705 and 710 forced to accept contract.

[Mugarolla]

Seriously....

What sort of violation of the NLRA, do you think has been violated ?

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

 

[cachmeifucan]

I'm voting yes, not that it matters #dtaylor


They only give me 45 to 50 hrs per week.

Before you vote yes make sure you get correct retro pay. If you make 11$ a hour you really think ups will give a check for 4$ A hour for every hour since August first. That would be over 2400 for most people at 11 a hour or less. Good luck I bet union let's them off the hook. Vote no

 

[cachmeifucan]

You really

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

You really think complaints is why we got this garbage contract. They think it will cut ot. Vote no 705 and 710

 

[Brownsocks]

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

We voted NO for 40 hour protections and the union forced as long as work is available down our throats. Alot of drivers will not be working Monday's because of this language that we didn't ask for and voted NO because of.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Seriously....

What sort of violation of the NLRA, do you think has been violated ?

You needn't worry yourself about it. Just doing some research. The NLRA is pretty dry, and not very informative. Trying to find the administrative rules, haven't spent much time digging, but they don't seem to be posted in an obvious location.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

Didn't ask for any of that, don't particularly care to be told I did. Not working Saturdays was maybe requested by a small minority? I don't know 'cause no one has numbers, or is willing to share. It can't be a majority of people, because there's not a lot (as a percentage) of drivers working a t-s schedule. Maybe a majority of people complained about excessive OT, but I'd guess that half or less want zero overtime.

I know I didn't ask for 22.4, and I think it is a very bad idea that doesn't actually address the real concern about working Saturdays/excessive ot. I don't know if anything inappropriate was done, but the way things were handled just gave me the idea that I should be better informed.

 

[Mugarolla]

You really

You really think complaints is why we got this garbage contract. They think it will cut ot. Vote no 705 and 710

But that was one of the biggest complaints that the members wanted the Union to address, too much forced overtime.

 

[Mugarolla]

Didn't ask for any of that, don't particularly care to be told I did.

"You" as in the membership as a whole.

Not working Saturdays was maybe requested by a small minority?

One of the biggest requests turned into the Union before negotiations started, along with excessive OT.

It can't be a majority of people, because there's not a lot (as a percentage) of drivers working a t-s schedule.

What about those that may be forced onto a T-S down the road, or forced to work Saturday, or Sunday?

More than a small minority.

Maybe a majority of people complained about excessive OT, but I'd guess that half or less want zero overtime.

Yes, you're right, you would be guessing.

The contract only guarantees "you" 8 hours. Some drivers want to set their own OT hours. "I don't want 11 hours, I want 9.2 hours."

Yea, right.

I know I didn't ask for 22.4, and I think it is a very bad idea that doesn't actually address the real concern about working Saturdays/excessive ot.

I don't like the idea, well, I'm not totally against the idea if they got paid driver rate while delivering and had 9.5 protection and if they were used as originally intended, "combination employee," part driving and part inside work.

I should be better informed.

Very good.

 

[sandwich]

But that was one of the biggest complaints that the members wanted the Union to address, too much forced overtime.

Oh how quick we forget what the real issues were.

Drivers were complaining not so much about working Saturday. But being forced to work Monday through Saturday.



The complaint was EXCESSIVE overtime.

Not simply just, overtime. I dont think any driver cares about an hour or 2 extra a day. But working 12 to 14 hours everyday seems a bit excessive to me.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

"You" as in the membership as a whole.

You can't talk about a collective "you" and an individual "you" in the same sentence without differentiating. You can say "the members got what they asked for and you want to file a complaint." That would be grammatically correct. But if nothing wrong was done, you really needn't worry about whether I file a complaint or not.

One of the biggest requests turned into the Union before negotiations started, along with excessive OT.

Changing your story? Was it one of the biggest requests? Or did a majority request it? I must not be the only one guessing.

What about those that may be forced onto a T-S down the road, or forced to work Saturday, or Sunday?

More than a small minority.

