Progression pay

[JonFrum]

Sez you. I've already pointed out that the failure to replace "effective date" with "August 1, 2008" in this case but not Article 21, Section 5 is an obvious drafting error, but anyone insisting on ignoring the obvious in favor of a literal reading is going to have a hard time explaining why "in progression" shouldn't be read equally literally. Oops and Wyo were "in progression" on the effective date. It doesn't say anything about having to be the full time progression. You can't insist on literalism only when you want the implausible.

First, I assume you mean Article 22, Section 5, not Article 21, Section 5.

You are the only person who thinks the reference to progression in the full-time article is a reference to the completely different progression in the part-time article. If you think this is a "drafting error" then give us some evidence to prove your point. Quote some negotiator saying that his secretary mistyped, or the negotiators were tipsy after a lunch break at the hotel bar, and didn't realize their mistake until after the Contracts were printed.

In fact, although errors can slip through, the Contract is fought over word by word, and proof-read by both sides before being printed. If a mistake was made, a correction should have been announced. Post an announcement of correction if you have one.

Remember, the Contract is written in plain English. It may be dull and confusing, but it is not like a novel. There is no attempt to be humorous, or ironic, or clever, or to employ any other technique of a talented writer. It is a matter-of-fact document. It should be read literally, as you would read a phone book.

EXAMPLE: If the Contract says the workweek begins on Sunday, it's not up to you to read into the document a hidden meaning that since it was cloudy on Sunday and Monday, then Tuesday is really what the negotiators intended because Tuesday was the first day the Sun came out. Therefore, while it literally says "Sunday" all right-thinking people know the negotiators really meant the week starts on "Tuesday."

And big_arrow_up has chimed in on the other thread to say that he, as well as Wyo ("$16.45"!) has gotten the contract raises. You analysis indicating otherwise is meeting resistance from reality. Get over it.

Scroll up in this thread to post #110 and you'll see I already said Wyo and all others in his specific situation get the semi-annual General Wage Increases. Your misreading of the Contract, causes you to misread my explanations of the Contract as well.

 

[jasyatz]

The hangup isn't the "full timer progression" or the "progression rate drivers". It is the gained seniority by 08/01/08" part that is voiding the contract raises.

We(the "chosen few") were not given enough calendar time nor enough work days to fulfill 30 working days from hire date to gain seniority BY 08/01/08. And THAT ALONE is what is hanging the raises in limbo. We are currently requesting an explaination as to this "gray area" that has no language in the contract to specifically address OUR situation. There are contradictor terms that can be understood different ways depending on how you read them.

Term 1) "Full time hires in progression will be eligible for contract raises"
Term 2) Full time hires in progression will make no less that the rate they are entitled under the terms of this master agreement"
Term 3) All drivers in progression that have OBTAINED seniority BY 08/01/08 will be eligible for contract raises".

This is where we are getting screwed. No one can make up their mind as to which term to cover us in this gray area. So far they stuck by the "obtained seniority by 08/01/08" since that works in their favor and will NOT result in US having to pay them back should a judgement on the language be passed down. It's much easier (IE quicker) for them to make us wait for the judgment and THEN cut us a check, then for THEM to get money back from us via wage deductions weekly.

Still waiting...supposedly it's in 3rd or 4th tier managment hands now to help us out. There are around 6 of us here in 177 covered under this language as it was the last 2 driving classes in mid summer. Funny thing is my class was scheduled to start 06/18/08 and got pushed back 2 weeks due to the instructor having either an illness or vacation. (we weren't told which it was) If the class had gone of as previously scheduled, I wouldn't be on this email thread, instead would be supporting my Brothers, not trying to force an action by management.

 

[JonFrum]

Jasyatz,

There is no "grey area."
There are no "contradictory terms."
And it's not true that " no one can make up their mind." I can.

I realized at the outset that the language would be confusing for younger people so I quoted the revelant clauses and posted them.

What keeps you upset is not the plain-English language of the Contract, it's that you don't LIKE what it says. It's a shame GandyDancer has played on your understandable disappointment, and confused some by reading into the various clauses, meanings that are just not there. He has also switched the conversation back and forth between several groups of employees who's facts are different, and therefore the Contract language applies differently to the different groups. This has throughly confused people even further.

Anyway, you need to stop reading into the Contract and realize that even if this matter get to an Arbitrator, the Arbitrator has no power to "fix" the problem. Arbitrators are bound to follow the Contract based on a straightforeward matter-of-fact reading of the revelant plain-English language. They cannot rewrite the Contract in the interest of Justice For The Little Guy. "You cannot get in arbitration what you failed to get in negotiations." The Contract is a concessionary contract that was negotiated a year-and-a-half ago. It is what it is. Unfortunately, as usual, the members voted it in.

Having said all that, there is always a (very) remote possibility that UPS will have a change of heart and give you raises even though they are under no contractual obligation to do so. Just as they could grant any other benefit unilatterally in mid-Contract. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Especially in the current economic climate.

