Got a letter from my BA (the real BA; his actual title is Secty-Treas and there's someone else who has the "BA" title, I think, and does the grunt work) urging us to vote against the NorCal supplement. I think he's on the national negotiating committee and may be constrained from urging a vote against the contract itself -- in any case he says nothing about that. In any case, I've filed a good grievance or two over the last few years which have disappeared into black holes and I've had to settle the issues by headbutting management, which usually results in some accomodation but leaves me in the hole money-wise vs. where I ought to be. And the BA's letter may give a clue as to why this is happening: Now, a group of 22.3's who filed for supervisors working on a shift they were denied the opportunity to doubleshift on just got hefty settlements at pre-panel, so the system isn't entirely broken, but a group of high-seniority parttimers who filed for the right to perform what has been "extra work" on the basis of their seniority were turned back at that level with a remarkable statement from the UPS district HR guy (I'm told, I wasn't there) that, as a businessman, he wasn't going to pay them on ot for work he could get done by someone on their gaurantee. (Remarkable, because if the seniority system means anything, it is that the company doesn't get to employ the cheapest worker to do a job). Now, maybe that's a bad example. If they're right on the issue the longer they are denied the extra work the bigger the eventual settlement... But non-economic issues aren't getting settled either. So, is the system broken everywhere, or just here?