UPS Contract to be re-negotiated?

[anonymous6]

.

I've disagreed with a lot of Teamsters on here and in my building, but they're still my brothers. At the end of the day, we still have to come together when this is all over and accusing someone of being a scab for voting "YES" just doesn't help accomplish that.[/QUOTE]

plus one. name calling and attacking each other is a divide and conquer tactic that the company just loves. you can talk in general terms without specifically attacking another BC member. people have to remember that we all are on the same team. my father also taught me that if you don't have anything good to say about someone, you are better off not saying anything at all.

 

[Bagels]

I generally disagree with a lot of the things you post, but you're spot on here. I voted "NO" because this contract is not in my best interests. You voted "YES" because you'll continue to receive what you've been getting as a FT package car driver. It's nothing personal; that's how it works.

I've disagreed with a lot of Teamsters on here and in my building, but they're still my brothers. At the end of the day, we still have to come together when this is all over and accusing someone of being a scab for voting "YES" just doesn't help accomplish that.

I'll also point out that the reasons you and I voted NO are different from others.

I voted NO because I'd like to see Article 7 addressed, reasonable restrictions on non-FTers performing FT work -- and pay increases for subsequent years they perform such work and PT wages hiked to reflect that of a true union shop. Quite honestly, I can live with the changes to health care. Others voted NO because of the changes in health care, some did so because they wanted to see FT pay hiked to $45/hr, and others wanted to see retirees receive no-cost benefits for life (become a supplement to Medicare once they turn 65) as well as hikes in pension checks.

Despite the bullying to get me to vote NO on this contract... if UPS would give them what they wanted, and proposed eliminating PT health care to pay for it, many of them would suddenly vote YES. Despite all this B.S. talk about unity & brotherhood... at the end of the day, people only care about themselves, and to think otherwise is foolish.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

I'll also point out that the reasons you and I voted NO are different from others.

I voted NO because I'd like to see Article 7 addressed, reasonable restrictions on non-FTers performing FT work -- and pay increases for subsequent years they perform such work and PT wages hiked to reflect that of a true union shop. Quite honestly, I can live with the changes to health care. Others voted NO because of the changes in health care, some did so because they wanted to see FT pay hiked to $45/hr, and others wanted to see retirees receive no-cost benefits for life (become a supplement to Medicare once they turn 65) as well as hikes in pension checks.

Despite the bullying to get me to vote NO on this contract... if UPS would give them what they wanted, and proposed eliminating PT health care to pay for it, many of them would suddenly vote YES. Despite all this B.S. talk about unity & brotherhood... at the end of the day, people only care about themselves, and to think otherwise is foolish.

The health care issue wasn't a sticking point with me either -- if I ever go FT, I would be under the C6 plan regardless. Although going from the company or the other Taft-Hartley plans (Western Conference especially among others) is a concession, I think it was a bearable one. Our retirees in CS were already paying $300-400/mo. for retiree health insurance.

We needed a catch-up raise for PT'ers and better 22.3 language to keep combo jobs in the locals they were originally created in to help with the wait-time to go FT in larger hubs. We didn't need another year added on to the FT progression and the company getting a net gain of +2 weeks out of the year to use RTDS (swapping two weeks in June for the first two in January would have been acceptable).