Part time to full time

Hello all,

I am in management but I have a friend that is working part-time in a hub. He has been with UPS working part-time and has been trying to go full-time for a year now, with no success. Would any of you have any advice that I can pass to him. I dont think he is in the union.

Thanks.

Easy. Get in the union. UPS allowed the teamsters to unfairly stack the deck with union members, whether qualified or not, to get a 5 to 1 advantage on all parttime to fulltime moves. The effect of this policy has been to further reduce the incentive for parttimers to have to EARN a promotion to fulltime status. It also makes going into parttime supervision a less attractive option for many people. Remember, unions believe in rewarding mediocrity, not hard work.

Drooler

Errr...you are wrong there drooler, I'm not sure which UPS you work for. The 5 to 1 ration is for partimer's (union or not) vs off the street hires.
And it only requires that routes that open up be offered to inside employees 1st. Basically when a route opens up, a bid list is posted for 7 days. At the end of the 7 days the senior inside employee to sign the list gets the opportunity to try and qualify as a driver. Period. Being union or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"Remember, unions believe in rewarding mediocrity, not hard work."
I'm not sure what this statement has to do with answering the man's question. If you don't know the answer don't say anything.

(Message edited by deliver_man on June 18, 2002)

spritskr, the availability of fulltime jobs really depends largely on what area of the country you are in. I know that where I work we have constant growth, and despite the 5 to 1 ratio there are at least 10 drivers just in my center that were hired off the street. If you are in an area that is economically stagnant with not a lot of growth, your friend could be in for a longer wait.

No, Deliver man, you're wrong. The 5 to 1 ratio is union employees vs everyone else, be they non-union employees or "off-the-street" people. And yes, unions DO encourage mediocrity. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.

Drooler

Drooler, I will simply refer you to the contract:
Article 22, section 4 states "Part-time employees shall be given the opportunity to fill full-time jobs before hiring from the outside on a five-for-one basis (five(5) part-time to every one(1) outside hire)."
Nowhere is it stated that the part-time employee has to be a union member, and being in a right-to-work state I know membership in the union is not a consideration when bidding on any job. I really don't know where you get these ideas.
"And yes, unions DO encourage mediocrity. That's not my opinion. It's a fact."
If it's a "fact" I imagine there must be some studies or at least some research done that can qualify such a sweeping conclusion. Perhaps you could point these out to the rest of us? Unless of course it's just your opinion.

Yes, I have some advice. Run, don't walk, and find a real job anywhere other than UPS. That is my advice.

Deliver Man

The contract does not cover non-union people. The Part time people referred to in the article you quote are part time UNION people. Interpretation is a big part of contract administration. This article been interpeted to be UNION part time people. It's important to KNOW your contract, not just be able to read the words.

Drooler

Perhaps the best term to use is "bargaining unit employees." The term "union member" is a misleading legal term of art. For example, under the union security clause, "member in good standing" could mean a nonmember of the union, but is a bargaining unit employee. In a non-RTW state, a nonmember is commonly referred to as an "agency fee payer" or a "financial core member." I think the sole purpose of this Orwellian language is to keep people confused and uninformed.

drooler

I believe you are refering to the local union contract, I'm not sure if the National Master has the same language . Remember the contract here is negotiated along with , but not necessarily exactly as the National Master. Just a thought.

"It's important to KNOW your contract, not just be able to read the words."
You really should heed your own words. I'm curious, do you actually work at UPS, or just post about it? I know the contract very well, and I also know that when a bid list is posted, the only thing that matters is the part-timer's hire date.Period. We have plenty of part-timers who were not union members, and who bid on posted routes and and were awarded the opportunity to qualify for a fulltime position based on seniority. Union membership is just not an issue in this case and I don't where you got the idea that it is. Interpretation is not necessary, if the article was refering to union members it would refer to them as "bargaining unit employees" not part-timers.
"The contract does not cover non-union people."
Once again you are incorrect, by law all hourly employees, union or not, are covered under the CBA (collective bargaining agreement). If it were otherwise, the company would be free to pay non-union employees at a lower rate, or not allow them as much vacation time, etc. This is clearly not the case. In fact, by law (once again), non-union employees are entitled to union representation in case of a dispute with management. I have witnessed 1st hand a non-union driver being represented by a shop steward during a disciplinary meeting. I realize you have some huge axe to grind with the union, but it doesnt help your case when you are so clearly misinformed. Know the truth, and the truth will set you free. BTW I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to all that research that definetively proves that "Unions encourage mediocrity". You did state that that was a fact and not just your opinion.

No axe to grind at all. Just a very low opinion of an organization that takes advantage of both its members and the companies that are forced to have to deal with it. Misinformed? No, not at all. Language in the contract is interpreted differently across the country, as Michael alluded to in his post. Apparently the article you quote falls in to this catagory. Sorry if I offended you in any way.

Drooler

The whole discussion is based on whether you are employed in a right to work state or a closed shop state. Both opinions are correct.

One clarification. The so-called "closed shop" was made illegal with the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The closed shop is the type of thing you see in the movie "On the Waterfront." Instead, the "union shop" or "agency shop" exists today. Regardless if one lives in a right to work state or not, union membership is not a condition of employment.

