Mgmt refuses to pay overtime incentive

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

When you're in 20 years, it mainly goes around.

I guess I have something to look forward to in 09.

 

[trplnkl]

We have had a "bonus system" in effect here for at least 20 years that I know of. This is an agreement between the center management and the drivers, not part of the contract( I seem to remember that it was in the contract at one time, so now it goes to "past practice"). Either can stop the agreement without notice or reason. For the drivers to stop or start the bonus system, there is a vote taken by petition, turned into the union BA who then gives it to the center manger and the company labor relation manager and he decides if the company wants the system. Basically the company agrees to pay a bonus to anyone that beats the company's "set ridiculous standards". The fairness comes into play when one beats those times and receives the bonus pay, then another beats the times and does not receive the bonus pay.Yes, I think it would be a grievance on the grounds of "equal treatment", which I think IS probably part of the contract.
I agree whole totally that we do not want any recognition of time studies or allowances in the contract because "

There are so many perimeters to consider, it would ultimately "hurt" our drivers rather than helping them. The UNION would NOT have any control over any elements of production and the company could set rediculous standards that would lead to the elimination of drivers for production violations.

" and would create more lost delivery positions. However we are already seeing that happen.

 

[New Englander]

We have had a "bonus system" in effect here for at least 20 years that I know of. This is an agreement between the center management and the drivers, not part of the contract( I seem to remember that it was in the contract at one time, so now it goes to "past practice"). Either can stop the agreement without notice or reason. For the drivers to stop or start the bonus system, there is a vote taken by petition, turned into the union BA who then gives it to the center manger and the company labor relation manager and he decides if the company wants the system. Basically the company agrees to pay a bonus to anyone that beats the company's "set ridiculous standards". The fairness comes into play when one beats those times and receives the bonus pay, then another beats the times and does not receive the bonus pay.Yes, I think it would be a grievance on the grounds of "equal treatment", which I think IS probably part of the contract.
I agree whole totally that we do not want any recognition of time studies or allowances in the contract because "
" and would create more lost delivery positions. However we are already seeing that happen.

Why'd you have to go prove him wrong?

 

[The Other Side]

We have had a "bonus system" in effect here for at least 20 years that I know of. This is an agreement between the center management and the drivers, not part of the contract( I seem to remember that it was in the contract at one time, so now it goes to "past practice"). Either can stop the agreement without notice or reason. For the drivers to stop or start the bonus system, there is a vote taken by petition, turned into the union BA who then gives it to the center manger and the company labor relation manager and he decides if the company wants the system. Basically the company agrees to pay a bonus to anyone that beats the company's "set ridiculous standards". The fairness comes into play when one beats those times and receives the bonus pay, then another beats the times and does not receive the bonus pay.Yes, I think it would be a grievance on the grounds of "equal treatment", which I think IS probably part of the contract.
I agree whole totally that we do not want any recognition of time studies or allowances in the contract because "
" and would create more lost delivery positions. However we are already seeing that happen.

Your memory is not accurate and your premise is a failed one.

YOU and your coworkers have NO, ZERO, NADA rights to negotiate outside the contractual barriers. This is provided for in the NMA under article 6.

Try reading article 6 and see the limitations outlined for both the company and workers making agreements outside the established and ratified contract.

As stated earlier, if the company wants to pay a "bonus" it has that right, it also has the right to withold a bonus as it is not an AGREED contractual right of the employee.

The company labor manager has no JURISDICTION or AUTHORITY to negotiate contractual language at the center level.

The "bonus" effect is nothing more than a gift, and that gift can be taken away "at will" by the company and there would be NO case to claim it as it does not exist.

An arbitor would simply ask the union to "produce" the contractual agreement outlining bonus and the union would stand there looking as dumb as dirt.

He would then ask the company to provide the "bonus" outline and they also would not be able to provide one.

What they would say, is some engineer made a study on a route, using various measurement criteria and created a time value but by no means "promised" any employee a bonus on that time in which he/she finished faster than the time studied.

If an employee decides to run the route faster than "planned", thats on the employee, the arbitor will rule. The company said it would take 10 hours and thats what it should take. If an employee skips lunches and breaks to break standards, then the company has no obligations to pay him for it. State law prohibits an employee from skipping lunch and breaks as the law cannot be violated by an employee.

The bigger point here is this.

WE DONT WANT TO LEGITIMIZE PRODUCTION STANDARDS.

If we do, then drivers will be getting canned all over the country. This is why this is a non issue.

If your argument is that the time "beaten" is legitimate, then all routes become legitimate and the company could set a course on eliminating drivers for stealing time, lack of production or failure to do the job within the parameters of the job classification.

We NEVER legitimize production.

All you "yunkyard labor lawyers" better take a lesson.

If you bring a case against the company for payment for production bonus, then an equal case for termination could be brought against another driver for going in the hole.

This would be the by product of your actions.

Better to leave the production issue alone, if you get it, great, if you dont, let it go.

The bigger evil will always win.

 

[New Englander]

There seems to be a problem with certain drivers on what an honest days work is though.

It will probably be a sticking point in the next contract. Especially with our wage increases.

