Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Error on Southern Supplement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Overpaid Union Thug" data-source="post: 1344607" data-attributes="member: 198"><p>Over on "makeupsdeliver.org they have links to the NMA and most supplements via TDU. I noticed the Southern Supplement's change to Article 48 Section 6: Package Drivers Job Selection is different than what was in the proposed (and later ratified) version that was sent out to be voted on. On TDU it said....</p><p></p><p><strong>(A) </strong>Bid <strong>Routes: </strong>All routes shall be bid. <strong>There shall be a minimum of</strong></p><p></p><p>two (2) training <strong>unassigned delivery route and a maximum of ten percent</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>(10%) </strong>training <strong>delivery routes in each package center. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>The proposal said the same thing only the word "unassigned" had been crossed through to indicate that it was being deleted. </p><p></p><p>To me this is a serious error whether it was a typo or intentional. "Unassigned" was clearly meant to be deleted in the proposal so it should have been applied when ratified. Reinserting the word "unassigned" will allow management to hold out at least two routes from being bid. Otherwise the the language that was voted on should allow the two training routes to be bid with the understanding that the bid drivers have to come off the routes while probational drivers or TCDs are being trained. I'm wondering if this should be brought to the attention of someone involved in writing these things or if the contract books might actually reflect the language that was in the proposals?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Overpaid Union Thug, post: 1344607, member: 198"] Over on "makeupsdeliver.org they have links to the NMA and most supplements via TDU. I noticed the Southern Supplement's change to Article 48 Section 6: Package Drivers Job Selection is different than what was in the proposed (and later ratified) version that was sent out to be voted on. On TDU it said.... [B](A) [/B]Bid [B]Routes: [/B]All routes shall be bid. [B]There shall be a minimum of[/B] two (2) training [B]unassigned delivery route and a maximum of ten percent[/B] [B](10%) [/B]training [B]delivery routes in each package center. [/B] The proposal said the same thing only the word "unassigned" had been crossed through to indicate that it was being deleted. To me this is a serious error whether it was a typo or intentional. "Unassigned" was clearly meant to be deleted in the proposal so it should have been applied when ratified. Reinserting the word "unassigned" will allow management to hold out at least two routes from being bid. Otherwise the the language that was voted on should allow the two training routes to be bid with the understanding that the bid drivers have to come off the routes while probational drivers or TCDs are being trained. I'm wondering if this should be brought to the attention of someone involved in writing these things or if the contract books might actually reflect the language that was in the proposals? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Error on Southern Supplement
Top