In regards to mediocrity, I'm not aware of any fact finding studies on this subject. Facts in this case, are borne out by workplace reality. To cite an example in my work center, I know of one guy who is a consistant mediocre performer in his duties. To anyone who knows him, this is a hard and indisputable fact because this guy is the laughingstock of the building. On one occaision, he was properly removed from his work duties based on sheer incompetence. Lo and behold, he files a grievance claiming his seniority rights were violated. Instead of being justly terminated, he was merely reassigned to other duties. He knows he can't be fired and it sets a precedent for others to follow.

If one is interested in finding economic facts, there is a new study out called Do Unions Help the Economy?. This study concludes that compulsory unions are a deadweight on the economy.

"Misinformed? No, not at all. Language in the contract is interpreted differently across the country, as Michael alluded to in his post. Apparently the article you quote falls in to this catagory."
You are either misinformed or just being willfully ignorant because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. The article that I quoted is from the National Master contract, and is NOT subject to different interpretations in different states. It does not matter whether you are in a right to work state or not, a part-timer is allowed to bid on any fulltime job that opens up regardless of whether or not he is a union member. It's based on seniority and that's it. It really is that simple. It is becoming clear to me that you do NOT work at UPS or we would not even be having this discussion. The same goes for your contention that the contract does not apply to non-union employees. You are quite simply wrong. By law, non-union employees of a union company are guaranteed all the rights and protections accorded to union employees under the negotiated CBA. And I am still waiting for that link. my2cents has at least been able to give an example, though it is anecdotal and doesnt qualify as actual statistical analysis.

Everyone is talking and no one is listening. Big Brown is right. The 5 to one ratio means that the positions are offered 5 to one to the jobs that are fully unionized in some states and mostly unionized in the others. If a part-time damage inspector wishes to apply for a driving position, he will have to wait through 5 as many openings as a sorter would to apply. Neither wrong nor right, that is how it is. Being a union member is not an issue, being in a union controlled position is.

Calm down everyone. Save the nastys for those perky FedEx's in their new green golf shirts.

Yeah, there is no such thing as a lowest common denominator index (LCDI) to measure this stuff. If one were created, the dumbing down of America would be complete. That's it for me on this thread, I'm getting too cynical.

Deliver Man and Drooler: you are both right. The part-timers covered under the contract, whether union members or not, have the same rights as dues paying union part-timers. The non-union part-timers are really clerks - the people that you see checking international packages and working in the offices. The 5 to 1 that you talk about is 5 part-timers in positions covered by the contract get the opportunity to go driving, then 1 person either off the street, or one of the non-union clerks, or, in some cases, a part-time supervisor has the opportunity to get a driving job. Listen to Spidey....he is saying the same thing.

Deliver Man

You appear to be the consumate "s***house lawyer" who is always ready with advice for his fellow mopes. I'll bet your copy of the contract is dog-eared from overuse. Your fellow employees must be thrilled to see you walk in to the center every morning. You wanna play, let's play.

Drooler

And now we see the real Drooler. Rather than face the truth and admit he is wrong, he chooses to launch a personal attack. Bravo. But I notice you still haven't posted that link I have been asking about.

"Deliver Man and Drooler: you are both right. The part-timers covered under the contract, whether union members or not, have the same rights as dues paying union part-timers."

proups, I appreciate your effort at being diplomatic, but if you scroll down to the 1st post and read from there, you will see that Drooler is clearly wrong. His contention was that a part-time worker, no matter their job, was considered to be an "off the street hire" for bidding purposes if they did not belong to the union. He further opined that any UPS worker who was not a union member was not covered under the CBA. He was wrong on both counts. Then he sort of back-pedaled and said something about the specific article (22.4)which covers part-time to full-time bidding being interpreted differently in different areas of the country. No surprise, he was wrong again. I was actually going to just let this thread die, but now he has returned, bereft of any arguments, to launch a personal attack. So I figured I would just sum the whole thing up in case anyone wonders why he is now calling me a "s***house lawyer". Apparently in his world that term refers to someone who "knows what they are talking about". Cheers.

(Message edited by deliver_man on June 23, 2002)

Deliver Man

Please don't let this thread die, PLEASE! You're way too entertaining. As far as unions promoting mediocrity, I offer you as evidence. You blather on about the language in your contract. We can all read. Contract language has to be administered, not just read. If you don't believe me, just as your union steward.(of course if that person is you, you won't learn anything) Now please get back in your package car and help keep the value of our stock rising. Thank you so much.

Drooler

Well, it appears I have been on this board long enough to rate my own personal "troll" (A.K.A. thedrooler). Ahh, the benfits of seniority

Deliver Man: maybe my2cents said it better than I did:

"Perhaps the best term to use is "bargaining unit employees." The term "union member" is a misleading legal term of art. For example, under the union security clause, "member in good standing" could mean a nonmember of the union, but is a bargaining unit employee. In a non-RTW state, a nonmember is commonly referred to as an "agency fee payer" or a "financial core member." I think the sole purpose of this Orwellian language is to keep people confused and uninformed"

Not trying to be diplomatic, just looking at two people's interpretation, reading them arguing with each other, and realizing they are saying the same thing!

Big Brown at least you have it right closed shop and right to work rules are different