Idea for Increasing Part-timer Turnout for the Current Contract

[Superteeth2478]

So as everyone already knows, part-timer turnout for voting in general has been awful for the past couple of years. I'm not going to get into the details of the chicken-or-the-egg problem of why this is the case (is part-timer turnout low because they have been overlooked by the union for a while now, or are they overlooked by the union because their turnout has been low?)

But there is one wildcard in play this time around that could possibly get part-timers to actually vote this time around, and that is the 22.4 proposal. A lot of part-timers are likely to jump at the opportunity to actually get a full-time job, even if it is paid a lower top rate than other full-time drivers.

As a part-time union steward, I think that not only part-timers, but also full-timers should do their very best to inform current part-timers that they need to vote, even if only because the catch-up raises will either be subpar or non-existent. It's quite the slap in the face of 5+ year part-timers (hell, it's a slap in the face of people hired at $10.35 or $11.00 just prior to the contract being ratified) to be getting paid the same (or as much as $4.65 less) as a new hire, so it's a good angle to play to keep them from voting "yes" on a contract that in all honesty is actually looking to sway their opinion in favor of a "yes" vote even if only through the creation of 22.4 jobs.

It's almost like UPS knows that part-timers are going to jump at the opportunity to have a full-time job and for that reason are dangling this 22.4 "carrot" in front of them to divide the full-timers and the part-timers (even though it could easily be argued that the full-timers have essentially been pissing on the part-timers by pushing through contracts that have not been taking care of their brothers and sisters in the part-time ranks).

Again, this isn't something that I'm going to argue because it's not really the point of this thread, but let's be real: Even though technically speaking part-timers could have controlled the outcome of all the contracts by sheer numbers, we've all known that they just don't vote for whatever, and the (general) full-time mentality is "As long as I get mine, screw the part-timers". And then in the same breath, they'll complain about things like load quality from workers who are getting paid peanuts, which makes no sense. It's worked so far in creating a "divide and conquer" atmosphere in my hub, and I don't imagine it's much different in other hubs (just look at all the "preload bashing threads" you see here). The idea behind a union is unity, and it just doesn't exist to the extent it could between the full-timers and part-timers.

I know I'm going to do everything I can at my hub to play that angle and make sure I turn out a 100% "no" vote if there are no proper catch-up raises for the current part-timers, and educate them on how 22.4 positions are not really in their best interests in the long run, so I hope everyone else does the same. At the end of the day, it's not just this contract that such weak language will affect, it's every contract from here forward. Concessions of that nature in a prosperous time for the company will only open the door to far worse concessions in the future. The time for true unity between the part-timers and full-timers is now!

And a TLDR version for people with no attention span:
-22.4 language in the contract seems to be geared towards increasing part-timer turnout.
-Part-timers are likely to be the ones that vote that kind of language in just for the sake of getting a livable wage working only one job.
-All employees, full and part-time, need to play the angle of poor or no catch up raises to turn out a "no" vote from the part-timers in spite of the 22.4 language.
-In addition, the general idea of how such language will weaken the union as a whole in the long run needs to be made clear to the part-timers.
-True unity, not "I got mine so screw the rest" needs to start happening, especially this time around.

 

[DoctorMario]

Yeah that's one thing that crossed my mind. Let's say you've been a part-timer for 6 years and just hit $15, whereas a new hire gets $15 from the start. That's not fair. You should get some sort of extra raise if you already make $15 if they decide to increase the starting wage.

 

[Superteeth2478]

Yeah that's one thing that crossed my mind. Let's say you've been a part-timer for 6 years and just hit $15, whereas a new hire gets $15 from the start. That's not fair. You should get some sort of extra raise if you already make $15 if they decide to increase the starting wage.

That's the thing. So make sure EVERY part-timer in your building knows to vote "no" even if only on that basis alone. Don't let yourself think that someone else will do it instead. Everyone has to take that responsibility upon themselves. If you think someone else will do it for you, guess what, everyone else will think someone else will do it, and then no one will get the word out.

 

[Indecisi0n]

As long as they take care of the FT guys , we are good.

 

[Superteeth2478]

Then quite frankly you are a poor excuse for a Teamster. Unless you're pretty close to retirement, don't be surprised when your selfishness comes back to bite you in the hindquarters.

 

[Brownslave688]

So as everyone already knows, part-timer turnout for voting in general has been awful for the past couple of years. I'm not going to get into the details of the chicken-or-the-egg problem of why this is the case (is part-timer turnout low because they have been overlooked by the union for a while now, or are they overlooked by the union because their turnout has been low?)