The fact that some Stewards, Business Agents, Supervisors, and Managers all have different opinions or no opinion on the language is irrevelant. Most of them just don't know because this is a rather obscure technical area that they were not party to negotiating. (You'd be amazed how few people bother to understand the Contract!)

 

[OopsDriver]

JonFrum, if that contract was written in plain simple English as you put it, there wouldn't be the confusion there is now. I've stated earlier, if I was mifinformed when I started, fine, it sux, but fine. But isn't there a new start pay rate for new contract drivers? Why am apparently considered under the new contract but being paid old contract wage with NO RAISES? And please be careful not to insult any of us by claiming we can't understand "simple English". We're supposed to be on the same side..... or are you management? That could help explain your slightly holier than thou tone at times.

 

[gandydancer]

No I think I read what you had said correctly. you said a part-timer is in progression, but I have never heard of such language unless it's Article 40. part-timers do not have a progression.

Article 22, Section 5(b) is every bit as much of a progression as Article 41 sections 2(a) and (c). That's why IT SAYS "Part-time employees still IN PROGRESSION on August 1, 2008..."

 

[gandydancer]

The hangup isn't the "full timer progression" or the "progression rate drivers". It is the gained seniority by 08/01/08" part that is voiding the contract raises...

If the contract actually said "if you havent gained seniority by 08/01/08 you don't get the following raises" you'd be out of luck. But it doesn't. It says (a) "All full-time employees who have attained seniority as of August 1, 2008 will receive the following general wage increases for each contract year", and (b) "Full-time employees still in progression on the effective date of this Master Agreement shall receive the above contractual increases". This is two overlapping groups, membership in EITHER of which entitles you to the raises. You are not in the first. Your ONLY claim to the raises is being in the second. If you refuse to pay attention to the progression wording, you don't have an argument.

 

[gandydancer]

... it's in 3rd or 4th tier managment hands now to help us out...

ROFL!!! The only thing that is going to help you is a steadfast union plus an arbitrator. This is UPS. Management helps themselves, not you.

 

[JonFrum]

Said to Jasyatz:

If the contract actually said "if you havent gained seniority by 08/01/08 you don't get the following raises" you'd be out of luck. But it doesn't. It says (a) "All full-time employees who have attained seniority as of August 1, 2008 will receive the following general wage increases for each contract year", and (b) "Full-time employees still in progression on the effective date of this Master Agreement shall receive the above contractual increases". This is two overlapping groups, membership in EITHER of which entitles you to the raises. You are not in the first. Your ONLY claim to the raises is being in the second. If you refuse to pay attention to the progression wording, you don't have an argument.

Now we might be making progress . . .

OK. Jasyatz, tell us, in your specific case, were you a FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE STILL IN PROGRESSION ON 12/19/2007.

Yes or No?

If "No," as I've assumed, then unfortunately you are not entitled to the General Wage Increases.

 

[gandydancer]

Said to Jasyatz:

Now we might be making progress . . .

OK. Jasyatz, tell us, in your specific case, were you a FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE STILL IN PROGRESSION ON 12/19/2007.

Yes or No?

If "No," as I've assumed, then unfortunately you are not entitled to the General Wage Increases.

No need to assume anything. He IS a full-time employee and he WAS in progression on 12/19/07. He's said so.

 

[OopsDriver]

JASYATZ SAID: "I fell 20 days past 08/01/08 to gain seniority under the old contract rate and was hired 11 work days BEFORE the new contract started (Even though my transfer date was 06/28/08 I did not work enough 8 HOUR DAYS to gain seniority. (I reported to work 32 days prior to 08/01/08 including 5 days for school I was paid the transfer FULL TIME rate for school) "

..so I think Jon is right. ANd I think Jasy is right as far as the "inbetweeners" getting screwed

 

[cajunboy]

I have a question. I am an eliminated 22.3 combo. I chose to bump 2 pt employees for 2 guarentee's of 3.5 hours per shift. I recieved 4.02 on my first shift, my second shift they only gave me 2.98 and sent me home. I told them I want my 3.5 guarentee they said you are only guarenteed 7 total. They had 2 guys close the belt whom I have 15 years on. What do you think. I showed them the contract language.
cajunboy

 

[gandydancer]

JASYATZ SAID: "I fell 20 days past 08/01/08 to gain seniority under the old contract rate and was hired 11 work days BEFORE the new contract started (Even though my transfer date was 06/28/08 I did not work enough 8 HOUR DAYS to gain seniority. (I reported to work 32 days prior to 08/01/08 including 5 days for school I was paid the transfer FULL TIME rate for school) "

..so I think Jon is right. ANd I think Jasy is right as far as the "inbetweeners" getting screwed

Here's the quote you want:

I'm in a similiar situation. Hired PT 1/27/07 transfered to FT driver 6/26/08...

As I said, no guessing required. He IS a full-time employee and he WAS in progression on 12/19/07. So he should have gotten the raises.

