"You guys need to get a union!"

[542thruNthru]

The 1 or 2 day strikes in some locals were precisely because UPS hiked the max weight limit from 70 to 150 overnight. You would think the International might have taken up the cause but I haven't heard or read anything ... if anyone knows otherwise, I'd be happy to hear the story of how the International fought UPS and lost on this issue.

The 'solution' of being able to call for help doesn't prevent these monstrosities from choking up the cargo aisle/causing headaches until you can deliver or get them under the shelves, nor, as you point out, is it very practical given the way UPS runs the show.

I've noticed pious Teamsters here say: "the union can't tell the company how to manage its affairs" ... as if it's simply taken for granted that the union should be the junior partner in the relationship. (No doubt it is the junior partner.) Since the time windows on commercial or industrial routes are usually tight, you'll have an effing treadmill buried among your pickup volume if no one's around to offer assistance and it can't be carted off.

The union didn't lose. That's when the over 70 language was added if I remember correctly.

Yes the job is hard and yes over 70s suck but it's what our job is. People want cribs and workout equipment and whatever else. We are a delivery company and we're going to deliver it.

Call for help. If they don't sent it, bring it back. Saying it will ruin your day is like saying "I can't take a lunch because I'll have missed business" who cares it's not your problem its managements!

 

[SameRightsForAll]

Totally agree. I mean we only get a pension , 401k , free healthcare , great pay and job security. I am looking into employment at Walmart as we speak.

First of all, there is no job security. Second, our union showed how powerful it is when it sat back and watched Hoffa invoke a known loophole that nullifies a democratic election when the outcome wasn't what both the company and Hoffa wanted. UPS is closer to Hoffa than the IBT is, and you would have me believe that our jobs are union-secure and our pension is union-guaranteed. Maybe yours is, but the millennials you sold down the river won't enioy the perks you did, that's for damn sure.

 

[Indecisi0n]

First of all, there is no job security. Second, our union showed how powerful it is when it sat back and watched Hoffa invoke a known loophole that nullifies a democratic election when the outcome wasn't what both the company and Hoffa wanted. UPS is closer to Hoffa than the IBT is, and you would have me believe that our jobs are union-secure and our pension is union-guaranteed. Maybe yours is, but the millennials you sold down the river won't enioy the perks you did, that's for damn sure.

.....SUCKAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Poop Head]

Maybe yours is, but the millennials you sold down the river won't enioy the perks you did, that's for damn sure.

They quit already. Something about the schedule interfering with their yoga classes, or something..

 

[BradOcean]

Totally agree. I mean we only get a pension , 401k , free healthcare , great pay and job security. I am looking into employment at Walmart as we speak.

X2

The amount of money we are paid alone is a testament to the union as a whole. Add all the other things listed above and the whole package is crazy awesome.

 

[Over70irregs]

The union didn't lose. That's when the over 70 language was added if I remember correctly.

Yes the job is hard and yes over 70s suck but it's what our job is. People want cribs and workout equipment and whatever else. We are a delivery company and we're going to deliver it.

Call for help. If they don't sent it, bring it back. Saying it will ruin your day is like saying "I can't take a lunch because I'll have missed business" who cares it's not your problem its managements!

I sense another candidate for “light duty”, aka TAW...

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Yes, the Union does protect you with the over 70's. But if they are so protective on this issue, why was a wildcat strike considered in '94?

You might want to look up the definition of a wildcat strike.

And if every single driver started following the contract on this issue, we would all be out many more hours every single day. Not to mention all of the extremely rural drivers who may or may not have someone to help within 20 miles.

And ?

The 1 or 2 day strikes in some locals were precisely because UPS hiked the max weight limit from 70 to 150 overnight.

Exactly.... without collectively bargaining over the issue.

You would think the International might have taken up the cause but I haven't heard or read anything ... if anyone knows otherwise, I'd be happy to hear the story of how the International fought UPS and lost on this issue.

What do you mean "fought and lost" ?


The IBT (Ron Carey.... BTW) did exactly what should be done in that situation.

He threatened UPS with a nationwide strike, to force them to negotiate over the issue.

We all know current leadership does not have to balls to strike anyone.

Less than 22% of the UPS members participated in the strike authorization vote.

Who doesn't have the "balls" to strike ??

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Second, our union showed how powerful it is when it sat back and watched Hoffa invoke a known loophole that nullifies a democratic election when the outcome wasn't what both the company and Hoffa wanted.

That's a completely ignorant statement.

The IBT constitution was changed in 1987.... a full 10 years before Hoffa was in office.

 

[Rick Ross]

Less than 22% of the UPS members participated in the strike authorization vote.

Who doesn't have the "balls" to strike ??

