Whither
Scofflaw
LOL, yes I've read this multiple times. I didn't realize it needed to be paired with the DOT regs, which Upstate posted. See above post.
70 hours
- Thread starter Brown Biscuit
- Start date
LOL, yes I've read this multiple times. I didn't realize it needed to be paired with the DOT regs, which Upstate posted. See above post.
All hours worked counts against your DOT hours.
It doesn't matter what the DOT says in this circumstance.
Our contract says that UPS can not force you to work.
Sol Rosenburg
Active Member
We had to get an approval for a 70hr week from DOT. So I did 8hrs yesterday. It's the most I've ever worked, going to be a fat check next week.
Whither
Scofflaw
Honestly, on second thought, I don't think working as a helper would be a 'free' 2 non-DOT hours for UPS. Since as helpers we're not just riding along in the passenger seat of a moving commercial vehicle but constantly getting out and working.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't be.
Whither
Scofflaw
Since I'm T-S, I'm probably still screwed, right? E.g., last week. Scheduled M-S. M is a regular day off. ~54 hours on the clock by Fri punch out. But Sat is my regularly scheduled day. So then they could force me to report and work less than 8, right up to my DOT hours, correct?
What I don't understand is this specification of "RPCDs red-circled under Art 22.4(b)" ... because that language clearly addresses T-S drivers.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
T-S is tricky. Technically Monday is your Sunday but DOT hours do not follow a M-Sun work week. It's a Rolling 7 or 8 days. Bring it up to your BA.
I have to admit reading that has confused me as well. What I believe its saying is RPCDs. Because 22.4(b) is the article that establishes what a RPCD is. So 22.4s may not even be covered under that 8 hour rule. Again ask your BA.
Sorry for the confusion. This new class of driver and language has been hell this year.
Whither
Scofflaw
Yeah, definitely calling the BA tmrw. The only reference to "RPCDs red-circled under Art 22.4(b)" I find in that location is "Those RPCDs currently working Tuesday through Saturday shall be red circled by name and shall continue to be covered under Article 41, Section 2."
Whither
Scofflaw
@542thruNthru I'm suspecting to hear from the BA that this key sentence does not protect M-friend RPCDs, since you all are not "red-circled under Art 22.4(b)" and although it would seem to be intended to protect us T-S RPCDs, who are red-circled and "covered under Art 41.2", it doesn't protect us at all and is just a dead letter of "the greatest contract ever."
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
I highly doubt it but I've been wrong before.
Whither
Scofflaw
I'll report back on what my local thinks, anyway, haha.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Please do. I'll see my BA tomorrow I'll be sure to ask him also. Curious how their answers will differ.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
@542thruNthru and @Whither
I've already talked to my local regarding the language in 22.4b. The understanding I came away with is that "red circled" means any rpcd jobs that existed when the contract was ratified. Those are the ones that are protected from being converted to 22.4 jobs.
I've already talked to my local regarding the language in 22.4b. The understanding I came away with is that "red circled" means any rpcd jobs that existed when the contract was ratified. Those are the ones that are protected from being converted to 22.4 jobs.
Whither
Scofflaw
Good to know. Will still see what my BA says tmrw. Have no idea if my RPCD job existed when the contract was ratified as I wasn't hired til June 2019.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
The sections of 22.4b that protect rpcd's only apply to buildings with 22.4 drivers.The question I have is does that mean this part of 26.5 only applies to centers that have 22.4's?
Whither
Scofflaw
Good question. We have at least a few now at my building. But ugh, all these legalities.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Locals were supposed to get together with centers to establish a list of which/how many jobs were protected.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Yeah, poorly written language = uncertain enforcement.
