trickpony1
Well-Known Member
Based on the facts as I understand them from the meeting this morning, all those who wanted to blindly vote "yes" may want to reconsider this......
Article 14, new language basically eliminates the concept of "past practice" and grievances that have been won by the member establishing "precedent". So, essentially, for the company, each day is a new world.
Article 34, Paragraph (I), "....benefit is unreduced if payable at Normal Retirement Age (age 65)....", the video, as well as the printed "new" language goes on to contradict itself as to what, exactly, retirement age is.
Article 34, Section 4 "Re-allocations of Contributions/Wages", Paragraph 1., states, in part, "thirty-five cents ($0.35) of any GWI may be re-allocated as an increased contribution to a Teamster Pension or Health and Welfare fund.". Those who think the company isn't gonna take 1/2 of our raise and say the Pension needs it is a fool. So......there goes our magnificent raise.
Article 26 talks about sub-contracting feeder work for " a reasonable start-up period, "not to exceed thirty (30) days". All the company has to do is stop the sub-contracting on the 29th day, wait a week and then start it up again. IMO, this opens the door for sub-contracting and, eventually, eliminating the feeder department and it's drivers. Article 26 also refers to no feeder driver with more than three years seniority will be laid off if loads are put on the rail. Considering that there may be a mass exodus of high seniority feeder drivers if this contract passes, there will be alot of feeder drivers with less than 3 years seniority.
Article 36 changes the word "handicap" to "physical disability". So a person with an other than physical disability can be discriminated against and excluded. You know where the company is going with this one.
These are my opinions only and are based upon what was presented at the meeting today. I could be wrong and I welcome intelligent, civil counterpoints. For those who think I am voting "NO" on this proposal for the sheer thrill of it are wrong. I feel the company is dangling the retirement "carrot" in front of us and slipping some major givebacks under the table.
Those who are deciding what to do with their first "$0.75" raise may want to look a little further down the road and read between the lines.
Just my opinion.....
Article 14, new language basically eliminates the concept of "past practice" and grievances that have been won by the member establishing "precedent". So, essentially, for the company, each day is a new world.
Article 34, Paragraph (I), "....benefit is unreduced if payable at Normal Retirement Age (age 65)....", the video, as well as the printed "new" language goes on to contradict itself as to what, exactly, retirement age is.
Article 34, Section 4 "Re-allocations of Contributions/Wages", Paragraph 1., states, in part, "thirty-five cents ($0.35) of any GWI may be re-allocated as an increased contribution to a Teamster Pension or Health and Welfare fund.". Those who think the company isn't gonna take 1/2 of our raise and say the Pension needs it is a fool. So......there goes our magnificent raise.
Article 26 talks about sub-contracting feeder work for " a reasonable start-up period, "not to exceed thirty (30) days". All the company has to do is stop the sub-contracting on the 29th day, wait a week and then start it up again. IMO, this opens the door for sub-contracting and, eventually, eliminating the feeder department and it's drivers. Article 26 also refers to no feeder driver with more than three years seniority will be laid off if loads are put on the rail. Considering that there may be a mass exodus of high seniority feeder drivers if this contract passes, there will be alot of feeder drivers with less than 3 years seniority.
Article 36 changes the word "handicap" to "physical disability". So a person with an other than physical disability can be discriminated against and excluded. You know where the company is going with this one.
These are my opinions only and are based upon what was presented at the meeting today. I could be wrong and I welcome intelligent, civil counterpoints. For those who think I am voting "NO" on this proposal for the sheer thrill of it are wrong. I feel the company is dangling the retirement "carrot" in front of us and slipping some major givebacks under the table.
Those who are deciding what to do with their first "$0.75" raise may want to look a little further down the road and read between the lines.
Just my opinion.....