But there is one wildcard in play this time around that could possibly get part-timers to actually vote this time around, and that is the 22.4 proposal. A lot of part-timers are likely to jump at the opportunity to actually get a full-time job, even if it is paid a lower top rate than other full-time drivers.

As a part-time union steward, I think that not only part-timers, but also full-timers should do their very best to inform current part-timers that they need to vote, even if only because the catch-up raises will either be subpar or non-existent. It's quite the slap in the face of 5+ year part-timers (hell, it's a slap in the face of people hired at $10.35 or $11.00 just prior to the contract being ratified) to be getting paid the same (or as much as $4.65 less) as a new hire, so it's a good angle to play to keep them from voting "yes" on a contract that in all honesty is actually looking to sway their opinion in favor of a "yes" vote even if only through the creation of 22.4 jobs.

It's almost like UPS knows that part-timers are going to jump at the opportunity to have a full-time job and for that reason are dangling this 22.4 "carrot" in front of them to divide the full-timers and the part-timers (even though it could easily be argued that the full-timers have essentially been pissing on the part-timers by pushing through contracts that have not been taking care of their brothers and sisters in the part-time ranks).

Again, this isn't something that I'm going to argue because it's not really the point of this thread, but let's be real: Even though technically speaking part-timers could have controlled the outcome of all the contracts by sheer numbers, we've all known that they just don't vote for whatever, and the (general) full-time mentality is "As long as I get mine, screw the part-timers". And then in the same breath, they'll complain about things like load quality from workers who are getting paid peanuts, which makes no sense. It's worked so far in creating a "divide and conquer" atmosphere in my hub, and I don't imagine it's much different in other hubs (just look at all the "preload bashing threads" you see here). The idea behind a union is unity, and it just doesn't exist to the extent it could between the full-timers and part-timers.

I know I'm going to do everything I can at my hub to play that angle and make sure I turn out a 100% "no" vote if there are no proper catch-up raises for the current part-timers, and educate them on how 22.4 positions are not really in their best interests in the long run, so I hope everyone else does the same. At the end of the day, it's not just this contract that such weak language will affect, it's every contract from here forward. Concessions of that nature in a prosperous time for the company will only open the door to far worse concessions in the future. The time for true unity between the part-timers and full-timers is now!

And a TLDR version for people with no attention span:
-22.4 language in the contract seems to be geared towards increasing part-timer turnout.
-Part-timers are likely to be the ones that vote that kind of language in just for the sake of getting a livable wage working only one job.
-All employees, full and part-time, need to play the angle of poor or no catch up raises to turn out a "no" vote from the part-timers in spite of the 22.4 language.
-In addition, the general idea of how such language will weaken the union as a whole in the long run needs to be made clear to the part-timers.
-True unity, not "I got mine so screw the rest" needs to start happening, especially this time around.

Part timers didn't jump at the chance to take driver job created by Saturday ground. Why would they take this? Which is essentially the same thing for less pay.

 

[Brownslave688]

Yeah that's one thing that crossed my mind. Let's say you've been a part-timer for 6 years and just hit $15, whereas a new hire gets $15 from the start. That's not fair. You should get some sort of extra raise if you already make $15 if they decide to increase the starting wage.

What's not fair about? Here's a tip life ain't fair.


That 6 year employee was ok enough with the condition of the job to take it and stay for 6 years but now they are gonna cry but that's not fair?

 

[Pizza]

Current part timers have never made the same or less than new hires either of the last times the starting rate has gone up.

I don't see that starting now.

 

[Superteeth2478]

What's not fair about? Here's a tip life ain't fair.


That 6 year employee was ok enough with the condition of the job to take it and stay for 6 years but now they are gonna cry but that's not fair?

Guess what, with that crappy line of reasoning, UPS could just as easily tell all the full-timers that are getting reamed with 60 to even 70 hour weeks during peak that don't get to see their family "Guess what, you've been doing this for 10 plus years, life isn't fair, suck it up buttercup". Would you be fine with that? That's the point of a union, to prevent abuses like this. But people like you are so narrowsighted you don't see that other people are affected by things in the same way. So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.

Hell, they could say the same damn thing about every other benefit we get as being part of the union when they take those things away. "Oh, you have to pay for your insurance? Life isn't fair. Oh, you don't get a pension anymore? Life isn't fair. Oh, you have to take a pay cut so we can get more profits? Life isn't fair. It's a slippery slope, and it makes you sound like a fool to use that line of reasoning against your part-time union brothers and sisters.

