FULL TIMERS still in PROGRESSION with seniority date by Aug 1st! Did you file your grievance!?!

[Bubblehead]

You might have a hard time connecting the dots and one of the. You're having a hard time connecting is that this has been going on for months now not weeks or days. These guys have had months now not days or weeks to see what they're up against concerning these grievances. All of the Grievances in my hub went out the first week of May. That's roughly for months now that they had a chance to look at these things and try and figure out what the outcome should be, and to let you know that the Grievances ra Factor, we haven't gotten our official answer letter for our grievances yet.

So you guys were filing grievances for circumstances that had not happened yet???

I have been doing this for a long time....and it just doesn't work that way.

But again, good luck.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I read the last 4 contracts and this language is essentially the same....but that's not how it went then, so again why now?

That verbiage has been in Article 41 since 1993.

Again, I'm not rooting against you, but am having a hard time connecting all of the dots.

@Bubblehead you are correct.

They are trying to interpret the contract to their liking. (or advantage)

So you guys were filing grievances for circumstances that had not happened yet???

I have been doing this for a long time....and it just doesn't work that way.

But again, good luck.

Yep.

You can't file a pre-emptive grievance on what you "think" might happen.

Sounds like you guys need a new business agent.

This is exactly why I haven't commented in this thread.


The BA has access to all of the pertinent people on the National Committee....

but, a short term employee (in progression) thinks they know more.


You can't "cherry pick" one sentence, to mean what you want.

The totality of the Article is what matters.


@Bubblehead and I have had some spirited debates on this forum, regarding

a certain issue in the Central Region language. I'm hoping he has come to

accept my explanation.... of how the contract language can "flow" ?



-Bug-

 

[BigJamesBrown]

Article 41 says they get the above increases, and that they will be paid no less than what is outlined in section 2. So, as long as their increase is as large as the gwi, and no less than the progression rate, the contract terms are satisfied. It does not say anywhere that gwi is on top of progression rates. It does not list a specific date, so as long as a full timer in progression with seniority before August 1st gets a raise at least as high as the gwi but no less than the progression increase any time during the contract year, the terms of the contract are satisfied. Point to the language that disproves this, you can't because there isn't any. They may not try to take back what they've already paid out, but I wouldn't count on that.

They! You have to figure out who they are. Hair is what you are not understanding. Article 41 is talking about one group of employees and subsection 2 is talking about a completely different group of employees, and until you understand that fact of the matter you will continue to chase Your Tail! Read article 41 again and you will see that it is only speaking of full-time employees

You are hitting on most of the issues I have with this situation. The main difference in the language this time around is there is no date for the annual increases. In my estimation that means as long as anyone in progression gets an increase at least as large as the gwi and no less than the progression increase any time in a contract year, the contract terms have been satisfied.

The reason the language about full timers who have reached seniority prior to August 1st is in there is so they will be bumped up to the rate they should make in the new progression schedule as of August 1st. Without that language they would stay in the old progression schedule and technically have to wait until their next progression bump to be dovetailed in to the new progression schedule. Full timers attaining seniority after August 1st will already be in the new progression schedule, so they don't need language to bring them into it.

It is pretty confusing, but even a crappy lawyer should be able to piece it together. So the fact that people have gotten the gwi increase separate from their progression bump tells me someone in management or payroll jumped the gun before legal could look it over. There may be some regional variations, but language in the master should nullify those anyway.

The language is not confusing at

So you guys were filing grievances for circumstances that had not happened yet???

I have been doing this for a long time....and it just doesn't work that way.

But again, good luck.

My seniority date is May of last year. I misspoke. We filed our grievances once the last locals supplement went through. Roughly two months ago? A couple of days after we all filed our grievances once the guys at top rate got their $0.70. sorry for the confusion!

 

[BigJamesBrown]

That verbiage has been in Article 41 since 1993.





@Bubblehead you are correct.

They are trying to interpret the contract to their liking. (or advantage)





Yep.

You can't file a pre-emptive grievance on what you "think" might happen.





This is exactly why I haven't commented in this thread.


The BA has access to all of the pertinent people on the National Committee....

but, a short term employee (in progression) thinks they know more.


You can't "cherry pick" one sentence, to mean what you want.

The totality of the Article is what matters.


@Bubblehead and I have had some spirited debates on this forum, regarding

a certain issue in the Central Region language. I'm hoping he has come to

accept my explanation.... of how the contract language can "flow" ?



-Bug-

The guys in progression with a seniority date prior to August 1st, did they or did they not get their $0.75? I rest my case!!!

 

[BigJamesBrown]

The guys and progression with a seniority date prior to August 1st, did they or did they not get their $0.75? I rest my case!!!

There is no language in article 41 that supports the gwi is in addition to progression.



Wasn't it article 54?


All supplemental language regarding progression is nullified by the master.

Article 41 it's only talkin about those who get the gwi! The other subsections tell you who does not get that GWI that's the big difference and what you guys are not understanding.!

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The guys in progression with a seniority date prior to August 1st, did they or did they not get their $0.75? I rest my case!!!

It's a company mistake.

When they realize it, they can contractually recoup the oversight.


You either are entitled to the progression raise or the GWI.

Not both.


It's been that way.... since 1993.



