Contract rumor.

[upsset]

That's basically what hall said. He thought Obamacare was going to be great for the workers but once he sat down and started talking to the company he realized that in reality it was going to force us to make huge concessions on healthcare and there was nothing he could do about it.

I attended one of the rallies and I have talked to hall on other occasions and have never heard him say anything that could be translated into the statement you just made. Are you in management?

 

[oldtymer]

We shouldn't accept anything longer than a 3 year deal. If anything longer, 5 at the most with a clause to renegotiate benefit contributions.
Cannot accept a contract without p/t wage increases and no split shifts
No employee contribution to healthcare (hall walked away from tablethis past Friday in Fla)


Guys and girls start saving your $$$$$ we all should plan on a 2 week summer vacation this August.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The costs associated with negotiating our contract are such that a 3 year deal does not make economic sense. No sooner would we be in to our new deal than they would be sitting down to work on the next one. A 3 year deal does not give our major shippers the assurances they demand. On the other hand, a 10 year deal is too long. A 5-7 year deal would be ideal for everyone involved.

 

[Moneythehardway]

Cold hard facts or say nothing at all, I've seen about 4 different rumors in this one thread alone. Where is that getting us?

 

[Catatonic]

I attended one of the rallies and I have talked to hall on other occasions and have never heard him say anything that could be translated into the statement you just made. Are you in management?

It's funny when people don't get sarcasm.

Thanks! I got a big laugh out of this.

Now that you know, hopefully I'm laughing with you.

 

[Brownslave688]

The costs associated with negotiating our contract are such that a 3 year deal does not make economic sense. No sooner would we be in to our new deal than they would be sitting down to work on the next one. A 3 year deal does not give our major shippers the assurances they demand. On the other hand, a 10 year deal is too long. A 5-7 year deal would be ideal for everyone involved.

Maybe if we did 3 year contracts both sides would take the meetings seriously instead of offering stuff that doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Catatonic]

Cold hard facts or say nothing at all, I've seen about 4 different rumors in this one thread alone. Where is that getting us?

Geez ... Mister Grumpy. You're no fun.

 

[serenity now]

Cold hard facts or say nothing at all, I've seen about 4 different rumors in this one thread alone. Where is that getting us?

(____________ ), also (______), not to exceed (__________________________________ )

 

['Lord Brown's bidding']

Maybe if we did 3 year contracts both sides would take the meetings seriously instead of offering stuff that doesn't stand a chance.

Interesting theory. Would probably take a couple of cycles to go into effect, though; the two next contract cycles (ending in 2016 and '19, if we did go every 3 years) would probably be more of the same, but then I think they'd get tired of the whole thing and start colluding so as to minimize the whole process. Problem is, how often does the general public (i.e. us) benefit when two large entities collude with one another?

 

[upser92]

We shouldn't accept anything longer than a 3 year deal. If anything longer, 5 at the most with a clause to renegotiate benefit contributions.
Cannot accept a contract without p/t wage increases and no split shifts
No employee contribution to healthcare (hall walked away from tablethis past Friday in Fla)


Guys and girls start saving your $$$$$ we all should plan on a 2 week summer vacation this August.

Ive already taken my vacation for the first week of August so I'm good

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Ive already taken my vacation for the first week of August so I'm good

I took the last two weeks of August off...so I get two weeks paid...two weeks unpaid! Atleast I will have a good tan and I can work on my beer belly!

 

[East coast navy]

Saving 200 a week sense the retires got the letter for the change in healthcare. I'm good for just under two months.

 

[soberups]

Again, the only thing a strike authorization vote does is give away your right to see for yourself what the company is offering, and vote accordingly. Voting down a contract proposal simply means they either go back to the table or strike. Either way, we remain in control, not a bunch of overpaid union bosses that are as untrustworthy as corporate.

So we vote "no", and without strike authorization the company simply counteroffers with an increase of one penny and makes us vote again. And again. And again. Strike authorization is the only way to force the company to even bargain in the first place, otherwise we could go months or even years with no agreement at all.

 

[beentheredonethat]

So we vote "no", and without strike authorization the company simply counteroffers with an increase of one penny and makes us vote again. And again. And again. Strike authorization is the only way to force the company to even bargain in the first place, otherwise we could go months or even years with no agreement at all.

Don't you want the right to at least vote on your contract at least once? You can always do a strike authorization vote.

 

[HOTELDUNORD]

First off a 7 year deal is possible. Our contracts have been growing in length over the years. This would believe it or not benefit the company and the union both. I have my own sources and having the wages froze for the life of the contract is correct. However this will only apply to new hires. They are suggesting that all new hire full and part time will start at 14.25, froze til the end of the contract. Part time "new hires" will have no health benefits period-ever. Full time employes who start or are promoted after the the contract will pay the $90 dollars a month. All existing employees will be unaffected and will receive a "generous" raise over the life of the contract. This will make it easy to get the contact thru. Anyone who was around when we voted on the two tier contract should remember the apathy, @$%&! the new hire give me a raise. Their will be no bonus the union is against this big time. Retirees may be offered a buyout. This would be based on their current benefits which can vary across the country. They would pay you a lump sum for 10/15 or maybe 20 years. This money would be coming to you anyway but you would get a lump sum. The down side of this is if they gave you a 15 year buyout come year 16 you would get nothing. So to summarize you keep your health benefits with no change, you get a raise maybe even a couple more paid days. you get an extra option for your retirement.15 or 20 years from now a work force with greatly reduced health benefits and a rate of pay around $20 $25 an hour, after future contract negotiations.

The new heathcare rules will not effect oiur coverage

 

[neartom]

Yeah. Victory in 1997. Victory in 2013.

 

[Packmule]

Yeah. Victory in 1997. Victory in 2013.

97 was not a victory. It was a disaster, led by a union boss who was shortly thereafter charged with voter fraud and money laundering which led to him being permanently barred from the union by court order. You trust these people? Hope you are not one of the newer drivers if we have such a victory in 2013. You, and a lot of others, won't work here anymore.

 

[Anonymous 10]

I think a lot of folks should look at the title of this thread again..

Ding ding. It's all rumors. What I posted I made up plain and simple. Anybody who is anybody who posts anything about contract negotiations is either blowing smoke up your ass or committing an act of treason if they know anything at all. Whatever I do know about these negotiation I would never post on this forum. It's monitored and I ain't bringing any trouble on my local. It's a brownout

 

[upsset]

The point is, you won't be told the truth about what the company is proposing. Union bosses were flat out lying to us in 97 about part time jobs when everyone with a pea-brain knew it was about mulitiemployer pensions. Not saying we can't or shouldn't vote no the first time around, just saying make the union prove to you what they claim the company is offering, and then make up your own mind. Let's not be fools this time. Show up at the meetings, and vote NO on any strike authorization vote.
And just remember, strike 97 is why FedEx was created, and the bottom 15% of our workforce never returned to UPS.

What planet are you from?? FEDEX was created in 97.....really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Packmule]

What planet are you from?? FEDEX was created in 97.....really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. FedEx Ground was created in response to our strike. FedEx Express was around, but totally overwhelmed as was the PO. Today FedEx Ground is much better prepared to take on--and keep--our customers if we strike. So we better damn well make sure we strike for OUR reasons, not something the union's bosses want.