I still don't understand why you care about the 78% who didn't vote. Are the teamsters really that afraid members will cross the picket line? To me a vote not returned should be counted as a vote to authorize a strike.

Also why let the 22% number out of the bag? The union did an awesome job hiding the clause they used to enforce this POS contract.

I really appreciate all of your knowledge and input, but, I think if the old guard doesn't change this is gonna get ugly at some point. RTW laws are shifting more towards the companies side almost every year. At some point there is going to be a mass Exodus from the union by all the people who have been sold out in previous contracts and feel underrepresented.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I still don't understand why you care about the 78% who didn't vote.

Seriously ?

Are the teamsters really that afraid members will cross the picket line?

You weren't there in 1997 ?


Yeah....

Still had company "suck up's" that crossed the picket line.

To me a vote not returned should be counted as a vote to authorize a strike.

And, UPS is laughing at that thought.

Don't be a company punk.

At some point there is going to be a mass Exodus from the union by all the people who have been sold out in previous contracts and feel underrepresented.

Right.

Have you ever read some of these threads ?

 

[Poop Head]

At some point there is going to be a mass Exodus from the union by all the people who have been sold out in previous contracts and feel underrepresented.

The same people that couldn't take 2 mins to vote, or 5 mins to read through the proposed changes.

 

[Poop Head]

Also why let the 22% number out of the bag?

I thought the same thing, at first. Did the company know of the dismal turnout on the strike authorization vote? If so, why?

In the end, it really didn't matter.

We were coming to the table with an empty gun.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The same people that couldn't take 2 mins to vote, or 5 mins to read through the proposed changes.

And...

I'm the "bad guy" for pointing out the obvious.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The Union ignored the 50% 2/3 rule for the strike authorization, but claimed to be bound by it on the contract vote.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The Union ignored the 50% 2/3 rule for the strike authorization, but claimed to be bound by it on the contract vote.

What ?

 

[Rick Ross]

And, UPS is laughing at that thought.

Don't be a company punk.

UPS is laughing at the teamsters as a whole. Our leadership has admitted to bringing the 22.4 position bargaining table. In a strong economy we show up to the negotiations with a plan for concessions and to raise the starting PT wage. Brilliant! The PT wage was going to be raised anyway, they can't find people to work in the hubs.

I'm sure you'll answer this with something about the membership being week, it's your go-to answer when members point out issues with our leadership.

 

[Bubblehead]

That's a completely ignorant statement.

The IBT constitution was changed in 1987.... a full 10 years before Hoffa was in office.

Thanks to TDU , who diluted the previous rule by adding the 50% provision.
Before that, it took 2/3 to vote no, no matter how many members voted to reject a contract offer.

The History of the “2/3 Rule” on Teamster Contracts

 

[a911scanner]

Explain it away all you will. The 70 to 150 transition was a backhanded, under-the-table deal that should have flatly been denied in it's current iteration.

A "mediation" in this area would have been 110 lbs. That is certainly quite heavy enough to cover many residential items as referred to above.

I'm sure UPS pays many a worker's comp claim over these items that are essentially way to big for one driver to begin with, considering the tools we have.

As for the working even more hours issue, I'm sure you are aware of the new 9.5 initiative in the last contract. That alone should explain that a majority of package car drivers would prefer not to work more hours. That means I would prefer to not lose up to 2 hours every day helping or waiting for help.

Please stop diminishing such a large issue. You are not the end all be all. Matter of fact, I'm just as an important union member as you. And yes, I vote every time, am active in my facility & hold managements feet to the fire on the contract.

Bottom line, (trying to be reasonable with a middle ground solution) anything over 100 lbs. should be a freight delivery. Or even possibly a two-man delivery team delivering over 100# packages all day.

 

[Bubblehead]

Explain it away all you will. The 70 to 150 transition was a backhanded, under-the-table deal that should have flatly been denied in it's current iteration.

A "mediation" in this area would have been 110 lbs. That is certainly quite heavy enough to cover many residential items as referred to above.

I'm sure UPS pays many a worker's comp claim over these items that are essentially way to big for one driver to begin with, considering the tools we have.

As for the working even more hours issue, I'm sure you are aware of the new 9.5 initiative in the last contract. That alone should explain that a majority of package car drivers would prefer not to work more hours. That means I would prefer to not lose up to 2 hours every day helping or waiting for help.

Please stop diminishing such a large issue. You are not the end all be all. Matter of fact, I'm just as an important union member as you. And yes, I vote every time, am active in my facility & hold managements feet to the fire on the contract.

Bottom line, (trying to be reasonable with a middle ground solution) anything over 100 lbs. should be a freight delivery. Or even possibly a two-man delivery team delivering over 100# packages all day.

Who are you talking to?....asking for a friend.

 

[a911scanner]

Didn't feel like quoting the know-it-all.