Current part timers have never made the same or less than new hires either of the last times the starting rate has gone up.

I don't see that starting now.

The starting rate only went up a little bit the past two contracts. Very little. There was a little bit of resentment over the fact that there was no catch-up raise when the starting rate went up, but nothing on the scale of what's going on now. I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

 

[35years]

Guess what, with that crappy line of reasoning, UPS could just as easily tell all the full-timers that are getting reamed with 60 to even 70 hour weeks during peak that don't get to see their family "Guess what, you've been doing this for 10 plus years, life isn't fair, suck it up buttercup". Would you be fine with that? That's the point of a union, to prevent abuses like this. But people like you are so narrowsighted you don't see that other people are affected by things in the same way. So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.

Hell, they could say the same damn thing about every other benefit we get as being part of the union when they take those things away. "Oh, you have to pay for your insurance? Life isn't fair. Oh, you don't get a pension anymore? Life isn't fair. Oh, you have to take a pay cut so we can get more profits? Life isn't fair. It's a slippery slope, and it makes you sound like a fool to use that line of reasoning against your part-time union brothers and sisters.


The starting rate only went up a little bit the past two contracts. Very little. There was a little bit of resentment over the fact that there was no catch-up raise when the starting rate went up, but nothing on the scale of what's going on now. I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

 

[Brownslave688]

Guess what, with that crappy line of reasoning, UPS could just as easily tell all the full-timers that are getting reamed with 60 to even 70 hour weeks during peak that don't get to see their family "Guess what, you've been doing this for 10 plus years, life isn't fair, suck it up buttercup". Would you be fine with that? That's the point of a union, to prevent abuses like this. But people like you are so narrowsighted you don't see that other people are affected by things in the same way. So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.


The starting rate only went up a little bit the past two contracts. Very little. There was a little bit of resentment over the fact that there was no catch-up raise when the starting rate went up, but nothing on the scale of what's going on now. I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

Guess what, with that crappy line of reasoning, UPS could just as easily tell all the full-timers that are getting reamed with 60 to even 70 hour weeks during peak that don't get to see their family "Guess what, you've been doing this for 10 plus years, life isn't fair, suck it up buttercup". Would you be fine with that? That's the point of a union, to prevent abuses like this. But people like you are so narrowsighted you don't see that other people are affected by things in the same way. So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.


The starting rate only went up a little bit the past two contracts. Very little. There was a little bit of resentment over the fact that there was no catch-up raise when the starting rate went up, but nothing on the scale of what's going on now. I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

Ahhhh resentment. Not exactly a nice union brother word.


Driver progression increases in pay every year. Do guys currently in progression. Get a raise?

You know unions were once about everyone being on equal footing. Work 90 days and get the exactly same pay,benefits as the guy next to you. We've lost that as a union because everyone thinks well I paid my dues I deserve more. How bout just be a decent human and be happy that you fought so that guys after you have it better than you did.

 

[MangoMango]

I worked at a furniture warehouse for about 5 years. Long story short, new management started paying new hires 25 cents more an hour than I was making. I quit the next week. Everyone at UPS should make the same depending on years of PT service.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Guess what, with that crappy line of reasoning, UPS could just as easily tell all the full-timers that are getting reamed with 60 to even 70 hour weeks during peak that don't get to see their family "Guess what, you've been doing this for 10 plus years, life isn't fair, suck it up buttercup". Would you be fine with that? That's the point of a union, to prevent abuses like this. But people like you are so narrowsighted you don't see that other people are affected by things in the same way. So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.

Hell, they could say the same damn thing about every other benefit we get as being part of the union when they take those things away. "Oh, you have to pay for your insurance? Life isn't fair. Oh, you don't get a pension anymore? Life isn't fair. Oh, you have to take a pay cut so we can get more profits? Life isn't fair. It's a slippery slope, and it makes you sound like a fool to use that line of reasoning against your part-time union brothers and sisters.


The starting rate only went up a little bit the past two contracts. Very little. There was a little bit of resentment over the fact that there was no catch-up raise when the starting rate went up, but nothing on the scale of what's going on now. I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

Whaaa whaaa
Why aren't you driving now???

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Work 90 days and get the exactly same pay, benefits as the guy next to you.

That hasn't happened since the 60's and 70's.

