Article 26 question ?

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by renegade313, May 21, 2013.

  1. renegade313

    renegade313 New Member

    QUOTE:
    Attention friends in the Package Division. There is a line in your tentative agreement that demands serious attention and concern!

    ARTICLE 26. COMPETITION - Section 2.

    "In addition, the Joint UPS/IBT Competition Committee shall
    have the authority to review line haul runs that may be proposed
    by UPS Freight to create a two way run."

    The Tentative UPS Freight Contract Agreement contains the very same line, but it applies to a New Classification of employee, that we in Freight are vehemently disapproving of!

    Their called: Line Haul Drivers (LHD) being brought in well below our prevailing wage, they are not going to be payed an hourly rate for work preformed incidental to driving (for example: Drop & Hooks, Paperwork, Fueling, Delays less then 1 Hour, etc), they will not accrue a Pension credit until their third year and will only be allowed to participate in a Plan B medical coverage.

    If that's not bad enough, they will be allowed to gain seniority on our seniority list(s), and be allowed to work the same run for more then five (5) day's before our displaced Road Drivers will be able to bump them!

    Friends in the Package Division, You MUST interrogate your leadership as to why this language is their for you! You must interrogate your leadership as to why they would attempt to destroy an already disadvantaged Freight Division, that has seen the majority of their Road network contracted out, while UPS Freight employee's are forced to watch them work and us starve at home!

    I fear the worst, not only for us in Freight if this tentative is approved and for you in Package "if" you ignore that inclusion in your tentative agreement!

    Thank-You for your time!

    NikDiesel
     
  2. East coast navy

    East coast navy Veteran

    I'm in package. I'm with any teamster in this contract because it affects all of us. This happens all the time when company's break up unions. Their is a chemical plant on my route that has a union. The company split them up in two departments. Line workers and distribution. The distribution guys had a chance to bid to the line department or to take a pay cut of $10 hour if they stayed in distribution. So it came to a vote and all the line workers said we can't strike for you guys it doesn't affect us. So we are voting yes. What do you think the company is going to next contract. Who wins. The company's.
     
  3. renegade313

    renegade313 New Member

    ..that's our concern, does this clause give some freight committee a ability to put rddrs in place of feeder drivers or even worse if that is possible, this new classification of LHD driver....why would any of our language be in you proposal unless that's what they plan to try ? We in freight ,rddrs are fighting for our very survival most terminals look like truck stops with all the outside contractor hauling our jobs out the gate....this language,imhho,is a step in doing the same to package....you folks know this company better than we...is this something they would do..?....
    TO BE FORETOLD IS TO BE FOREWARNED...
     
  4. anonymous6

    anonymous6 Guest

    WOW! you are right! this needs to be voted down. a crack in the dam. it will affect all of us if it passes.
     
  5. bigrig

    bigrig Member

    this is lose lose language. should have never been agreed too teamsters reps . VOTE NO because if you dont you could lose that feeder job or freight job you worked so hard too get. believe me its not in the best interest of the employee i ll bet you that.
     
  6. Inthegame

    Inthegame Well-Known Member

    And to read completely ends undue speculation. These runs will replace non-union vendors (brokers) currently stealing Teamster work. In the event the parties do not agree, the runs shall not be implemented. Would you prefer to have billy broker do the work or UPS Freight?
     
  7. renegade313

    renegade313 New Member

    ...please pardon my question but are you saying that you have no problem with freight drivers pulling package trailers ? Is not what this language implies ?
     
  8. Inthegame

    Inthegame Well-Known Member

    No, I have a huge problem with anyone other than Brown pulling package trailers. Remember UPS wanted to completely integrate the systems. The negotiators recognized getting brokers off the property and instead utilizing UPS Frt wasn't a loss of jobs but a gain for our Teamster brothers. If the runs created eliminate or duplicate Feeder work, the union has clear language to stop the practice. All this language allows is for work done by vendors (non-union, non-UPS owned) to now be done by Teamsters. The "line-haul" operation is intended to move loads off TOFC's, to match the time in transit FedEx enjoys. So the railroad might lose some movements but Teamsters gain.
     
