Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Hethatbeking, Aug 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM.
NorCal leadership has suggested their members vote no on the Master and Supplement.
I just attended a Union informational about our new cintract. This contract is all about the benefits for feeders drivers package car drivers and part-timers that want to become drivers. If you are a part timer and this job is just a supplement to a full-time job then VOTE NO on this contract. There is nothing in this contract for us and it seems like Union leadership doesn't give a crap. I've got 18 years with UPS. New people coming in or going to be starting out with a $2 raise but us veteran seniority employees are getting nothing we're going to get our regular $0. 70 how about UPS bump us up $2 and then give us our yearly raise. This contract is a NO go for us
in fla 32 year driver contract offer is from 1980 are union pres has to go now vote noooooooooooo
Those 18 years have afforded you the best vacation choices, inside jobs, and the option to go home early over lower seniority guys when they start sending people home.
186 is recommending Yes unfortunately.
856 938 and 431 all Northern California leadership are pushing yes vote. Thankfully some of the locals are putting up resistance and plan on voting no
938 is not in JC 7. 856 only has some clerks, right?
lower wage than any clerk, driver, or feeder. There are no inside jobs where I work. Late jet means staying late. My 18 years have also meant WEAR and TEAR on the body, not fresh like the newbies getting a $2.00 increase . I and my fellow seniority employees DESERVE the $2.00 bump up AS WELL.
Boggles my mind that people find it important that exercising seniority play a role in not getting paid???
I always thought the contract should be designed to protect our right to work, not our right not to work, aside from compensable time.
Many think that the west is a lock for the yes vote..... I can assure you it’s not....
What is wrong with it doing both?
I always have this conversation. Some guy wanting to go home and claiming seniority when seniority was created for earning opportunities, not the other way around.
What really is pathetic are pters who want to go home after 2 hours of work... ridiculous
Shame on them for only wanting to work 10 hours that day.
Many of the kids I saw go home only had one job...thanks for playing
Shame on them for studying for that exam.
More like shame on them for wanting to go home and get high....
This. Why wouldn't you want to offer time off in seniority order? Thankfully we have it written that way in our supplement.
Because the contract isn't just written to benefit the union membership???
It is also written to allow the Company run their operation efficiently and safely.
With seniority, often comes experience and knowledge.
Why should the Company be saddled with having to send home the wrong person (or nobody, if it means having the wrong guy in the wrong chair) in order to satisfy a "two-way" seniority provision???
Where I will agree with you @Jones is in the notion that the Company should want to send home the senior employee if the senior employee is agreeable, for economic reason$, but should not be locked into the practice if it puts them at a disadvantage in regards to safety, service, or production.
I heard if we don't vote yes we're all going to die.
Separate names with a comma.