Contractual COLA increase language

[R. Mutt]

I'm a PTer with 4+ years seniority on the skilled payscale. I hit 4 years last winter and thus contractually finished my wage progression (currently $13.50/hr) and according to National Master Article 33:

”All seniority employees who have completed their appropriate wage progression schedule shall be covered by the provisions [herein]

Employees who have not completed their appropriate wage progression on the effective date of a COLA increase, shall receive the adjustment on a prospective basis on the date they complete their wage progression schedules."

Other than the linguistical wrench that "On a prospective basis" poses, I read this to mean the COLA adjustment that's applied to the base wage rate for PTers (I believe +15¢ an hour now?) Should have been added to my pay rate at the very least on the date of my 4 year wage progression completion/seniority date and possibly should have increased again on August 1st (I'm not getting my hopes up on the latter but by god I'm gonna try.)

If I'm being sincere, I'm trying to do as much as I can now to ensure my current pay rate is grandfathered in before any new contract (and thus negotiated GWI, especially one in which I legitimately fear management may reason to strip my 'skilled' classification retroactively so to at best pay me a wage 20¢ higher than a new hire and 30¢ less than my current rate) is ratified and I lose any chance at grievance against being paid less than our current contract's wage minimums (I've got some time but either way the earlier the better.)

Would I be in the right requesting back pay for underpayment and/or the COLA adjustment be added to my current rate or am I missing something?

(PS I've been essentially blown off by my 2 stewards and my BA hasn't answered my email or voicemail which is why I'm asking here first.

PPS we have retention bonuses for new hires here and they often make more than I do so my immediate supervisor knows and is fine with my making the skilled rate. I made damn sure to let him know of an 'ongoing overpayment' in writing the day after seeing the first check from when I transferred to my unskilled bidded position so my liability there is like $50 tops. If my liability is greater than the back pay that's fine. If I had to follow this up with a grievance I would probably bid out to somewhere skilled first and just grieve the current pay rate. This is only to say that if it means shooting myself in the foot I'm more concerned with protecting future wages when the GWI hits than back pay.)

Sorry for any excessive details but it's admittedly a complicated situation. Thanks for any input, all advice is appreciated.

 

[Indecisi0n]

I prefer Pepsi

 

[CoffeeStainedUniform]

OP would take longer to read than my evening poop. Please make your question more concise.

 

[R. Mutt]

Tl;dr: I finished my wage progression but didn't get COLA increase. Why no soda 4 me?

 

[CoffeeStainedUniform]

Tl;dr: I finished my wage progression but didn't get COLA increase. Why no soda 4 me?

Ah, vote No and hope for the best.

 

[Future]

Tl;dr: I finished my wage progression but didn't get COLA increase. Why no soda 4 me?

They don’t like you

 

[R. Mutt]

Can/should I grieve it?

 

[WorkingAsDirected]

Can/should I grieve it?

 

[silenze]

I don't know if we got a cola the last 3 years

 

[UnconTROLLed]

COLA? No. There has béen no wage increase in the past 5 years at least, it takes a miracle for the COLA qualifier to kick I.

Paid less than minimum wage or contract? Maybe. Ask if your steward can do a payroll inquiry to HR is the most accurate way.

 

[JustDeliverIt]

And your not going to lose your skilled pay if the contract goes through. That will be a from this point on scenario. Anyone who has earned the extra dollar an hour already will not have it stripped from them.

 

[R. Mutt]

I was looking at the base wage out here ($10.15/hr) when I made this post but decided to look at the language further and do the math. As much as it pains me, I'll save everyone the nitty gritty but @UnconTROLLed is right. We'd have to have over 4% inflation reflected in the consumer price Index in a given year over the previous just to qualify for a 5¢ COLA.

I don't know why the base wage is at least $10.15 most everywhere (the math works out to 15¢ over the 4 year period, but zilch year to year) but nothing suggests they can't pay more than the contractual base wage. In this case it's more of a bait and switch.

Just another example of UPS denying the reach around while we get ed but I'm used to it by now and I like the fight. It's fun being the instigator when I know I have the right, no dice here. Guess I'll just have to wait for a real contract violation to grieve.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

 

[EasyTrucker]

I believe in 26 years, we’ve only ever met the equation for COLA increases 2 times. And both times were for pennies.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I believe in 26 years, we’ve only ever met the equation for COLA increases 2 times. And both times were for pennies.

Yep.

.12 cents and .10

 

[R. Mutt]

The baseline for a COLA is it having to be >5¢ (+0.2%/yr = 1¢) but +3%/yr is deducted by default. What sucks is we could see 4.1% inflation each year for 4 years straight and not see a dime (let alone a nickel.)

With the standard they have leaving a COLA clause in there at all feels like being condescended to.

So, you know, like any other day at UPS.

 

[DELACROIX]

Appreciate your "avatar"...Dada movement, early l900's..Marcel Duchamp...

It would be great if they could negotiate COLA increases with our Pensions also..similar to the lines of Social Security raises...Yeah I know why not ask...

Like you stated maybe it is time to change the COLA standard. I believe that the formula is enacted set by a governmental agency, in what year was that COLA standard calculated? Was in the early 70's when inflation rate was close to 10 or 14 % (Jimmy Carter) or the early 80's when it was close to 7 or 8 %.

Just the comedy of having a .12 and .10 increases over 40 years stated by BUG speaks to the effectiveness of that language.

That "skill" language with this tentative is kind of confusing...So both the Union and Company now agrees that everybody is "skilled" which means now that 1 dollar per hour increase a so called skilled work is no eliminated for good..(a concession for the unborn)..

Are you guys in your local enjoying any retention or show up for work bonuses? Here in the "Central" they are paying 125 per week to the first year part timers.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Like you stated maybe it is time to change the COLA standard. I believe that the formula is enacted set by a governmental agency, in what year was that COLA standard calculated?

The amount of the cost-of-living allowance shall be determined as provided below on the basis of the “Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, CPI-W (Revised Series using 1982-1984 Expenditure Patterns), All Items (1982-84 = 100), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor” and referred to herein as the “Index”.


http://teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/6161478090_master_final.pdf


This language is almost verbatim to what was inserted it the first National Master Agreement

in 1979. The only difference was (1967 = 100) vs. (1982-84 = 100)


If there was a COLA prior to that, it would have been a regional thing.

There wasn't one in the Central Region.



-Bug-

 

[R. Mutt]

I'm in central too, and yep, we have the $125 retention bonuses too. I gave up on that fight a while ago, but it still breaks my heart to hear a new hire threaten to quit the union over not receiving their bonus and being told by a reasonably irked steward that the union can't nor would really want to help them.

Initially I was being kind of righteously indignant about it. The problem here it's a relatively new hub, the average seniority is at most 1 1/2 years. None of these guys have a clue what the union even is. I had to ratchet down and be sympathetic or else management will continue to drive a wedge between members.

I personally gave my contract to a new sorter who was being written up after hitting seniority without a steward being present and without signing a waiver. If I hadn't happened to see it happen they would have kept doing it. The sort aisle here has no one with a full year let alone knows who their steward is. I'm 100% serious.

Anyway, that's all for another thread. Glad to see another Duchamp connoisseur on here. It's hard not to have to embrace the absurd in this line of work.