  9. East coast navy

    East coast navy Veteran

    If they are going to have freight doing feeder. Then freight should be making the same rate of pay. But like I said, breaking unions, one job classification at a time. Vote No on this, and the company is capable of doing this.
     
  10. renegade313

    renegade313 New Member

    ..imhho,that`s never going to happen. But this has the potential of using yes,"TEAMSTERS",but those barely making more that what I started at 20 yrs ago..and we sitting or getting minimal runs..no this will cut feeder and rddr runs.
     
  11. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I'd prefer that the Union fight for these jobs for UPS workers. I think that the Union should have demanded that this work remain with our bargaining unit.
     
  12. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    I love the guys on here that have zero knowledge of the feeder language. "yeah, crack in the damn, vote no!" "weak language, vote it down."
    Does anyone else see that some of these people just started posting just before the TA? Does anyone else see that these people have very limited knowledge? Even their vocabulary of ordinary Brown words are, shall we say, OFF? Maybe I'm alone in this but I think their are a slew of trolls trying to knock down anything in an effort to disrupt.
     
  13. Anonymous 10

    Anonymous 10 Guest

    Yea I see a lynch mob of idiots.
     
  14. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    To be honest, now that you mention it I haven't seen you post anything knowledgable just a few attacks on others. What's up with that?
     
  15. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's me, attack. Do you have a specific question to be heard? Or are you just another poster that just posts a NO vote. I field these post always. It's mostly the people that have a difficult time understand "intent of language". These people seek ideolog groups that try to negate the real issues in an effort to overthrow our union. So once again, do you have a specific question that needs addressing?
     
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Why should I ask you a specific question?

    OK I'll give it a shot. What was the intent of the language for the original article 22.3 jobs? Was the intent to allow the company to wait four years to create these jobs? If it was not does this show a track record of the company not following the intent of the contract? Are there other parts of the contract that they company has not followed the intent (9.5)? Why should I support opening a new crack for UPS to exploit given their track record with previous contracts? Is the intent of this new article 26 language to gain new bargaining unit work for the employees of UPS? If not, why should I support UPS packages being moved by the new bargaining unit members that this creates for UPS Freight? Why should I support the creation of cut rate jobs, with work that should be performed by UPS drivers, for this new UPS freight classification when they do not even seem to support it themselves (I know for a fact that their terminal in my city is in opposition)?

    I know that is more than one question but my snap judgement of you is that your answer will be because the Union told me to, so hopefully you can prove me wrong.

    ?
     
  17. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    I broke your post down to not spend my entire Sunday on your post.

    Original 22.3 was to implement the jobs when the volume come back. This was implemented in an MOU between UPS and the Teamster back in 97. If you remember that we lost a few shippers due to our strike. However, I agree that UPS did wait a bit too long. However, back pay was implemented once they were created and post dated seniority was given (at least in my building). On a personal note, I feel that 22.3 jobs were created poorly. 22.3's IMO should be for the people that are either incapable of driving or have physical disabilities.

    Simple answer is yes. There is a lot going on in this article. Line haul runs, sure post and railroad. There is an absolute need for sure post for UPS to remain competitive. Given the option of free shipping, how can UPS reduce the cost to offer a reduced rate to shipping? FedEx offers this. Post office offers this. So UPS should not? So we structure a system for UPS to do 75% of the work except deliver. Delivery is the biggest cost for UPS. Now given the new language, it provides packages that are going to the same address AND addresses in a close proximity to enter back into the UPS system. Also packages that are "normally" less than 10 pounds, this a protection for a shipper and a customer to not have a halt in service. It's also a protection for an employee to not get disciplined for not "following the methods". I mean, read the language, it is pretty self explanatory.
     
  18. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Somehow I knew you wouldn't have a reasonable, well thought out response even though you asked for the questions.
     
  19. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    Yup, that's what I thought. Another guy with avoidant behavior disorder.
     
  20. balland chain

    balland chain Member

    I am so happy to see some others who are reading this and understand that this TA is NOT good for us package/feeder drivers.. I received my ballot last week and read thru the entire TA and supplemental.. I became so frustrated with what I was reading, I had to stop several times, and by the end of it I had a pounding headache...Glad to see others in my state are not happy with this as well..