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="gandydancer" data-source="post: 259398" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>Please clarify. To what degree is pension contribution affected by a driver being in progression?</p><p> </p><p>One of the major selfish reasons to vote against the new contract (at least outside Western States , where there is a "maintenance of benefits" provision) is the affect on YOUR benefits of the health plans losing the net contribution of new hires, for a year. If pension plan stability is also undermined by the proposed contract I'd like to know, so that I can make that argument, but I have to understand it first, and I confess I don't.</p><p> </p><p>With regards to the "granted more than two(2) requests" language, it seems to me that the clear intent of the language is to say that the Company need not grant any driver an 8-hour (actually, up to 8.5 hour) dispatch more than twice a month, and since it's 2002 language that point must be well litigated by now. With all due respect to a reluctance to exchange well-litigated language I think it is (a) pretty inexcusable not to make this particular exchange, when it can so clearly be misread and when it is so easy to correct, and (b) think that a driver's remedy for not receiving an appropriate dispatch is clearly inadequate. Requests inappropriately denied or not fulfilled due to overdispatch ought to accumulate, as additions to the 2/month, in addition to the money penalty. But getting anything from this contract other than keeping Central States afloat awhile longer and not under Federal control (something that affects their own income directly, I suspect) doesn't seem to have been a priority for the Teamster nomenklatura.</p><p> </p><p>My understanding is that as a full-time inside worker I could, after being worked more than 9.5 hours... three?...times in any one week, file an excessive overtime grievance and would thereafter get penalty pay for any occasion (outside of peak) where I was worked more than 9.5 hours. Is that national or only local practice? The language doesn't seem to explicitly cover inside employees at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 259398, member: 9310"] Please clarify. To what degree is pension contribution affected by a driver being in progression? One of the major selfish reasons to vote against the new contract (at least outside Western States , where there is a "maintenance of benefits" provision) is the affect on YOUR benefits of the health plans losing the net contribution of new hires, for a year. If pension plan stability is also undermined by the proposed contract I'd like to know, so that I can make that argument, but I have to understand it first, and I confess I don't. With regards to the "granted more than two(2) requests" language, it seems to me that the clear intent of the language is to say that the Company need not grant any driver an 8-hour (actually, up to 8.5 hour) dispatch more than twice a month, and since it's 2002 language that point must be well litigated by now. With all due respect to a reluctance to exchange well-litigated language I think it is (a) pretty inexcusable not to make this particular exchange, when it can so clearly be misread and when it is so easy to correct, and (b) think that a driver's remedy for not receiving an appropriate dispatch is clearly inadequate. Requests inappropriately denied or not fulfilled due to overdispatch ought to accumulate, as additions to the 2/month, in addition to the money penalty. But getting anything from this contract other than keeping Central States afloat awhile longer and not under Federal control (something that affects their own income directly, I suspect) doesn't seem to have been a priority for the Teamster nomenklatura. My understanding is that as a full-time inside worker I could, after being worked more than 9.5 hours... three?...times in any one week, file an excessive overtime grievance and would thereafter get penalty pay for any occasion (outside of peak) where I was worked more than 9.5 hours. Is that national or only local practice? The language doesn't seem to explicitly cover inside employees at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
PROPOSAL: ARTICLE 37-read and discuss
Top