Local 878 Members - Southern Supplement

[TIMN]

Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.

On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.

We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually.

My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.

At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.

The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.

Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52
“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.

There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!

-Tim

 

[Karma...]

sounds like the company plea bargains which is a cop-out.

 

[BrownMonk]

Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.

On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.

We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually.

My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.

At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.

The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.

Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52
“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.

There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!

-Tim

I will not try to talk you out of your opinion but I can add some context to this.

Most of the time, a sitting arbitrator is a proposal from the Union so long as it is suspension and discharge only. The company usually rejects it because of the cost involved in paying half for the arbitrator to sit on every panel(around $4000-$6000 per day) for every panel. The positive for the Union is that the discharged employee doesn't have to sit out an additional 6-9 months for a decision from an individual case. Additionally, it forces the company to put on a real case at panel instead of relying on their side to deadlock and keep the employee out longer. In most of my experience, the company half asses a case knowing that the higher ups have already agreed to deadlock it or a loser to the grievant. The only money UPS would save would be a lawyer.

Again, if the company is mad at an employee or proving a point, they deadlock it and offer them a deal before arbitration after suffering months of no pay and benefits. Most guys take the deal because they can't afford to stay out even if they are in the right because you don't know what an arbitrator will do. I had the same reservations about a sitting arbitrator at ours before I saw it in action.

As far as "cardinal sins" being "expanded", your contract language for the arbitrator should say something about the arbitrator not having the right to expand the contract and must interpret it as is. So long as you have that, it can always be challenged in court.

JMHO

 

[TIMN]

Thank you for your reply. In this instance the proposal was a Company proposal not a Union proposal. You are correct often times Union’s propose a setting arbitrator in “white paper” negotiations and employers balk at the cost. In this case the cost of the setting arbitrator will be divided among all of the local unions and district labor functions who participate in the SRAPGC dramatically reducing the cost to any particular local or district labor function. Same process as T-Force. As for the positive for the Union being reducing the amount of time a member waits for a decision you are correct for the 5 or less people forced to traditional arbitration currently. The negative for the Union will be the dramatically increased number of semi-innocent members who will lose their jobs or be forced into taking a lesser settlement due to adopting this language.

I would be interested to know of specific cases where an employee was totally in the right and was starved into a lesser deal in the Southern Region. Totally right is a rarity. The overwhelming number of discipline cases in the south are gray at best and those members greatly benefit from not being at the mercy of an arbitrator.

With regard to the Company having to up there game when presenting in front of a setting arbitrator that has not been my experience as a former grievance committee chairperson. Both parties put on the same case as they would if the arbitrator weren’t sitting there. The regional grievance committee system does not provide the same formality and time for presentation, examination and cross examination as traditional arbitration.

Our contract language regarding “Cardinal Sins” is almost identical nationwide. Nationwide the Company attempts to expand the Cardinal Sins as can be seen by perusing the National Arbitration Database. The South, in large part thanks to Thor Johnson, has been very successful in preventing that attempted expansion in traditional arbitration. Many arbitrators across the country have interpreted the language as not being all inclusive and hold employees may be summarily discharged for “similar” offenses to those Cardinal Infractions specifically listed in our A-52. A setting arbitrator makes it very inexpensive for the Company to attempt to roll back years of success on this front.

The proposed Company’s proposed language does nothing to speed up the grievance procedure for 99% of the membership in the South, puts hundreds of members in jeopardy and is not wanted by the overwhelming majority of officers and agents who have more than 10 years experience here. It’s my understanding our committee was basically instructed by the IBT they had to accept the Company proposal. Many are worried about reprisal by the IBT if they speak out. Frankly, I to am concerned but can’t in good conscience not inform our Local 878 members, to the best of my ability, of the possible impacts of this language.

By the way, if you are local union officer, agent or IBT official with experience presenting cases before an arbitrator please give me a call. Although I’ve been doing this over 20 years I find I can learn something daily.

 

[govols019]

This is probably the most informative thread in the history of Brown Cafe...and no name calling, either.

 

[DELACROIX]

This is probably the most informative thread in the history of Brown Cafe...and no name calling, either.

What is most concerning is the gentleman's remarks about possible reprisals...If a long time Union Official close to retirement has to worry about that it doesn't fare well for the average rank and file. Has the International been punishing certain Locals, Conferences or work groups that continue to ask the wrong questions or vote a certain way. We seen this favoritism before with our elections and the pay back time with the following contracts, playing politics instead of representing their rank and file.

Right now my opinion (subject to change) about this TA is: (The Master appears to correct most of the previous concessions). O'Brien did keep his promises, really he wasn't asking for much to begin with. Saying that the supplements and riders are a big nothing sandwich, no real improvements with the Central and Southern, I haven't read the others, it appears to me that they settled those early to get to the real meat with the Master. Most of those supplemental and rider negotiators were the same ones as the previous Contract, they did a very good job at protecting their status quo as usual.

Expecting O'Brien and his team to correct decades old decisions and compromise would take a miracle with his first Contract. Unfortunately again we will leave members behind with this one...The most grievous problem I see with this one is the lack of any improvements for those part time years previous or current under the UPS Pension Plan, less than a 200 dollar improvement till 2028, watch out for any increases with our retirees' co pays also, those increases could be easily be erased, similar to the 2013 one. They raised the IBT/UPS Pension Plan benefits around 400 dollars a month, then raised our retiree's health and welfare co pays from 50/100 to 150/300....now it is 200/400 a month..

