Why do we pay people to negotiate a contract?

bubsdad · May 4, 2009

The longer I'm a steward the more I wonder why we, (union and company), pay alot of people alot of money to negotiate a contract that neither side wants to abide by. There seems to be alot of grey area interpreted in by the company and the union allows it. Everything is written in black and white but this manager believes it means this and that manager believes it means that. The union won't stand with you unless it affects the chosen few. Get alot of, "gotta pick your battles with this economy and all...", "be glad you have a job...", "we have a local agreement on that..". Situations that are clearly addressed in the contract are not handled as the contract states and we get no backing from the union. People are clearly being wronged and the BA makes a deal with the company. I don't get it. The top guys don't care because it doesn't affect them. The guys in the middle don't want to "make any waves". And the guys on the bottom are left holding the bag. Thought the whole idea of a union was solidarity. We're all paying dues and should all be awarded the same rights.

UnconTROLLed · May 5, 2009

bubsdad said:
The longer I'm a steward the more I wonder why we, (union and company), pay alot of people alot of money to negotiate a contract that neither side wants to abide by. There seems to be alot of grey area interpreted in by the company and the union allows it. Everything is written in black and white but this manager believes it means this and that manager believes it means that. The union won't stand with you unless it affects the chosen few. Get alot of, "gotta pick your battles with this economy and all...", "be glad you have a job...", "we have a local agreement on that..". Situations that are clearly addressed in the contract are not handled as the contract states and we get no backing from the union. People are clearly being wronged and the BA makes a deal with the company. I don't get it. The top guys don't care because it doesn't affect them. The guys in the middle don't want to "make any waves". And the guys on the bottom are left holding the bag. Thought the whole idea of a union was solidarity. We're all paying dues and should all be awarded the same rights.

read my PM. couldn't agree with you more.

Braveheart · May 5, 2009

I agree. They keep making back door deals, local agreements. The employee gets the shaft. Some of these locals are getting voted out of office.

Just like congress, we made to go to term limits. Or just vote there butts out.

We need to dethrone Hoffa.

MonavieLeaker · May 5, 2009

Braveheart said:
We need to dethrone Hoffa.

bscott85 · May 5, 2009

my local doesnt even try to get grievances paid out any more ... they just stack them up until they get enough of them and trade them to get some bum that deserved to be fired their job back(which keeps dues rollin into them!)... hence why im no longer in the union come june 2009 thank god for right to work states!

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret) · May 6, 2009

bscott85 said:
my local doesnt even try to get grievances paid out any more ... they just stack them up until they get enough of them and trade them to get some bum that deserved to be fired their job back(which keeps dues rollin into them!)... hence why im no longer in the union come june 2009 thank god for right to work states!

Suppose July 2009 you do something that requires Union representation--do you think that you should get the same level of representation as that of a dues paying member?

Catatonic · May 6, 2009

UpstateNYUPSer said:
Suppose July 2009 you do something that requires Union representation--do you think that you should get the same level of representation as that of a dues paying member?

In theory and according to the laws governing Unions ... Yes.
That is a Federal law ... not a term or condition of the contract. :wink2:

trickpony1 · May 6, 2009

UpstateNYUPSer said:
Suppose July 2009 you do something that requires Union representation--do you think that you should get the same level of representation as that of a dues paying member?

On the other side of the coin.......

I know members who have paid dues for 25+ years and have watched the union fall flat on its face, shoddy representation and lost grievances so what difference does it make?

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret) · May 6, 2009

Hoaxster said:
In theory and according to the laws governing Unions ... Yes.
That is a Federal law ... not a term or condition of the contract.

trickpony1 said:
On the other side of the coin.......

I know members who have paid dues for 25+ years and have watched the union fall flat on its face, shoddy representation and lost grievances so what difference does it make?