You mean like the 22.4's? If I was part time waiting to drive I would have taken a weekend schedule in a heartbeat. Weekend working isn't going away, we just expect people to do it for 6 bucks an hour less.

Yes, you're right, you would be guessing.

The contract only guarantees "you" 8 hours. Some drivers want to set their own OT hours. "I don't want 11 hours, I want 9.2 hours."

Yea, right.

I have no response to that.

I don't like the idea, well, I'm not totally against the idea if they got paid driver rate while delivering and had 9.5 protection and if they were used as originally intended, "combination employee," part driving and part inside work.

I'd have been ok with that as well, and a better deal for mid-range part timers, all I would have needed to vote yes.

Very good.

Seems I'm not the only one who could be better informed, at least I'm doing something about it.

 

[Gaintain]

Before you vote yes make sure you get correct retro pay. If you make 11$ a hour you really think ups will give a check for 4$ A hour for every hour since August first. That would be over 2400 for most people at 11 a hour or less. Good luck I bet union let's them off the hook. Vote no

Was told that only Part Timers who were employed before 2011 with recieve a retro check. And that will probably be around .70per. The only people getting $3-4 per of retro pay will be drivers in their progression. So no ups definitely won’t be paying $4 a hr to all the PTers

 

[Goku]

Was told that only Part Timers who were employed before 2011 with recieve a retro check. And that will probably be around .70per. The only people getting $3-4 per of retro pay will be drivers in their progression. So no ups definitely won’t be paying $4 a hr to all the PTers

Everyone working right now will receive retro pay dating back to August 1st. This is when the contract took effect. This includes new hires who pass their probation period. The only exception to this will be people who are still in their probation period when the contract takes effect. UPSers website also explained how retro-pay will work and when it would take effect and be paid out way back in September. Nothing about this has changed.

The amount of headcanon and misinformation going around on this is impressive. There is a complete lack of communication going on. I don't even know if all the sub-contracts have been settled yet or if there are some still missing. It's been pretty nebulous and Illuminati, not even the teamsters website is keeping track anymore.

 

[Mugarolla]

you really needn't worry about whether I file a complaint or not

Go right ahead.

Changing your story? Was it one of the biggest requests? Or did a majority request it?

One in the same, are they not?

If the majority requested it, it would most likely be one of the most requested, would it not, and vice versa?

If I was part time waiting to drive I would have taken a weekend schedule in a heartbeat.

If you were part time wanting to drive, you still might be waiting without these 22.4's.

I'd have been ok with that as well

See, we agree.

Seems I'm not the only one who could be better informed, at least I'm doing something about it.

I definitely don't know everything, but what was I misinformed about?

 

[Mugarolla]

Drivers were complaining not so much about working Saturday. But being forced to work Monday through Saturday

Like I said, being forced to work Saturday.

The complaint was EXCESSIVE overtime.

In order to eliminate excessive OT, and create new jobs to do this, did you not realize that they may have to eliminate all OT, or most OT, to support these new jobs?

Not simply just, overtime. I dont think any driver cares about an hour or 2 extra a day. But working 12 to 14 hours everyday seems a bit excessive to me.

So you want to tell UPS exactly how much OT you want?

Business doesn't necessarily work that way.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

What I think is even funnier, is this still being talked about.


Like there is some sort of way, to retroactively go back and renegotiate things

that a minority of the employee's care about. And they think, there has been some

sort of NLRA violation and alleging the Union didn't bargain in good faith.


The "vote no" and TDU people should be proud that 30,000 more people voted

because of their efforts, and not dwell on the fact they couldn't impose their

will on every other UPS employee. But, they just still complain. Their efforts (now)

should be to stand up and voice their concerns in the actual workplace by

enforcing the contract language, instead of just being a paper tiger. (so to speak)



-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

I find it funny.

A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.

So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.

I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.

The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.

You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

This is what I find "funny":

Seeing that the majority didn't vote at all for what the Union eventually bargained for in good faith,

....what makes you think the majority asked for anything???

What percentage of the membership do you think actually bothered to propose anything, if they didn't bother to vote?

