22.4 Layoff

[freehoodies]

Um, that's if the grievance makes it to the 9.5 committee.... and if it still can't be resolved and goes to arbitration. How likely do you think that is? Something tells me you've been listening to too many Teamster United webinars.

You are absolutely correct that it is not 100% guaranteed. It would take evidence, such as proof drivers were grieving 9.5 during the time employees were laid off, that the laid off employees were available to work, that the 9.5 grievances were due to understaffing, etc.

But the point is, that it isn’t a frivolous grievance. There is clearly verbiage in the contract specifically addressing this exact issue, it even spells out the remedy. Why did the union not pursue it?

Its one thing if we lose at committee/panel/arbitration or whatever stage. The thing we can’t stand is that we’re not even trying.

 

[Thebrownblob]

You are absolutely correct that it is not 100% guaranteed. It would take evidence, such as proof drivers were grieving 9.5 during the time employees were laid off, that the laid off employees were available to work, that the 9.5 grievances were due to understaffing, etc.

But the point is, that it isn’t a frivolous grievance. There is clearly verbiage in the contract specifically addressing this exact issue, it even spells out the remedy. Why did the union not pursue it?

Its one thing if we lose at committee/panel/arbitration or whatever stage. The thing we can’t stand is that we’re not even trying.

Because arbitrators are expensive. And you’re never guaranteed anything with an arbitrator.

 

[MyTripisCut]

Um, that's if the grievance makes it to the 9.5 committee.... and if it still can't be resolved and goes to arbitration. How likely do you think that is? Something tells me you've been listening to too many Teamster United webinars.

File as many grievance as you can, see what sticks, and buy pizza to try and brainwash your co workers! Lmfaoooooo, and now that they’re in charge, they aren’t cool enough anymore, and there’s new anti Teamster Teamsters. I hope they all burn in a fire!

 

[MyTripisCut]

You are absolutely correct that it is not 100% guaranteed. It would take evidence, such as proof drivers were grieving 9.5 during the time employees were laid off, that the laid off employees were available to work, that the 9.5 grievances were due to understaffing, etc.

But the point is, that it isn’t a frivolous grievance. There is clearly verbiage in the contract specifically addressing this exact issue, it even spells out the remedy. Why did the union not pursue it?

Its one thing if we lose at committee/panel/arbitration or whatever stage. The thing we can’t stand is that we’re not even trying.

Let’s take down UPS! them! They only pay $44 an hour and have the best health benefits in the country with a pension!!!! ‘em!

 

[Thebrownblob]

File as many grievance as you can, see what sticks, and buy pizza to try and brainwash your co workers! Lmfaoooooo, and now that they’re in charge, they aren’t cool enough anymore, and there’s new anti Teamster Teamsters. I hope they all burn in a fire!

The level of misunderstanding of how the grievance procedure works, and how arbitration works is funny. Everyone seems to think there’s some sort of conspiracy theory until they actually go and see how it works. Having an arbitration case shoved up your ass is not fun.

 

[MyTripisCut]

Because arbitrators are expensive. And you’re never guaranteed anything with an arbitrator.

Arbitrators are phaggs

 

[Thebrownblob]

Arbitrators are phaggs

 

[Thebrownblob]

Arbitrators are phaggs

Taking every case to arbitration would be a good way to bankrupt your local very quickly, but hey, at least we tried.

 

[oldngray]

Taking every case to arbitration would be a good way to bankrupt your local very quickly, but hey, at least we tried.

Arbitration is kind of like betting against loaded dice. The odds are better of you walking away unhappy with the result.

 

[freehoodies]

Arbitration is kind of like betting against loaded dice. The odds are better of you walking away unhappy with the result.

That also holds true for UPS as well.

Just like we need a credible strike threat, we need the credible threat of taking a case all the way to the end so that management won’t walk all over us.

This isn’t a minor issue, 10+ of the lowest seniority drivers are being laid off in centers all over, then they overload all of the routes and have drivers out past 9 every night. Thats a massive amount of lost pay and benefits for paying members.

If there isn’t enough work thats understandable. Thats not whats happening here

 

[Thebrownblob]

That also holds true for UPS as well.

Just like we need a credible strike threat, we need the credible threat of taking a case all the way to the end so that management won’t walk all over us.

This isn’t a minor issue, 10+ of the lowest seniority drivers are being laid off in centers all over, then they overload all of the routes and have drivers out past 9 every night. Thats a massive amount of lost pay and benefits for paying members.

If there isn’t enough work thats understandable. Thats not whats happening here

First, UPS is not worried about spending the money they have an endless supply. Your local does not.

And you’ve said some words that are very vague to an arbitrator just what exactly is “enough” work?


“Lost pay and benefits”
Are these employees offered other opportunities to work in accordance with the contract and layoff procedures?

Don’t misunderstand me I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think an arbitrator will always agree with us.

At my location last year, we only had a very small amount of 9.5 problems and people were laid off intermittently until June. Nothing that would’ve reached the level of taking it to an arbitration case.

 

[freehoodies]

Let’s take down UPS! them! They only pay $44 an hour and have the best health benefits in the country with a pension!!!! ‘em!

How about we just get them to follow the contract we negotiated?

 

[freehoodies]

First, UPS is not worried about spending the money they have an endless supply. Your local does not.

And you’ve said some words that are very vague to an arbitrator just what exactly is “enough” work?


“Lost pay and benefits”
Are these employees offered other opportunities to work in accordance with the contract and layoff procedures?

Don’t misunderstand me I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think an arbitrator will always agree with us.

At my location last year, we only had a very small amount of 9.5 problems and people were laid off intermittently until June. Nothing that would’ve reached the level of taking it to an arbitration case.

If they had an endless supply of money, they wouldn’t be cutting drivers right?