I was just throwing that out there to see what kind of reaction I would get. This is why I always ensure that I take care of my own business and don't put myself in to situations where I have to rely on assistance that may not be there.

wannabeups · May 6, 2009

bubsdad said:
The longer I'm a steward the more I wonder why we, (union and company), pay alot of people alot of money to negotiate a contract that neither side wants to abide by. There seems to be alot of grey area interpreted in by the company and the union allows it. Everything is written in black and white but this manager believes it means this and that manager believes it means that. The union won't stand with you unless it affects the chosen few. Get alot of, "gotta pick your battles with this economy and all...", "be glad you have a job...", "we have a local agreement on that..". Situations that are clearly addressed in the contract are not handled as the contract states and we get no backing from the union. People are clearly being wronged and the BA makes a deal with the company. I don't get it. The top guys don't care because it doesn't affect them. The guys in the middle don't want to "make any waves". And the guys on the bottom are left holding the bag. Thought the whole idea of a union was solidarity. We're all paying dues and should all be awarded the same rights.

You have addressed the situation perfectly.

They have, excuse after excuse. Another excuse is that seniority doesn't matter in the case.

wannabeups · May 6, 2009

UpstateNYUPSer said:
This is why I always ensure that I take care of my own business and don't put myself in to situations where I have to rely on assistance that may not be there.

Right on.

UnconTROLLed · May 6, 2009

UpstateNYUPSer said:
I was just throwing that out there to see what kind of reaction I would get. This is why I always ensure that I take care of my own business and don't put myself in to situations where I have to rely on assistance that may not be there.

The problem with that is that management puts EVERYONE in situations where they need the union "in our building", such as shaving worked hours. You can't rely on them giving the hours back, that is something I have learned.

They blame payroll for the errors then say youll see it next check- you get the money you're owed but then they shave you somewhere else (in OT), so you're almost an accountant trying to figure out weekly what is owed and what isn't.

One example of how the slimeballs operate here.

Solidarity413 · May 6, 2009

Braveheart said:
We need to dethrone Hoffa.

bscott85 · May 7, 2009

UpstateNYUPSer said:
Suppose July 2009 you do something that requires Union representation--do you think that you should get the same level of representation as that of a dues paying member?

yes because i paid $2,000 dollars in dues and had numerous grievances i should've been paid for traded to get a terrible workers job back

bubsdad · May 7, 2009

bscott85 said:
yes because i paid $2,000 dollars in dues and had numerous grievances i should've been paid for traded to get a terrible workers job back

Had to read that a couple times but you're right. I've seen it happen. It is very frustrating to go to a guy who had a legitimate grievance and tell him it got sent back.

gandydancer · May 7, 2009

You did see where Joint Council 28 gave UPS $1M already owed to parttimers for a grievance in order to settle a different grievance by 22.3s for less than what, under the language of the contract, they should have won on its own merits? http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/news.php?extend.198 What clowns.

ih8tbrn · May 7, 2009

bscott85 said:
yes because i paid $2,000 dollars in dues and had numerous grievances i should've been paid for traded to get a terrible workers job back

LOL.....There aren't any terrible workers in a union, or they are all terrible, everyone is equal.

evilleace · May 7, 2009

ih8tbrn said:
LOL.....There aren't any terrible workers in a union, or they are all terrible, everyone is equal.

Why do you insist on being negative on everything it has to be miserable to live that way.

Braveheart said:
We need to dethrone Hoffa.

ih8tbrn · May 8, 2009

evilleace said:
Why do you insist on being negative on everything it has to be miserable to live that way.

Cuz UPS sucks. I'm no longer miserable but UPS (the company, not the workers) still sucks.

Catatonic · May 8, 2009

ih8tbrn said:
Cuz UPS sucks. I'm no longer miserable but UPS (the company, not the workers) still sucks.

Unfortunately, people that are unhappy at one company tend to be unhappy no matter where they work.
Hopefully, you will be the exception ih8brn; good luck at your new company.

Why do we pay people to negotiate a contract?

"Hang in there!"

perfection

Well-Known Member

Bringin Teh_Lulz

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Nine Lives

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

perfection

Well-Known Member

Active Member

"Hang in there!"

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Nine Lives

Similar threads