 

[Superteeth2478]

Ahhhh resentment. Not exactly a nice union brother word.


Driver progression increases in pay every year. Do guys currently in progression. Get a raise?

You know unions were once about everyone being on equal footing. Work 90 days and get the exactly same pay,benefits as the guy next to you. We've lost that as a union because everyone thinks well I paid my dues I deserve more. How bout just be a decent human and be happy that you fought so that guys after you have it better than you did.

Yes, guys in progression do get a raise. And then after that they get their general wage increases. What's your point?

About that resentment...I actually didn't feel resentment when they starting rate for skilled part-timers went up to $1.50 more than what I started at. Believe it or not, I was actually happy that we were starting out for more pay than I did. I wasn't a union steward at the time, either. Would it have been nice if we all got a catch-up raise? Sure. But this time it's a far greater pay increase. Of course it'll breed resentment. Just the same, I'd be all too happy for starting pay to increase to $15. We work hard, we deserve it. But now I also look out for my brothers and sisters that I've been representing for 3-4 years. So you better believe I'll be pissed if the workers I've worked with for so long don't get something in return for their years of service as well. I guess not everyone has that kind of mindset, it's all about "ME ME ME" for most people, and that's sad.

 

[Superteeth2478]

Whaaa whaaa
Why aren't you deividr now???

What the heck is a deivdir?

At any rate, assuming you meant "driver", it's because I don't need to be a driver to make ends meet. It's why I'd accept a 22.4 position if it got reamed up our bungholes, assuming it worked the way it was supposed to. I'd be glad to only work 4 hours driving and 4 hours doing preload. I don't need the overtime. I wouldn't vote "yes" on a contract that had 22.4 positions, though, because it weakens the union as a whole. Like I said, it's not all about "ME ME ME" like it is for some people.

I'm not interested in the money, I'm interested in having free time to do what I want, not resent the fact that I have to work long hours to make ends meet. Granted, I'm in a different situation than most, so that's not me knocking people who have to work long hours, but there's no "Waa waa" in my post at all. It's amazing how weak-minded the membership is to be falling for this divide-and-conquer tactic that UPS is using against us, especially this contract...and most of you are too blind to see it happening.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

So no, a 6-year employee shouldn't have to accept that new hires are making the same as them, because there's a union in place that should fight for catch-up raises for the veterans who have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into the job than some Joe Schmoe off the street.

I've flat out told my union brothers and sisters in my hub that I will make damn sure they all vote "no" if we veterans (even if it only be two-month veterans that were hired right before the contract is ratified) don't get catch up raises to the $15 that new hires are supposedly going to get.

Dude, relax.
You'll be raised to at least whatever the new guys will make when they have the amount of seniority you have, just like last contract.

Sheesh, complaining that someone doing the same job as you should make less, give me a break.

 

[Brownslave688]

Yes, guys in progression do get a raise. And then after that they get their general wage increases. What's your point?

About that resentment...I actually didn't feel resentment when they starting rate for skilled part-timers went up to $1.50 more than what I started at. Believe it or not, I was actually happy that we were starting out for more pay than I did. I wasn't a union steward at the time, either. Would it have been nice if we all got a catch-up raise? Sure. But this time it's a far greater pay increase. Of course it'll breed resentment. Just the same, I'd be all too happy for starting pay to increase to $15. We work hard, we deserve it. But now I also look out for my brothers and sisters that I've been representing for 3-4 years. So you better believe I'll be if the workers I've worked with for so long don't get something in return for their years of service as well. I guess not everyone has that kind of mindset, it's all about "ME ME ME" for most people, and that's sad.

This is part of the reason I'd like to see a "full scale" for part timers that they reach after a progression.


As a driver I feel anyone that does this job deserves the same pay as me. We'd probably see more part time unity if they had something similar.

 

[Brownslave688]

That hasn't happened since the 60's and 70's.

The unions heyday right?

 

[Superteeth2478]

Dude, relax.
You'll be raised to at least whatever the new guys will make when they have the amount of seniority you have, just like last contract.

Sheesh, complaining that someone doing the same job as you should make less, give me a break.

Do you even understand what I'm saying? When did I complain that people doing the same work should be making less than me? You have reading comprehension problems or something? I said I was glad starting pay was increased for part-timers, even though I started at $9.50 skilled, $8.50 unskilled. I'm simply arguing that veterans shouldn't be stuck at the pay rate they were hired at while fresh-off-the-street new hires are making close to 50% more than them.