UPS Contracting work

[menotyou]

You must live in NY.

Gold carts do not have to be registered to drive on city streets in GA, FL, AZ, TX TN. etc.

The golf carts are used mostly in retirement communities ... so NY does not matter since NO ONE retires to NY.
One has to drive bicycles as well ... they don't steer themselves.

As someone else said, bikes are ridden, not driven. And, as of January 1, new rules go into affect for Ga. golfcarts. Better brakes and horns. Just what those old people need, a louder horn. Geesh!!

 

[JonFrum]

AssistantSanta, Union Contracts can't anticipate every posibility. And sometimes the language is left deliberately vague either to get the Contract done by a deadline, or to deceive the voters into voting "Yes."

If there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of a word or phrase, it will eventually go to an arbitrator. The standard way to interpret language is to read it as plain English, as a normal person would, without stretching the meaning or reading anything into it.

If either party claims the plain English interpretation is not what was agreed to, they must prove their case to the arbitrator by producing notes from the actual negotiations, and testify as to the verbal understandings during those negotiations.

Since we rank-and-file people were not at the negotiations, we must assume a Driver's Helper must be a Helper who actually helps a Driver (for a lot less money,) and not someone who works semi-independently for driver's pay.

 

[804brown]

Most People in Indiana do not want rtw!!



Eagle Country 99.3 FM | Lawrenceburg, IN

 

[tourists24]

In the scope of the contract you write about, "conjunction with the driver shall mean ___"

A.) something. Please tell me what that something is.

B.) There is nothing here. How it's construed by different groups will lead to a conflict.


Since you didn't define it, let's look at B.

Even though thesaurus suggests conjunction, cooperation, collaboration and collusion are synonyms, they're not exactly the same. i.e. if gas station owners are talking to each other to share details about fill-and-runners, they're cooperating. If we say they're in collusion, we tend to think they're price fixing.

If the contract defined the application of the word specifically, it's unnecessary to debate over the different interpretation of the word. If one writes a sloppy contract, they can expect to have something coming at them. The definition can even be in the foot note, so the body doesn't look like a wordy fuster cluck.


Even though I've been a research assistant, most of time wasn't spent together with the researcher. Yet, I worked in conjunction with the researcher. Passersby won't know that unless they ask and that doesn't mean we weren't working in conjunction. Of course, if I make a mistake and the driver/researcher is questioned for misdelivery/plagiarism, its highly likely that they'll say "the helper.../the assistant... probably did that" but when what I do earns them a recognition, they typically don't hesitate to grab 95% of the credit even if I did 70% of the work.

Well then let me make it more clear.... it means sitting in the jump seat with the driver you are assigned to

 

[Inthegame]

In the scope of the contract you write about, "conjunction with the driver shall mean ___"

A.) something. Please tell me what that something is.

B.) There is nothing here. How it's construed by different groups will lead to a conflict.


Since you didn't define it, let's look at B.

Even though thesaurus suggests conjunction, cooperation, collaboration and collusion are synonyms, they're not exactly the same. i.e. if gas station owners are talking to each other to share details about fill-and-runners, they're cooperating. If we say they're in collusion, we tend to think they're price fixing.

If the contract defined the application of the word specifically, it's unnecessary to debate over the different interpretation of the word. If one writes a sloppy contract, they can expect to have something coming at them. The definition can even be in the foot note, so the body doesn't look like a wordy fuster cluck.


Even though I've been a research assistant, most of time wasn't spent together with the researcher. Yet, I worked in conjunction with the researcher. Passersby won't know that unless they ask and that doesn't mean we weren't working in conjunction. Of course, if I make a mistake and the driver/researcher is questioned for misdelivery/plagiarism, its highly likely that they'll say "the helper.../the assistant... probably did that" but when what I do earns them a recognition, they typically don't hesitate to grab 95% of the credit even if I did 70% of the work.

So when you were being brainwashed, excuse me, doing research for the National Right to work (for less) did you work in conjunction with ALEC, or was it cooperation with Koch Industries, collaboration with the National Chamber of Commerce or just simple collusion with the Heritage Foundation?

 

[AssistantSanta]

AssistantSanta, Union Contracts can't anticipate every posibility. And sometimes the language is left deliberately vague either to get the Contract done by a deadline, or to deceive the voters into voting "Yes."

If there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of a word or phrase, it will eventually go to an arbitrator. The standard way to interpret language is to read it as plain English, as a normal person would, without stretching the meaning or reading anything into it.

Good point. I'm not familiar with how arbitrators rule, but when someone brings up the issue of writing up non-sense contract like union membership is condition of employment except where prohibited when its been prohibited by federal law for over half a century; how are they going to explain it? (referring back to the post you made a few days back)

In my opinion including semi-independent workers to "working in conjunction" isn't a stretch and can name plenty of examples that I believe are generally accepted as such. Secretaries, research assistants, sales rep(even if they drive on their own, sealing a deal can require authorization from the boss), retail employees, etc. They're not under constant supervision, yet they work in conjunction with their respective superiors. They all assist others, but not "on a least" all the time so to speak. Perhaps you could explain your side?

If either party claims the plain English interpretation is not what was agreed to, they must prove their case to the arbitrator by producing notes from the actual negotiations, and testify as to the verbal understandings during those negotiations.

If the negotiation specifically said "to work in close proximity with" or "within immediate supervision" then I think there is a case, but we're just speculating here since this thread does not have those notes we can refer to.

Since we rank-and-file people were not at the negotiations, we must assume a Driver's Helper must be a Helper who actually helps a Driver (for a lot less money,) and not someone who works semi-independently for driver's pay.

Enlighten me. I see dividing task and running parts that do not require the operation of a vehicle defined as motor vehicle per state law as helping driver. It helps the driver gets everything in the truck delivered in less time.

Most People in Indiana do not want rtw!!



Eagle Country 99.3 FM | Lawrenceburg, IN

It said 47% opposed. That's approximately half. I can't say that about half is "most".

Well then let me make it more clear.... it means sitting in the jump seat with the driver you are assigned to

Let me see the language that says that.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I ran off a misload on my way home last night. The OMS added 30 minutes to my punch out time. Would this be considered contracting?

 

[Catatonic]

I ran off a misload on my way home last night. The OMS added 30 minutes to my punch out time. Would this be considered contracting?

Good grief ... here we go again!
Hope you didn't have an accident, you wouldn't have a job if you did, DOT gonna come and pull you outta your house and put you in jail, blah, blah, blah ...