The contract specifies how we determine if there is enough work, it’s actually in the picture I posted, but its under article 37 section c if you want to look at it yourself.

If they are paying out 9.5 grievance's, and it’s determined to be due to inadequate staffing, then the arbitrator has the authority to award adversely affected employees back pay. Back pay clearly doesn't refer to employees making overtime, so it’s inferred that it refers to employees that could have helped alleviate 9.5 grievances but weren’t worked.

Its in managements best interest to not have to pay 9.5 grievances and overtime, to then have to pay the laid off employees anyway. Everybody wins if we just follow the contract we agreed on.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

If they had an endless supply of money, they wouldn’t be cutting drivers right?

The contract specifies how we determine if there is enough work, it’s actually in the picture I posted, but its under article 37 section c if you want to look at it yourself.

If they are paying out 9.5 grievance's, and it’s determined to be due to inadequate staffing, then the arbitrator has the authority to award adversely affected employees back pay. Back pay clearly doesn't refer to employees making overtime, so it’s inferred that it refers to employees that could have helped alleviate 9.5 grievances but weren’t worked.

Its in managements best interest to not have to pay 9.5 grievances and overtime, to then have to pay the laid off employees anyway. Everybody wins if we just follow the contract we agreed on.

Unfortunately with the cost of benefits it's cheaper to pay overtime and grievances

 

[Thebrownblob]

If they had an endless supply of money, they wouldn’t be cutting drivers right?

The contract specifies how we determine if there is enough work, it’s actually in the picture I posted, but its under article 37 section c if you want to look at it yourself.

If they are paying out 9.5 grievance's, and it’s determined to be due to inadequate staffing, then the arbitrator has the authority to award adversely affected employees back pay. Back pay clearly doesn't refer to employees making overtime, so it’s inferred that it refers to employees that could have helped alleviate 9.5 grievances but weren’t worked.

Its in managements best interest to not have to pay 9.5 grievances and overtime, to then have to pay the laid off employees anyway. Everybody wins if we just follow the contract we agreed on.

The contract doesn’t state that you can’t go over 9.5 lol it only says they have to pay a penalty when you do, and after a certain number of times it can be moved to the next level.
We never even came close to reaching that level last year and I’m in a very large building.

Everything at UPS is a Numbers game, to me and you it makes more sense to not lay people off. I’m gonna guess there’s a bean counter somewhere that thinks it’s a good idea.

If the contract is not being enforced at your location, I hope you’re filing the appropriate grievances and calling the appropriate labor board.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

The contract doesn’t state that you can’t go over 9.5 lol it only says they have to pay a penalty when you do, and after a certain number of times it can be moved to the next level.
We never even came close to reaching that level last year and I’m in a very large building.

Everything at UPS is a Numbers game, to me and you it makes more sense to not lay people off. I’m gonna guess there’s a bean counter somewhere that thinks it’s a good idea.

If the contract is not being enforced at your location, I hope you’re filing the appropriate grievances and calling the appropriate labor board.

Thanks Sean

 

[freehoodies]

“Lost pay and benefits”
Are these employees offered other opportunities to work in accordance with the contract and layoff procedures?

The relevant part of the contract to that part

“…the back wages shall be equal to what the
employee(s) would have earned as a package driver at the applicable daily guarantee versus what they actually earned.”

The fact that the contract specifies that implies that even if the company offered them some inside work, they could still be liable to pay for the difference if they could have worked those drivers.

If that was argued to management, they might have laid off less employees. It doesn’t necessarily need to go all the way to arbitration. The company isn’t completely unreasonable (not all the time anyways).

The contract doesn’t state that you can’t go over 9.5 lol it only says they have to pay a penalty when you do, and after a certain number of times it can be moved to the next level.
We never even came close to reaching that level last year and I’m in a very large building.

We’ve been paid out lots of 9.5 grievances at our center. I understand that they can do what they want and just pay the penalties. Lets just make sure that they actually pay said penalties when they make that decision.

Everything at UPS is a Numbers game, to me and you it makes more sense to not lay people off. I’m gonna guess there’s a bean counter somewhere that thinks it’s a good idea.

If the contract is not being enforced at your location, I hope you’re filing the appropriate grievances and calling the appropriate labor board.

Thats part of the problem, when drivers approached their shop stewards they wouldn’t file grievance's. Drivers were told there was nothing that could be done, save for finding them some part time hours

 

[542thruNthru]

If they are paying out 9.5 grievance's, and it’s determined to be due to inadequate staffing, then the arbitrator has the authority to award adversely affected employees back pay. Back pay clearly doesn't refer to employees making overtime, so it’s inferred that it refers to employees that could have helped alleviate 9.5 grievances but weren’t worked.

Its in managements best interest to not have to pay 9.5 grievances and overtime, to then have to pay the laid off employees anyway. Everybody wins if we just follow the contract we agreed on.

You're going from step 1 to step 12 and completely forgetting that these grievances can be settled any step of the way.

 

[oldngray]

You're going from step 1 to step 12 and completely forgetting that these grievances can be settled any step of the way.

If you try to skip those steps and go straight to a grievance it will get thrown out.

 

[freehoodies]

You're going from step 1 to step 12 and completely forgetting that these grievances can be settled any step of the way.

I would be perfectly happy with that, and I predict management would fold far before step 12 because the contract is on our side.

The problem is the union isn’t even doing step 1. The impression we get is that our union representatives are pushovers. I don’t think we need to be completely antagonistic to management, but as it stands we are being walked all over.

Im sure some centers/locals are handling things better than others. And from some stories I read here I can see we are definitely not the worst off. But 3-4 months of 10-20 drivers being even partially laid off is alot of money.

And then we gotta hear customers congratulate us on our contract and ask how we enjoy our new air conditioned trucks