; or they were when in our last local negotiations we proposed all future FT jobs get filled from PT's. UPS was adamant claiming off the street hires lowers their training costs.

....and the Company always reveal their true motivations at the negotiating table?

I'm sure that 4 year progression vs "red circle" wages, "from that scoundrel negotiator Ken H in this last concession laced NM contract", played no role in that thought process?.....

.....or the H&W and increased accrued vacation time part timers bring with them?

I have to believe those savings far outweigh any training costs?

My issue is changing any system mid stream screws someone. I don't like breaking promises. And you don't either.

Presently, most "promises" are only being made in 5 year, contractual increments and aren't subject to a "red circle".

Every concession has be considered a "broken promise" by your logic?

Figure it out Solomon, I'm going ice fishing.
Happy New Year...

I'm working on it, with your help.

Happy New Year Captain Ahab....I hope you catch that "white whale".

 

[East coast navy]

I agree.

Putting words into someone's posts... That's a good way to get stuff done!

 

[East coast navy]

Nice catch, you must have thought I had East Coast ghost writing for me.

Now Inthegame, don't be mad because you are trying to stop a movement on browncafe for a local you are not even in and it's not working...

 

[Inthegame]

Now Inthegame, don't be mad because you are trying to stop a movement on browncafe for a local you are not even in and it's not working...

How can I possibly be angry at a guy that makes me laugh with nearly every post?
Anything posted on BC has little to no impact on your local union issues, and all I'm doing here is shedding light in the deep dark tunnel you're stumbling in.

Putting words into someone's posts... That's a good way to get stuff done!

You leave me so many opportunities sometimes I can't resist.
Happy New Year!

 

[East coast navy]

How can I possibly be angry at a guy that makes me laugh with nearly every post?
Anything posted on BC has little to no impact on your local union issues, and all I'm doing here is shedding light in the deep dark tunnel you're stumbling in.

You leave me so many opportunities sometimes I can't resist.
Happy New Year!

I wondered why you are so against this... Then it came to me... You are in a local that has classification seniority... If this where to go threw in local 177, members in your local might try to do the same thing...

 

[Inthegame]

I wondered why you are so against this... Then it came to me... You are in a local that has classification seniority... If this where to go threw in local 177, members in your local might try to do the same thing...

You're quite the sleuth but my local already considered this proposal and it was rejected by clear thinking pkg car drivers. But thanks for playing.
BTW... Inspector Clouseau, I'm in a fairly comfortable seniority position on every list, so unlike you, I have no personal motivation for my position.

 

[East coast navy]

You're quite the sleuth but my local already considered this proposal and it was rejected by clear thinking pkg car drivers. But thanks for playing.
BTW... Inspector Clouseau, I'm in a fairly comfortable seniority position on every list, so unlike you, I have no personal motivation for my position.

Lol. Maybe it wasn't presented right... They said the same thing in my local... Now it is being presented in a way that the members would like... You say they aren't thinking clear... I and a lot of members would say they are thinking even more clear... How could someone say, "when I transfer, I should go down the list"? Why would anyone say that's even a good idea?

It doesn't matter how the point gets across... If the members understand it... That's all it matters... Just be lucky the members that are helping push this are not in your local... Maybe when this is done, they will reach out to some members in your local and give them some pointers...

 

[By The Book]

BTW... Inspector Clouseau, I'm in a fairly comfortable seniority position on every list, so unlike you, I have no personal motivation for my position.

If you didn't have your comfortable seniority position would that make you think differently? To me it seems that this would definitely help the more senior package drivers that go to feeders. Package to package within a building, you know who your behind on the seniority list.

 

[By The Book]

Lol. Maybe it wasn't presented right... They said the same thing in my local... Now it is being presented in a way that the members would like... You say they aren't thinking clear... I and a lot of members would say they are thinking even more clear... How could someone say, "when I transfer, I should go down the list"? Why would anyone say that's even a good idea?

It doesn't matter how the point gets across... If the members understand it... That's all it matters... Just be lucky the members that are helping push this are not in your local... Maybe when this is done, they will reach out to some members in your local and give them some pointers...

Is there a point in seniority where it isn't being received well?

 

[Inthegame]

Just be lucky the members that are helping push this are not in your local... Maybe when this is done, they will reach out to some members in your local and give them some pointers...

Did you miss post 327 where I pointed out your suggested seniority change would benefit me personally? Just because I would've moved up it would be at others expense and I felt that was unfair. Apparently that sentiment escapes you.

 

[Inthegame]

If you didn't have your comfortable seniority position would that make you think differently? To me it seems that this would definitely help the more senior package drivers that go to feeders. Package to package within a building, you know who your behind on the seniority list.

No, I never thought changing a system mid stream is fair to the negatively affected parties.

 

[By The Book]

No, I never thought changing a system mid stream is fair to the negatively affected parties.

True, it could put guys back in package when someone came up. Then the buildings bids would be affected, opening up a can of worms. This would be a big change, and I see no reason anyone in feeders now would want this change.

 

[East coast navy]

Did you miss post 327 where I pointed out your suggested seniority change would benefit me personally? Just because I would've moved up it would be at others expense and I felt that was unfair. Apparently that sentiment escapes you.

Sorry, Not to get on you or any other teamsters but seniority can be a touchy subject.... It's been bring up a lot of opinions... It's just been a lot of members from other locals opposing this... Not many in local 177 are opposing this on BC... I was just pointing that out because it says something... It says it's what the members want... Then I'm being told "it doesn't matter how many members are pushing for this, it's just not going to happen"... So when it happens I won't rub it in anyone's face unless I'm being attacked...

I get what you are saying... You have a right to make your own opinion... It's your right! Just remember you and a lot of other teamsters attacked me first... I was just putting out the info...

 

[East coast navy]

No, I never thought changing a system mid stream is fair to the negatively affected parties.

That's what they did years ago... The first seniority structure in local 177 wasn't classification seniority... Then it was changed to classification seniority... What about that?