Bet on it.

 

[rod]

I would just kill an extra 1/2 hour every day until it adds up to what they owe you. I always found that method worked better than arguing with them. There' more than one way to skin a rabbit

 

[trplnkl]

Your memory is not accurate and your premise is a failed one.

YOU and your coworkers have NO, ZERO, NADA rights to negotiate outside the contractual barriers. This is provided for in the NMA under article 6.

Try reading article 6 and see the limitations outlined for both the company and workers making agreements outside the established and ratified contract.

As stated earlier, if the company wants to pay a "bonus" it has that right, it also has the right to withold a bonus as it is not an AGREED contractual right of the employee.

The company labor manager has no JURISDICTION or AUTHORITY to negotiate contractual language at the center level.

The "bonus" effect is nothing more than a gift, and that gift can be taken away "at will" by the company and there would be NO case to claim it as it does not exist.

An arbitor would simply ask the union to "produce" the contractual agreement outlining bonus and the union would stand there looking as dumb as dirt.

He would then ask the company to provide the "bonus" outline and they also would not be able to provide one.

What they would say, is some engineer made a study on a route, using various measurement criteria and created a time value but by no means "promised" any employee a bonus on that time in which he/she finished faster than the time studied.

If an employee decides to run the route faster than "planned", thats on the employee, the arbitor will rule. The company said it would take 10 hours and thats what it should take. If an employee skips lunches and breaks to break standards, then the company has no obligations to pay him for it. State law prohibits an employee from skipping lunch and breaks as the law cannot be violated by an employee.

The bigger point here is this.

WE DONT WANT TO LEGITIMIZE PRODUCTION STANDARDS.

If we do, then drivers will be getting canned all over the country. This is why this is a non issue.

If your argument is that the time "beaten" is legitimate, then all routes become legitimate and the company could set a course on eliminating drivers for stealing time, lack of production or failure to do the job within the parameters of the job classification.

We NEVER legitimize production.

All you "yunkyard labor lawyers" better take a lesson.

If you bring a case against the company for payment for production bonus, then an equal case for termination could be brought against another driver for going in the hole.

This would be the by product of your actions.

Better to leave the production issue alone, if you get it, great, if you dont, let it go.

The bigger evil will always win.

I do know what happened, within the contract or not we most certainly voted by petition to stop the bonus system and it was stopped, then six months later (because roughly 25% of our drivers were not asked to vote) there was a second petition and the bonus system was re-instated. PERIOD! I didn't start either petition nor did I fight either one, I just signed my preference.
I never said that anyone making bonus was doing so legitimately, I never said the company owes anyone bonus for running under, I never legitimized anything. All I said was "equal treatment" in "past practice" might be a way to to get the bonus paid to this individual, end of story.
For the record, I agreed with the premise in your post about not wanting to legitimize production standards, I have never even implied that time studies were accurate and or fair. I fact I have always argued that the allowances were far form being fair. So about half you your rant was directed at someone agreeing with you. You're so smart, and cool too.

Yep the past election for president proved that.

 

[The Other Side]

I would just kill an extra 1/2 hour every day until it adds up to what they owe you. I always found that method worked better than arguing with them. There' more than one way to skin a rabbit

Exactly. Remember this, "55 saves lives but 54 pays more"

 

[gandydancer]

...YOU and your coworkers have NO, ZERO, NADA rights to negotiate outside the contractual barriers. This is provided for in the NMA under article 6.

Try reading article 6 and see the limitations outlined for both the company and workers making agreements outside the established and ratified contract...

Wrong. You try:

"ARTICLE 6, Section 1. Extra Contract Agreements
Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Employer agrees not to enter into, or attempt to enter into, any agreement or contract with its employees, either individually or collectively, or to require or attempt to require employees to sign any document, either individually or collectively, which in any way conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Any such Agreement or document shall be null and void. Any such agreement or document may not be placed in an employee?s file or used by the Employer as a basis for discipline or used in connection with any disciplinary proceeding, nor may any such agreement or document nor the contents thereof be divulged to any person or entity."

"ARTICLE 17. PAID-FOR TIME

All employees covered by this Agreement shall be paid for all time spent in service of the Employer. Rates of pay provided for by this Agreement shall be minimums..."

Terminating an employee for not meeting production quotas conflicts with the agreement, which specifies acceptable grounds for termination.

Paying an employee a bonus for exceeding production quotes does not conflict with the agreement, which explicitly states that rates of pay are minimums.

If management promises bonuses, and its longstanding practice of paying such bonuses demonstrates that the promises are not the individual idiosyncratic unauthorized act of a manager, then anyone denied an earned bonus presumably has a cause of action against the company. And would otherwise have a cause of action against the individual making the promise, I would think. And would not necessarily be limited to the grievance procedure to collect.

 

[trplnkl]

never mind

 

[Jones]

never mind

You dug up a thread that's been dead for 2 years just to say "never mind"?
Crazy old retiree...

 

[over9five]

 

[moreluck]

Oh, Boris....we miss you!

 

[raceanoncr]

I met him one time when...oh, no...that was my ex-wife. Sorry.