jobs that pays 28$an hr!!!!

[thebrown_clown]

umm if yall know of any lemme know!!!!

 

[Jones]

umm if yall know of any lemme know!!!!

Here's a whole bunch. Is there a point to this thread?

 

[thebrown_clown]

the point i was thinking of is, were are we gonna start at making this kinda money if we vote no?

 

[VTBrown]

It's not about the money you donkey

Crap....I'd vote yes on our current contract with NO raises over this new one with essentially $2.00 an hour over 5 years.

It's a win win for UPS and The Teamsters.....it's a losing contract for anyone who actually has to work under it compared to our current one.

 

[TREVEHON]

I agree with vt-but it has to do with the pensions and the deivision of funds as well.

 

[Damok]

the point i was thinking of is, were are we gonna start at making this kinda money if we vote no?

I'm pretty sure UPS isn't going to disappear whether this contract passes or not

 

[thebrown_clown]

so lemme get this straight, we pay our union top officals to come up with contracts we the paying union doesnt like? so will everyone who doesnt like this contract stay in the union, wheather it passes or not? i can see points ffrom each side here, im not trying to be one sided on this, so the donkey comment is unessary.

 

[tunemixer]

I agree with the clown. Just because somebody dosn't agree with you doesn't mean name calling is needed. We all have the right to our own opinions. Lets try to keep it civil

 

[VTBrown]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being civil or not being civil.

The point of his post was to be a donkey, hence why I made the comment. I stand behind my original opinion.

If he thinks people are upset about the contract due to money, he's a donkey.

If he honestly believes if we vote no we will all be terminated or UPS will fold shop, he's a donkey.

If he honestly doesn't care about what language has been taken out, added or changed....well you get the idea. He's a donkey.

 

[Damok]

If he thinks people are upset about the contract due to money, he's a donkey.

I've seen some posts about money being an issues but I assumed they were donkey posts

 

[705red]

umm if yall know of any lemme know!!!!

The dollar sign ($) goes in front of the 28. Do you drive right now for ups? I can almost say that you do not, however it is not over the money, whay many are unhappy with this contract. Its the language changes that we are upset with. Its real hard to draw a retirement pension if you get fired because of weaker language!

 

[ScottP]

It's totally not about the money. We make good money but like 705 said how can we make this money if we are unemployed. At my center in Lexington Kentucky they are firing drivers for getting off their cars without using hand rails! We had a guy fired for pulling out of his parking spot in the building while putting his seatbelt on. They charge accidents if you crack a mirror. If the language gets any weaker we will lose our jobs for not ironing our shirts properly.

 

[govols019]

I would have voted yes on a new contract with NO pay raise except COLA for 5 years. Provided that contract would have allowed 3 8hr days a month with 24hr notice, strengthened the 9.5 language, removed all allowances for subcontracting and supervisors working, and stabilized the pension.

 

[Damok]

I would have voted yes on a new contract with NO pay raise except COLA for 5 years. Provided that contract would have allowed 3 8hr days a month with 24hr notice, strengthened the 9.5 language, removed all allowances for subcontracting and supervisors working, and stabilized the pension.

The pension will be more stable than it is now which was the major issue on the table. I don't think you can get everything on your wish list and still salvage the pension.

 

[Hard Working Man]

I would have vote yes, but the GPS language is getting a no vote from me!

 

[govols019]

The givebacks of our raises would go a LONG way in making the fund solvent.

When I put the pension as the top issue I truly thought that dramatically reduced raises would be the way they would go. I never thought my Union would allow the kind of givebacks and concessions in work rules they have.

That, in retrospect, was stupid of me.

 

[Damok]

The givebacks of our raises would go a LONG way in making the fund solvent.

When I put the pension as the top issue I truly thought that dramatically reduced raises would be the way they would go. I never thought my Union would allow the kind of givebacks and concessions in work rules they have.

That, in retrospect, was stupid of me.

I can't imagine the uproar would be any less if that's what they did It would make you happier but then someone else would would take issue. Not the best of footings to negotiate from.

 

[govols019]

You might be right but considering what we make an hour as full-time drivers I would like to think, for the most part, we're not that greedy.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being civil or not being civil.

The point of his post was to be a donkey, hence why I made the comment. I stand behind my original opinion.

If he thinks people are upset about the contract due to money, he's a donkey.

If he honestly believes if we vote no we will all be terminated or UPS will fold shop, he's a donkey.

If he honestly doesn't care about what language has been taken out, added or changed....well you get the idea. He's a donkey.

Umm....I'd say calling the guy a donkey several times difinately puts your statement in the category of not being civil.

 

[VTBrown]

Calling someone a donkey is light hearted humor.
There are plenty of viscous words that could have been used instead. If I was really trying to be uncivil.