Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
PROPOSAL: ARTICLE 37-read and discuss
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownShark" data-source="post: 259333" data-attributes="member: 12148"><p>Brother Santa,</p><p> </p><p>You are correct, and I stand corrected. Seems I overlooked the "s" in periods and misunderstood the plural nature of the sentence.</p><p> </p><p>This is how it happens..we read too fast and overlook a small detail and it changes everything.</p><p> </p><p>Still, looking at it this way, locking us in to two (2) 5 month periods is not acceptable.</p><p> </p><p>If UPS and the Teamsters were to really address the issue of excessive overtime, they would consider using this as a tool to do so:</p><p> </p><p>"No driver Shall be dispatched over 10.5 hours On-road in any given week with the exception of November and December which are to be considered Peak Months of service."</p><p> </p><p>This way, the company would be forced to utlilize its cover force to complete the days volume without running its drivers into the ground.</p><p> </p><p>In addition, new drivers would have to be hired and these drivers are key to not only control the daily volume for the company, but to insure that "new" blood contributes full time $$$ to our pension funds.</p><p> </p><p>Any delay in getting new full time drivers onboard hurts the pensions in the long run. Adding 12 months to the progression scale helps the company delay the compensation to the pension fund (full time) and saves it thousands per employee over the duration of this contract.</p><p> </p><p>At 10.5 hours on-road, its not too long, and definately not too short.</p><p> </p><p>Working drivers 12 hours on-road has been and always will be a danger to our drivers and an inconveniece to the customers who rely on us.</p><p> </p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownShark, post: 259333, member: 12148"] Brother Santa, You are correct, and I stand corrected. Seems I overlooked the "s" in periods and misunderstood the plural nature of the sentence. This is how it happens..we read too fast and overlook a small detail and it changes everything. Still, looking at it this way, locking us in to two (2) 5 month periods is not acceptable. If UPS and the Teamsters were to really address the issue of excessive overtime, they would consider using this as a tool to do so: "No driver Shall be dispatched over 10.5 hours On-road in any given week with the exception of November and December which are to be considered Peak Months of service." This way, the company would be forced to utlilize its cover force to complete the days volume without running its drivers into the ground. In addition, new drivers would have to be hired and these drivers are key to not only control the daily volume for the company, but to insure that "new" blood contributes full time $$$ to our pension funds. Any delay in getting new full time drivers onboard hurts the pensions in the long run. Adding 12 months to the progression scale helps the company delay the compensation to the pension fund (full time) and saves it thousands per employee over the duration of this contract. At 10.5 hours on-road, its not too long, and definately not too short. Working drivers 12 hours on-road has been and always will be a danger to our drivers and an inconveniece to the customers who rely on us. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
PROPOSAL: ARTICLE 37-read and discuss
Top