Part-Timers vs Full-Times

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Liberty Bear, Oct 20, 2007.

  1. Liberty Bear

    Liberty Bear New but not Naive

    The UPS/Teamsters strategy regarding the proposed new contract is obviously divide and conquer. The higher up the food chain you are, the greater you benefit from the contract. Hardest hit of all will be people who haven't even hired on yet.

    Therefore, it's only logical that most of the YES votes will come from full-timers - though it sounds like many of them will actually vote NO. In contrast, I would guess that very few part-timers would vote YES.

    So it would be interesting to know how UPS' employees break down. The company employs a total of about 240,000 people, right? Approximately how many of those are full-time truck drivers, full-time "other" and part-time?
  2. Damok

    Damok Member

    I wonder how many full timers, or part timers for that matter, you've actually talked to in order to say many FTs will vote no and very few PTs will vote yes. Vague and ambiguous information for the win? Your rolodex must be huge. :D
  3. VTBrown

    VTBrown Member

    Don't try and generalize who will vote for what.

    The contract isn't so bad that it effects any current employee in a monetary or job security type of situation other then a few feeder guys. Who are in a minority position compared to the company on a whole.....

    We also have the "Let's save the CS guys" crap going on. So that is going to be OVER pushed and used by management as an angle.

    It effects FUTURE employees more, ones who have obviously NO vote. Prior UPS employee's voted the last one in. Trust me when I say progression is a whole lot worse now from what I've read prior to it. No I'm not talking monetary I'm talking about the language pertaining to lay offs for them.

    So as in the past....FUTURE employees are rarely looked after when it comes to the contracts.

    What effects us Full-Timers is the absolute joke of protection versus over-time. The language is so WEAK it's not even funny. Heavy penalties that will amount to just about ZERO when it comes down to it.

    The opt in or opt out doesn't bother me one bit. You either want it or don't.

    The request for an 8 hour day needs to be made 5 days in advance, bull crap. It's not even an 8 hour day - they have been given permission to run us 8.5 with no recourse now. Again...bull crap.

    The fact that half of our so called raise can be diverted to health and pension? Bull crap.

    Those are the reasons I'm voting no.
  4. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    I don,t know the exact numbers, but there are many more part-timers than full-timers. Historically, very few hourlies vote at all, and out of the few that do vote very few are part-timers. So, the issue isn't how many P-T and F-T employees there are, but how many you can expect to case a vote at all!
  5. Liberty Bear

    Liberty Bear New but not Naive

    I drew my conclusion from the following...

    1) The people I've talked to at work (and at the union meeting I attended)

    2) The comments on this and related forums

    3) Logic

    The contract obviously doesn't have unanimous support from anyone, therefore I'll stand by my prediction that MANY full-timers will vote NO (though the majority will likely vote YES).

    I probably should not have said "very few" part-timers will vote YES. Rather, I should have said, "It's hard to imagine that part-timers could be stupid enough to vote YES on a contract like this."

    In fact, I have talked to part-timers at work who say they will vote YES. Others say they will vote NO.

    But I would predict that the more UPS employees learn about this contract, the more likely part-timers, in particular, will vote no.

    As sawdustty said, the big problem is getting people to vote. Again, a little logic suggests that full-timers are more likely to vote than part-timers, especially those who don't plan on staying with UPS for more than a few years.

    You do understand logic, don't you?
  6. VTBrown

    VTBrown Member


    Logic would dictate that like in the past, Part-timers will not care enough to vote.
    This contract like others really doesn't effect them anymore then PAST ones.

    This effects FUTURE employee's more then any of the current part-timers. Think enough of them are going to care to stand up for someone who isn't even hired yet?

    If anyone will be voting this contract down it will be the full-timers based upon what we have lost over the past one.
  7. Liberty Bear

    Liberty Bear New but not Naive

    (I thought I said that.)

    I don't really care how it affects part-timers compared to past contracts. It stinks on its own merits.

    Of course not. But we should all care.

    I certainly hope so.
  8. VTBrown

    VTBrown Member

    You seem to me as someone who has not even read the contract offered or failed to understand it.

    How do we Full-Timers (higher up the food chain) benefit from this?

    Do you think .35 to .45 an hour raise offsets everything we have to give back?

    I'd prefer no raise and keep our current contract!
  9. Liberty Bear

    Liberty Bear New but not Naive

    Actually, I'm not sure that ANYONE benefits from this contract other than UPS/Teamsters, Inc. But it does seem like full-timers get scr*wed a little less severely than part-timers. I know that most of the full-timers I've talked to at work say they're going to vote for it, some because they like it, others because they think it's the best they can get.

    A few part-timers have even told me they're going to vote for it, warning of threats of dire consequences if it doesn't pass from the union and UPS both.
  10. outamyway

    outamyway New Member

    I was told at my center a non-vote is a yes vote. Anyone know if this is true?
  11. sawdusttv

    sawdusttv Active Member

    I have heard that statment myself. Although, I can't say if it is true or not.
  12. Liberty Bear

    Liberty Bear New but not Naive

    It doesn't seem likely they would count non-voters as YES votes unless they do so selectively. If they say there were 140,000 YES votes and 100,000 NO votes, then we'll know they're lying, because there's no way that many employees are going to vote.

    But if 200,000 members don't vote at all, might Hoffa take a cue from his friend George Bush and pretend that some of those people voted YES?
  13. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    A "yes" vote is not a "no" vote.
    A "no" vote is not a "yes" vote. how can a "non vote" be either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote?

    This defies all logic.
  14. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    From what I heard, your Local "can vote for you" if you don't bother to vote. I don't know if this fact or rumor.
  15. Damok

    Damok Member

    Indeed I do, in fact I'm still waiting for you to use some in addition to your agenda driven posts.