 

[gandydancer]

I have a question. I am an eliminated 22.3 combo. I chose to bump 2 pt employees for 2 guarentee's of 3.5 hours per shift. I recieved 4.02 on my first shift, my second shift they only gave me 2.98 and sent me home. I told them I want my 3.5 guarentee they said you are only guarenteed 7 total. They had 2 guys close the belt whom I have 15 years on. What do you think. I showed them the contract language.
cajunboy

Which contract language? I'm not aware of any contract language allowing for the elimination of any 22.3 position. There's a right to temporarily not fill vacancies under certain limited conditions in an MOE attached to the 2002 contract, but that's it. I've been told hall has said the company can do this, but... contract language? Hall is pulling the company's right to do this out of his butt, as far as I can see.

Anyway, if you've got more seniority they shouldn't be sending you home. Period. As a 22.3 management has tried three times in four years to send me home after 8 or 9 on the grounds that I was making ot and the pts had merely made their guarantee but I pointed out that there's nothing in the contract to say that ot has any bearing on whether seniority must be respected. Won back pay once at pre panel, had my grievance disappear without a ripple once, and have a third going to second level right now. In no case did they try to enforce it for more than a week or so... Slightly different facts than yours, of course. I don't understand why you haven't remained a 22.3 when you bumped two pt and retained an 8h guarantee. What language? Were you caught up in the Seattle sellout?

 

[Don1010]

Hear is what i dont understand about how can it be foundamentally fair for a person just completing their 40days to be bumped up to seniorty pay 17.25 and leave a person who has been driving for say 10months at 16.10. And according to my BA if they do decide to bump us up to 17.25 they will extend our progression to top pay from 30 months to 36. I ve had a greivance in since august regarding this matter and to me this fight seems dead in the water. Chalk one up for ups because i dont see any money coming anytime soon!

 

[705red]

I have a question. I am an eliminated 22.3 combo. I chose to bump 2 pt employees for 2 guarentee's of 3.5 hours per shift. I recieved 4.02 on my first shift, my second shift they only gave me 2.98 and sent me home. I told them I want my 3.5 guarentee they said you are only guarenteed 7 total. They had 2 guys close the belt whom I have 15 years on. What do you think. I showed them the contract language.
cajunboy

Which contract language? I'm not aware of any contract language allowing for the elimination of any 22.3 position. There's a right to temporarily not fill vacancies under certain limited conditions in an MOE attached to the 2002 contract, but that's it. I've been told hall has said the company can do this, but... contract language? Hall is pulling the company's right to do this out of his butt, as far as I can see.

Anyway, if you've got more seniority they shouldn't be sending you home. Period. As a 22.3 management has tried three times in four years to send me home after 8 or 9 on the grounds that I was making ot and the pts had merely made their guarantee but I pointed out that there's nothing in the contract to say that ot has any bearing on whether seniority must be respected. Won back pay once at pre panel, had my grievance disappear without a ripple once, and have a third going to second level right now. In no case did they try to enforce it for more than a week or so... Slightly different facts than yours, of course. I don't understand why you haven't remained a 22.3 when you bumped two pt and retained an 8h guarantee. What language? Were you caught up in the Seattle sellout?

He must be a laid off 22.3 employee if he is bumping 2 junior ptimers. But he should be guaranteed his 4 and 4 and if you work over on your first half you are still guaranteed your 4 on your second half!

 

[gandydancer]

He must be a laid off 22.3 employee if he is bumping 2 junior ptimers. But he should be guaranteed his 4 and 4 and if you work over on your first half you are still guaranteed your 4 on your second half!

I disagree. When he bumps inside from his air half he should remain a 22.3 with an 8 hour guarantee and a maximum 1 hour lunch. If he works 5 hr on his first half he's only guaranteed 3 more, but he can't be cut out in violation of his seniority.

 

[jasyatz]

Here's the quote you want:

As I said, no guessing required. He IS a full-time employee and he WAS in progression on 12/19/07. So he should have gotten the raises.

I wasn't classified as full time until the first day I reported for work as a driver : 06/28/08.

Here's another question, Are the NEW contract drivers (Hired AFTER 08/01/08 and gaining seniority AFTER 08/01/08) entitled to the annual contract raises?

If so, why would the language be put in place for the previous contract progression drivers to have the raise (by gaining seniority BY 08/01/08) and then the NEW contract drivers getting the raise( by attaining seniority under the NEW contract) but not specifically include the few who gained seniority under the new contract but were hired under the old? It's not consistent with the intent of the language. If the OLD guys are getting it, and the new guys WILL get it, why not have the guys who fall between have it also? Was it specifically left out to play games with a few people?

FWIW, I voted on THIS NEW contract based on becoming a FT driver. I was on the transfer list effective 02/01/08 so I was a FT employee after the ratification took place. I specifically didn't care which contract I was hired under since after 3 years, the money works out to just about the same.

And gandy...I was told that the "Full time employees in progression " clause DID NOT pertain to drivers in progression as this was specifically addressed in a previous statement/paragraph. If this is NOT true, please let me know so I can correct the person who told me this. This same person told me the effective date of the Contract was 08/01/08 and not 12/19/07.