BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Most employee's will "bend-over" and capitulate to the Company.
(Without filing a grievance)
Others.... will laugh all the way to the bank.
-Bug-
Clarification on Article 15 (Central Supplement)
- Thread starter km3
- Start date
Most employee's will "bend-over" and capitulate to the Company.
(Without filing a grievance)
Others.... will laugh all the way to the bank.
-Bug-
10 point
Well-Known Member
No changes in that arena that I've seen.
"Most" will take the $ and run.
Not everyone.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Either way, Art 15 of the Central Region needs to be cleaned up, because it's a mess.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
I would rather have the day off, but if they are going to force me to work, the double time will take care of Christmas for the whole family.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
That language confuses people, I'll agree.
It could simply state "the employees are paid holiday pay on the named holidays and
if required to work, will be paid double time for hours worked in addition to."
Or, to that effect.
Because, lets face it.... it's here to stay.
The Union can't prevent the company from running their business and making money.
Most people would. It was nice, while it lasted.
How many people, have the opportunity to make over $1000.00 in one day ?
"Plan your work.... And, work your plan."
-Bug-
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Nobody is confused, as the language is clear and should have been binding until August of 2018:
A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the
following eight (8) named holidays-New Year’s Day, Memorial
Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, day after
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve-regardless
of the day of the week on which the named holiday falls, provided
they comply with the qualifications set forth hereinafter.
Your purposed new langauge could be implemented in the next contract and used as a bargaining chip, had it not already been given away.
Under the present weak leadership, I have no doubt.
The union most certainly can prevent the company from "running their business" if their actions contradict what was bargained for, "in good faith", in our collective bargaining agreement.
While the union and it's membership should work in concert to help the company, and in turn themselves, make as much money as possible, this particular issue certainly does not cripple the company's ability to compete in their marketplace and should have been protected until it could be negotiated for in the 2018 contract.
As it stands now, once again, UPS gets something for nothing.
I have said it repeatedly; I will and would have worked either way on next Friday's contractual holiday, the day after Thanksgiving, under the viable Art 40 language as I always have.
All of this is stated in defense of those who find their annual traditions and family obligations permanently compromised by an organization that is supposed to protect them, not roll over every time the company barks.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
You and (maybe) others, still seem to be confused.
Including;
"Regular seniority employees required to work on any of the above named holidays shall receive double his/her regular hourly rate for all hours worked with a guarantee of eight (8) hours."
That verbiage has been a part of the Central Region language, as far back as 1973.
Prior.... (get this)
To the implementation of Article 40.
This issue was "beat up" last year.
I posted the the same facts.
Some things, (or people) don't change.
-Bug-
5habits100
Well-Known Member
Don't mess up his program. He wants to blame current leadership for something that's been in place since he was in diapers sucking on his thumb. My how things never change.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Yep, since 1973, (get this) the very same year a small outfit named FedEx rolled out a new service called over night delivery.
Perhaps this was in anticipation of similar services being implemented by UPS?
The language was never utilized or intended to impose a regular workday on a named holiday, until now.
Last edited:
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Nope, on both accounts as its supported by contractual language.You're right.... on one account.
-Bug-
There is no wiggle room.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
With who, against who?
We'll need to unstack the deck first.
I don't ante up in crooked poker games.
10 point
Well-Known Member
Oh no...you're wrong they have changed.
For the last 20 yrs we didn't deliver ground on the day after Thanksgiving.
I'd it a bad thing? No.
Is it a good business decision. Yes.
Being forced top to bottom is a change.
Admit it.
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
One could also argue how employees required to work qualify for double time when no one is actually required to work therefore eliminating the double time requirement.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
That is actually how it worked several contracts ago.
Those who signed up got their holiday pay and straight time for hours worked.
Those who were forced from the bottom up seniority-wise , got their holiday pay and the premium pay for the hours they worked.
I remember because "as luck would have it", about the time I wasn't being forced anymore, I had enough seniority to sign up.
That can't be true though, right???
Because the language hasn't changed since 1973?
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Huh ?
What contract was that ? I have every copy, going back to 1968.
"Doubting Thomas" ??
(I guess anything is possible in your Local
)-Bug-
Lead Belly
BANNED
I remember it being pre 2002 contract.Huh ?
What contract was that ? I have every copy, going back to 1968.
"Doubting Thomas" ??
(I guess anything is possible in your Local
-Bug-
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
The "changes" were contained in Art 40 of the Master, which I continue to assert is the only viable reference in regards to Art 15 sec 4 of the Central Region Supplement.Huh ?
What contract was that ? I have every copy, going back to 1968.
"Doubting Thomas" ??
(I guess anything is possible in your Local
-Bug-
Prior to Art 40, you tell me what "except as otherwise provided for in this agreement" was in reference to?
I only have contract books dating back to the 90's.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
You conveniently left out the first 7 words of that language, "except as otherwise provided in this agreement".
What is that in reference to, if not Art 40 or its predecessor?
Is it unheard of for UPS to be thinking a contract or two ahead when they are negotiating?
Similar threads
