Union’s proposals available

OptimusPrime

Well-Known Member
Sounds to me as though you have yet to complete conveyor securing training. The basics of this training is that only the person (supervisor or hourly) who turned off a moving belt is allowed to turn it back on after the area is deemed secure. This is obviously for safety purposes. If this person's shift is supposed to end he/she is to stay until the area is deemed secure and the belt is turned back on.

Maybe just reiterating it? I know when I was a sorter it was a problem. Unload sup would throw 4 guys in a book trailer, packages would be coming out butted against each other, and stacked as well. Would be falling all over the sort aisle. So I would cut the belt. (I would cut the belt because the unload sup and unloaders would refuse to shut the door down) So then it would be either the FT or PT jawing about how this belt had to run, I had no business shutting it off, etc. Then proceed to turn a belt back on they had not secured. Even when I pointed out it was unsafe, we were breaking customers packages, jamming the smalls belt, etc.
 

HubBub

Well-Known Member
Sounds to me as though you have yet to complete conveyor securing training. The basics of this training is that only the person (supervisor or hourly) who turned off a moving belt is allowed to turn it back on after the area is deemed secure. This is obviously for safety purposes. If this person's shift is supposed to end he/she is to stay until the area is deemed secure and the belt is turned back on.

I've been trained plenty, unfortunately the practice isn't always as practicable as the theory, and I just don't see a need for this in the contract. Has there been such a problem with belts being improperly turned on that we really need to address it in the contract? At the very least the language needs to be much more specific.
 

stink219

Well-Known Member
Can anyone read section 5?
image.jpg
 

PiedmontSteward

RTW-4-Less
This one has me scratching my head:

"No supervisor or employee shall be allowed to turn on a moving belt that they did not turn off. Only the supervisor or employee that turned the belt off shall be allowed to turn the belt on when the area is deemed safe."


Firstly, more often than not its workers turning the belts on and off, so this language will mostly just lead to workers being in violation of the contract.

Secondly, if the belt is moving (as per the first sentence), why would anyone need to turn it on? Or are they referring to belts that can potentially move? Is there such a thing as a belt that cannot move?

Thirdly, it's just impractical. What if the person who turned off the belt has left the area or the building and we need the belt on? Do we go searching for him or call him back before we can resume the operation? Just a strange paragraph imo.

This one puzzled me, to be honest. That's already internal company safety policy and is drilled to death in training and the monthly safety OJS forms they make hub staff fill out.
 

menotyou

bella amicizia
This one has me scratching my head:

"No supervisor or employee shall be allowed to turn on a moving belt that they did not turn off. Only the supervisor or employee that turned the belt off shall be allowed to turn the belt on when the area is deemed safe."


Firstly, more often than not its workers turning the belts on and off, so this language will mostly just lead to workers being in violation of the contract.

Secondly, if the belt is moving (as per the first sentence), why would anyone need to turn it on? Or are they referring to belts that can potentially move? Is there such a thing as a belt that cannot move?

Thirdly, it's just impractical. What if the person who turned off the belt has left the area or the building and we need the belt on? Do we go searching for him or call him back before we can resume the operation? Just a strange paragraph imo.

This one puzzled me, to be honest. That's already internal company safety policy and is drilled to death in training and the monthly safety OJS forms they make hub staff fill out.
Our wonderful dispatcher loves to turn the belt on, if he thinks it's been off too long(5 seconds). I have gotten him in trouble many times for this. He keeps doing it, and they keep letting him.
 

stink219

Well-Known Member
The 8-1 part time promotion ratio would be great.

It should be 8-0. Does someone want to explain to me why a part-timer has to grind for 15 years for the opportunity to work full time while an outside hire basically gets a free pass?
let's say you worked for XYZ Company for 28 years as a teamster and one day you show up and a sign says OUT OF BUSINESS, you had 2 years left to get your full pension. Wouldn't it be awesome to get a chance to earn 2 more years? So now this gives that teamster a chance to continue to earn a pull pension by sliding in one of those spots. Granted, not every local uses this 8-1 for that purpose.
 
Last edited:

Coldworld

60 months and counting
let's say you worked for XYZ Company for 28 years as a teamster and one day you show up and a sign says OUT OF BUSINESS, you had 2 years left to get your full pension. Wouldn't it be awesome to get a chance to earn 2 more years? So now this gives that teamster a chance to continue to earn a pull pension by sliding in one of those spots. Granted, not every local uses this 8-1 for that purpose.

What are the chances UPS is going to give a union brother a break and hire him off the street just so he/she can work 2 more years then quit.....especially someone in their 50's. They want young people in their 20's running all day. I have no problem with 8 to 1 ratio...because that one has been a supervisor many times in this area.
 

stink219

Well-Known Member
let's say you worked for XYZ Company for 28 years as a teamster and one day you show up and a sign says OUT OF BUSINESS, you had 2 years left to get your full pension. Wouldn't it be awesome to get a chance to earn 2 more years? So now this gives that teamster a chance to continue to earn a pull pension by sliding in one of those spots. Granted, not every local uses this 8-1 for that purpose.

What are the chances UPS is going to give a union brother a break and hire him off the street just so he/she can work 2 more years then quit.....especially someone in their 50's. They want young people in their 20's running all day. I have no problem with 8 to 1 ratio...because that one has been a supervisor many times in this area.
I answered the question honestly. We've had a few drivers come in the 6-1 when the 22.3 jobs were created. All teamster that were out of work from closed shops. These guys were 30's and 40's.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
It should be 8-0. Does someone want to explain to me why a part-timer has to grind for 15 years for the opportunity to work full time while an outside hire basically gets a free pass?

A free pass? I was serving my country while your mother was wiping snot from your runny nose. When I was hired it was 3-1.
 

Jigawatts

Well-Known Member
A free pass? I was serving my country while your mother was wiping snot from your runny nose. When I was hired it was 3-1.

Thanks for you service, but that has nothing to do with time served at UPS. And my mother didn't have any arms, I had to wipe my own snot with crumpled up newspapers I found at a bus station on the edge of town
 

stink219

Well-Known Member
Where's the 9.5 language?!
Spoke to the president of my local over the weekend. He is and has been on on the national negotiating committee for the last 4 contracts. As I'm sure most are aware that article 37 is the #1 non economical article. I was told that it will take some time. They are also waiting for UPS's initial proposal on it.
 
Top