It is a rotten shame that they couldn't improve the other factors with our Pensions or Health and Welfare packages, in some areas they have, but with a vast majority of our membership there was not much thought behind it...especially with the supplements and riders....Just get it done, business as usual...

 

[TIMN]

Good Morning 878’ers. I apologize for the short notice. Yesterday I texted and e-mailed the LR Stewards to please let everyone know we will have a review of the new Tentative Agreement this Saturday at the union hall starting at 11:00 a.m. The office is sending notices to be posted on the bulletin boards today.

For JBO, FC, BLY, POC, BAT members who do not want to drive all the way to LR I am working on getting a meeting room and holding a meeting on Sunday. I’ll get you guys the details as soon as I have a room confirmation.

If you can’t make either meeting but have questions just give me a call.

Please, please return your ballots once you’ve reached a decision. Be safe today!

-Tim

 

[TIMN]

Wanted to let everyone know I just received notice from the Package Division a new wage calculator has been added to the app! This should be a great help to anyone with questions regarding your individual wage increases. Thanks to Rob and everyone involved at the Package Division for creating this tool! Much appreciated.

 

[Common Cents Syd]

Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.

On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.

We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually.

My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.

At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.

The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.

Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52
“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.

There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!

-Tim

 

[Common Cents Syd]

Hello fellow UPS'ers. 31 year Teamster. Long Term UPS employee

1. I supported the Sean O'Brien slate. I expect to in the future.
2. I'm a yes vote on the Master Portion of the Tentative Agreement.
3. As long as your a "dues paying member" I respect your right to vote your conscience on your contract and your Local Union Officials.
4. If your not a member of your Local Union your part of the problem not the solution. You folks should have zero complaints. We pay your way. We fight for your benefits and wage improvements. Your welcomes. Leaches....
5. My final point- it's a shame that a Local Union official can't express concerns to his membership about a contract vote without fearing reprisals from the I.B.T. This is what we elected this man to do. Share his knowledge and understanding of the contract. Sean doesn't strike me as a guy who relishes desent among the ranks. Leaders lead. Followers follow. This guy did all of us a service sharing

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.

On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.

We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually.

My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.

At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.

The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.

Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52
“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.

There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!

-Tim

Who will be the appointed impartial “sitting” arbitrator?

 

[UnionStrong]

Who will be the appointed impartial “sitting” arbitrator?

Carol

 

[TIMN]

I’m sorry but I do not know. Someone picked from the roster of FMCS arbitrators. I believe a pool of three will be picked so coverage is available in the event one is unavailable to attend a particular meeting.

 

[Coldworld]

This is probably the most informative thread in the history of Brown Cafe...and no name calling, either.

Even better than Dave’s goodbye threads #1, #2, and #3???

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Even better than Dave’s goodbye threads #1, #2, and #3???

But it doesn't top his getting hit by a car thread

 

[9.5mania]

This isn’t my only concern on why I voted No on the southern supplemental, but it is a valid one.

 

[Bubblehead]

I question why @TIMN decided to make this "grand stand" on Brown Cafe instead of other less than anonymous social media options, claiming:

"Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions"

....as if this is actually Local 878's Principal Officer, announcing subsequent meeting dates and times as well?

A bit hoaky if you ask me.

 

[BrownMonk]

Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.

On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.

We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually.

My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.

At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.

The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.

Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52
“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.

There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!

-Tim

As an Officer of a UPS Local, didn't you or one of the others participate in the supplemental negotiations? Any Officer would have been allowed to attend all sessions of the supplement negotiations and should have already been aware of the changes before recently reviewing it.

 

[TIMN]

I am actually the principal officer of local 878. Hokey, corny or otherwise, I indeed had some members ask if I would post the meetings because some are on vacation, sleeper teams or check this site more than the bulletin board.

Not sure what benefit “grandstanding” would provide me, just feel an obligation to bring attention to arbitrator addition.

I am pretty new to communicating through social media but have decided to give it a try. If I believe something is of enough importance to address in any forum I will not hide behind anonymity and will use my name.

Can’t speak to the practice in other areas but if you are not appointed to the negotiating committee in the Southern Region you do not attend. Yes I was aware there was a possibility of the sitting arbitrator language being proposed as the new reps started “selling” the idea months ago despite our years long fight against the change for the reasons previously stated.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I am actually the principal officer of local 878. Hokey, corny or otherwise, I indeed had some members ask if I would post the meetings because some are on vacation, sleeper teams or check this site more than the bulletin board.

Not sure what benefit “grandstanding” would provide me, just feel an obligation to bring attention to arbitrator addition.

I am pretty new to communicating through social media but have decided to give it a try. If I believe something is of enough importance to address in any forum I will not hide behind anonymity and will use my name.

Can’t speak to the practice in other areas but if you are not appointed to the negotiating committee in the Southern Region you do not attend. Yes I was aware there was a possibility of the sitting arbitrator language being proposed as the new reps started “selling” the idea months ago despite our years long fight against the change for the reasons previously stated.

A lot of local 878 members frequent this website? Interesting.