Greg Kerwoods Contract Review

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
Sadly, I was here in 97 and and I'll still be here in '28....I will turn 55 just before this contract ends with 32 years in but those 8.5 part-time years are killing me.
These people going through the 4 year progression today, after working only 6 months part-time (or hired off the street), don't see that previous generations had a longer progression in reality and got no full-time pension credits for most of it.
 

govols019

You smell that?
These people going through the 4 year progression today, after working only 6 months part-time (or hired off the street), don't see that previous generations had a longer progression in reality and got no full-time pension credits for most of it.
My progression was 11.5 years and I don't remember ever complaining.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Again, you keep saying that doesn't make it true.


I sometimes wonder if your major problem with this contract is who negotiated it...I seem to remember you being a big Vairma guy and saying getting rid of 22.4s and raising the starting wage for part-timers to over $20 was a pipe dream that SOB was selling to get elected. If I'm misremembering that, I apologize.
Nope you're absolutely right about that part and I was wrong. I did believe that. But in all fairness they promised other things that didn't happen like the elimination of PVDs.

Though you are wrong that my major problem with this contract is who negotiated it. It probably doesn't help that I've been taking a bunch of jabs at OZ for fun. I've already said that I'll be voting Yes because on the whole it's a good contract but doesn't mean I won't criticize the things I don't like.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Nope you're absolutely right about that part and I was wrong. I did believe that. But in all fairness they promised other things that didn't happen like the elimination of PVDs.

Though you are wrong that my major problem with this contract is who negotiated it. It probably doesn't help that I've been taking a bunch of jabs at OZ for fun. I've already said that I'll be voting Yes because on the whole it's a good contract but doesn't mean I won't criticize the things I don't like.
Where’s my retro?. by the way, three phone calls today because people did not have the raise on their check. Not low seniority people either. We are doomed.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Where’s my retro?. by the way, three phone calls today because people did not have the raise on their check. Not low seniority people either. We are doomed.
The big confusion here is with the 22.4s. They all thought they would skip progression and be able to do automatic 9.5. They for some reason thought progression was only a 22.4 thing Lol
 
Last edited:

Trucker Clock

Well-Known Member
I've already said that I'll be voting Yes because on the whole it's a good contract

Tell that to @Wally

They are gambling that members go for the big raise and not worry about anything else.

Not worry about anything else?

Some of the biggest issues sent to the Union before negotiations were PT pay, Healthcare, 22.4, forced 6 days, and 9.5.

Well, PT pay saw a huge gain, we maintained our Cadillac Healthcare, 22.4 was eliminated, forced 6th punch, for RPCD's, was eliminated and quadruple time was added for 9.5. We will never be able to completely eliminate 9.5. We can just try and make it cost prohibitive so that UPS does what they can to keep it down.

So maybe when these drivers vote yes, they are worrying about something else. They take the contract as a whole. Yes, some of the pensions may not have got a big increase, but with everything else we got, you say they are only going for the big raise? OK.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Tell that to @Wally



Not worry about anything else?

Some of the biggest issues sent to the Union before negotiations were PT pay, Healthcare, 22.4, forced 6 days, and 9.5.

Well, PT pay saw a huge gain, we maintained our Cadillac Healthcare, 22.4 was eliminated, forced 6th punch, for RPCD's, was eliminated and quadruple time was added for 9.5. We will never be able to completely eliminate 9.5. We can just try and make it cost prohibitive so that UPS does what they can to keep it down.

So maybe when these drivers vote yes, they are worrying about something else. They take the contract as a whole. Yes, some of the pensions may not have got a big increase, but with everything else we got, you say they are only going for the big raise? OK.
I find it humorous that the vote, no crowd could even imagine that negotiators would have a clue where to start They’re literally mad about everything. 😂
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
Tell that to @Wally



Not worry about anything else?

Some of the biggest issues sent to the Union before negotiations were PT pay, Healthcare, 22.4, forced 6 days, and 9.5.

Well, PT pay saw a huge gain, we maintained our Cadillac Healthcare, 22.4 was eliminated, forced 6th punch, for RPCD's, was eliminated and quadruple time was added for 9.5. We will never be able to completely eliminate 9.5. We can just try and make it cost prohibitive so that UPS does what they can to keep it down.

So maybe when these drivers vote yes, they are worrying about something else. They take the contract as a whole. Yes, some of the pensions may not have got a big increase, but with everything else we got, you say they are only going for the big raise? OK.
Most full time care about pension, 9-5. Part time is off the radar, don't care.

Leadership wants high wages so they can collect higher dues
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Most full time care about pension, 9-5. Part time is off the radar, don't care.

Leadership wants high wages so they can collect higher dues
That’s your concern on this contract not everyone’s. Actually you’re concerned about a very small segment of people who are getting more than you. I’m not discounting your concern I’m saying it’s not going to sway anything. The pension is set for this contract.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
That’s your concern on this contract not everyone’s. Actually you’re concerned about a very small segment of people who are getting more than you. I’m not discounting your concern I’m saying it’s not going to sway anything. The pension is set for this contract.
Small segment? For all but two funds—the IBT-UPS and New England funds—and one local rider, the Southwest, the company will contribute at the same rate as in the prior contract, with zero increases.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Small segment? For all but two funds—the IBT-UPS and New England funds—and one local rider, the Southwest, the company will contribute at the same rate as in the prior contract, with zero increases.
I said a small segment got raises. You really need to listen and stop being such a drama queen. I’m in the central, and it doesn’t even apply to me maybe I should throw a fit as well? Aren’t you the same guy who was complaining that you wouldn’t get what team Care was getting if we went on strike? You seem to be very unhappy about everything. As long as it’s fair for Wally. Life’s not fair. Vote no, that you’re right it won’t change.
 
Last edited:
Small segment? For all but two funds—the IBT-UPS and New England funds—and one local rider, the Southwest, the company will contribute at the same rate as in the prior contract, with zero increases.
And the Southwest only gets that $.25 one time. So, really, it's just the two.
 
The question should be why did all the unions agree to it and why did the negotiators agree, to it start there. Those people should be held accountable During the next elections.
I'm waiting for my review meeting to find out exactly that. But, in truth, we all know why...wage raises are more fun to look at. Sean got FTers 45% more than negotiated last contract and got UPS to spend $30B overall, 130% more than the last contract. He gets to pound his chest. He checked to make sure all plans would stay green and stole it for his raises.
 
According to @542thruNthru it had something to do with the terms of the government bailout. I don’t think they had a choice.
That's why the New England gets so much, they legally have to contribute a bunch to that fund because of it. I don't think anyone who understands what's going on there is upset about that. But, it's a bad look to have Sean's fund get a big bump and everyone else's contributions remain the same.
 

govols019

You smell that?
Nope you're absolutely right about that part and I was wrong. I did believe that. But in all fairness they promised other things that didn't happen like the elimination of PVDs.

Though you are wrong that my major problem with this contract is who negotiated it. It probably doesn't help that I've been taking a bunch of jabs at OZ for fun. I've already said that I'll be voting Yes because on the whole it's a good contract but doesn't mean I won't criticize the things I don't like.

That's absolutely fair.
 
Top