With that in mind, the majority that did choose to vote, voted No, yet that majority doesn't matter this time, when it somehow did matter in 2013???

Why?....because of some IBT Constitution verbiage that apparently can be interpreted, then reinterpreted, every five years.

I choose to believe that 99 out of a 100 that submitted proposals, also voted.

So with this in mind, what "majority" are you claiming got what they were asking for???

 

[zubenelgenubi]

This is what I find "funny":

Seeing that the majority didn't vote at all for what the Union eventually bargained for in good faith,

....what makes you think the majority asked for anything???

What percentage of the membership do you think actually bothered to propose anything, if they didn't bother to vote?

With that in mind, the majority that did choose to vote, voted No, yet that majority doesn't matter this time, when it somehow did matter in 2013???

Why?....because of some IBT Constitution verbiage that apparently can be interpreted, then reinterpreted, every five years.

I choose to believe that 99 out of a 100 that submitted proposals, also voted.

So with this in mind, what "majority" are you claiming got what they were asking for???

There is definitely some major break downs in logic with those two. I admire the loyalty and willingness to support a cause you believe in. But loyalty can go too far and blind you to reality. Standing up for what is right should be what matters most, and the people I truly admire are those who will show their real loyalty by keeping their leaders honest. This desperate clinging to the fallacy that authority is truth always leads to ruin. If you truly care about the union, it is your duty to challenge leadership when they are so blatantly wrong.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Go right ahead.

If I feel there is cause, I will, because it is my duty.

One in the same, are they not?

If the majority requested it, it would most likely be one of the most requested, would it not, and vice versa?

Nope, it's squares and rectangles. You have to resort to word play to support your position.

If you were part time wanting to drive, you still might be waiting without these 22.4's.

Not the point. Saying that people were complaining about working Saturdays is an oversimplified description of the problem. The real problems were that people were forced from a m-friend schedule to a t-s schedule under the last contract, that would have solved itself within a few years when those people had the seniority to bid back to m-friend. Up and comers would know they were bidding a t-s shift. That's not changing, they just have to do it for 6 dollars less per hours. In the case of people working t-s being forced to work maondays as well, that could, and should have been dealt with under the last contract at the local level. Saying that 22.4's solve the problem of weekend work is objectively wrong. It only shifts it from one group to the next. Not a good solution.

See, we agree.

On that.

I definitely don't know everything, but what was I misinformed about?

Underinformed is not the same as misinformed. I was, however, making a general statement. If you felt that comment was directed at you, that suggests you believe it applies to you. So, tell me, what are you underinformed about?

And they think, there has been some

sort of NLRA violation and alleging the Union didn't bargain in good faith.

If that is referring to me, I do suspect there has been some wrongdoing, hence the research, just doing my due diligence as a responsible union member. I have yet to make any allegations, however. I implied that a certain union financial analyst may have crossed the line, but I don't know that she technically violated any rules or laws.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

If I feel there is cause, I will, because it is my duty.

How so....?

And, it's your duty.... to do what ?

Are you a Union Steward, or an Elected Local Union Official ?


Or, just a "self appointed" SJW ?

The real problems were that people were forced from a m-friend schedule to a t-s schedule under the last contract

Do you realize, how long there has been Tues-Sat language ?

In the case of people working t-s being forced to work Mondays as well, that could, and should have been dealt with under the last contract at the local level.

Ever read the layoff language ?

I do suspect there has been some wrongdoing, hence the research, just doing my due diligence as a responsible union member. I have yet to make any allegations, however. I implied that a certain union financial analyst may have crossed the line, but I don't know that she technically violated any rules or laws.

And yet....

Another TDU "locker room Lawyer".



-Bug-

 

[Mugarolla]

Nope, it's squares and rectangles. You have to resort to word play to support your position.

If that's the way you took it, so be it.

No word play. Here, let me help you out.

One of the biggest requests, meaning the most submitted request, or of the requests submitted, the majority requested dealing with forced Saturdays.