-Bug-

 

[BigJamesBrown]

Let's look at it like this gentleman. Article 41 Section 1 specifically instructs the reader who is going to receive the GWI. Can we at least agree on that part? Section 2 points out which full-time employees that will not be receiving the GWI. Can we agree on that point? If we can find common ground and those first two questions then I have one further question to ask! Is the GWI eligible full-time employee mentioned an article 41 Section 1 ever mentioned in section 2 or any of the other subsections? friend for whatever reason you fine that the eligible full-time employee mentioned and article 41 Section 1 is never ever ever mentioned in any of the other sections or subsections then the language and section 2 or the subsections following cannot refer to the full-time employee only mentioned an article 41 Section 1. It's impossible and ill logical to superimpose the full time employee only mentioned and article 41 Section 1 into any other section of the contract where they are never ever ever mentioned.

 

[upschuck]

It's a company mistake.

When they realize it, they can contractually recoup the oversight.


You either are entitled to the progression raise or the GWI.

Not both.


It's been that way.... since 1993.



-Bug-

How do you explain the last part of 41.1 were it says they'll get the above(gwi), and not paid less than the progression rate?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

How do you explain the last part of 41.1 were it says they'll get the above(gwi), and not paid less than the progression rate?

Different full-time rates across the country.


I'm not trying to knock anyone from trying, but @BigJamesBrown is wrong.

Maybe he will keep us apprised of his grievance, as it progresses.


If others want to continue and speculate.... have at it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The b.a. in local 776 is telling guys to write managers at hubs, a letter stating that they think that they are being overpaid, he says guys shouldnt be getting the Gwi in progression.

The reason for this is because after a certain time (10 days I think, don't quote me, just don't have time to look it up) once you have informed them of the overpayment in writing, the money is yours to keep.

 

[upschuck]

Different full-time rates across the country.


I'm not trying to knock anyone from trying, but @BigJamesBrown is wrong.

Maybe he will keep us apprised of his grievance, as it progresses.


If others want to continue and speculate.... have at it.

It says they get the gwi, and get no less than the progression rate. It seems pretty black and white, to me.

I believe he said he already won that greivance, and the one he is on now, is the 70¢, Aug 2018 raise. That is more of a ambiguous issue, because the progression raise, could be said to overtake the gwi raise.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It says they get the gwi, and get no less than the progression rate. It seems pretty black and white, to me.

I believe he said he already won that greivance, and the one he is on now, is the 70¢, Aug 2018 raise. That is more of a ambiguous issue, because the progression raise, could be said to overtake the gwi raise.

He thinks he won because some people are getting this year's increase, but his grievance was for last year's gwi, which they haven't gotten.

 

[upschuck]

He thinks he won because some people are getting this year's increase, but his grievance was for last year's gwi, which they haven't gotten.

He rambles a lot, so you could be right.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

But we're talking about this contract, not 15 years ago, or whenever it was you went through progression. It boggles my mind that these guys are making such huge increases in their progression rates, but think they are entitled to even more. Granted, if they can get the money out of UPS, more power to them. But they've taken one line of contract language while ignoring the rest and they think it's an ironclad certainty.

my point was you did not consider that there are several different progression scales

How did you only get a 1.00 progression bump? Every progression step is at least $3/hr higher than last contract.

 

[BigJamesBrown]

It's a company mistake.

When they realize it, they can contractually recoup the oversight.


You either are entitled to the progression raise or the GWI.

Not both.


It's been that way.... since 1993.



-Bug-

What will it take for you to believe that the one guy that needed to see the contract finally got to look at it I was able to decipher the lawyer talk MBA contract and set things straight? I want to tell you this is not the first time I've done something like this, where millions of people read something misinterpreted what they read and I came in with a pair of fresh eyes and gave the right interpretation of what was actually written. Before all of these senseless terroristic mass shootings I used to open carry in Philadelphia, everyone said it was against the law but the law was very clear to me that you can open carry so I did even though the police harass me, there was basically nothing that they could do, so I open carried almost everyday and that was while not having ID of any pipe because Pennsylvania it's not an ID state. How many of you believe that you have to have your ID wow driving a car carrying a firearm or just walking the streets?

 

[BigJamesBrown]

Different full-time rates across the country.


I'm not trying to knock anyone from trying, but @BigJamesBrown is wrong.

Maybe he will keep us apprised of his grievance, as it progresses.


If others want to continue and speculate.... have at it.

You do understand that the national full-time rate it's just that a national governed full-time rate don't you?

 

[Boston25]

How did you only get a 1.00 progression bump? Every progression step is at least $3/hr higher than last contract.

This is what I got from the package division when I sent a message asking about progression.

 

[Johnny b good]

Sounds like you guys need a new business agent.

I agree with you! He know updated us and said he was wrong that we do in fact get the gwi.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

View attachment 259227
This is what I got from the package division when I sent a message asking about progression.

Sorry, I assumed you were a driver. Your progression schedule still puts you ahead of the gwi for the year though. Oh well, if they want to give you more money, bully for you.

 

[Bubblehead]

Sorry, I assumed you were a driver. Your progression schedule still puts you ahead of the gwi for the year though. Oh well, if they want to give you more money, bully for you.

The package car drivers in my building who were in progression prior to August 1, 2018 also got the $.75 raise August 1st of this year.

....and none of the "powers that be" are claiming it to be a mistake, so what changed???