PVDs and the contract

35years

Gravy route
UPS is using PVDs nearly anyway they want right now.

I know the simple solution is prohibiting PVDs outright, but...

IF they are allowed in the next contract...What limitations should be imposed?


The following should not only apply to PVDs, but also ANY SEASONAL OR TEMPORARY DRIVER.

1. Must pay union dues
2. Must not work outside of Nov 15 to Jan 15
3. Not allowed to work if any seniority driver is laid off
4. Not allowed to punch in before latest regular driver's start time.
5. All packages shuttled to PVD drop points will be done by seniority, by regular drivers
6. No seniority driver will be required to give stops to PVDs
7. Seniority drivers will be given the choice to take stops from PVDs if they have completed their own work.
8. PVDs will have no right to any geographical area...They will be utilized only to take stops off drivers who request the help.
9. Available seniority drivers will have the right to any extra work before PVDs
10. All seniority drivers will be asked via Diad text if they want the work before PVDs take stops off drivers.
11. No pickups will be done by PVDs; air or ground.

Some of the above points are already covered by local supplements, but are being violated by seasonals and PVDs. Those violations should be grieved immediately.

PVDs in any shape or form are a concession. The reason for them is to reduce forced OT. So any allowance of PVDs should include a concession by UPS on a limit of forced OT.

How about any location that uses PVDs will not be allowed to force seniority drivers to work over 10 hours on any day...Drivers may bring stops back to the bldg as missed after 10 without threat of discipline?

Any other ideas?
 
Last edited:

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Well I'll be the first to say that we don't have to worry about PVDs any more. Vincent Perrone from LU 804 has already won this case and as he states in this post is waiting for the IBT to back the decision. Now that OZ has won it will be a slam dunk. PVDs are a thing of the past and good riddance!!!!
9FCFD4BF-1151-48C7-BA40-B451BF2B7B84.jpeg
 

Rack em

Made the Podium
There is an ongoing arbitration case in Portland that started November 11th, but it was postponed until next year. Obviously there was some funny business there so ups could abuse the use of pvds for another peak season. We have some real strong people on the union side arguing that case so I am hopeful for a positive outcome for our side. Besides that, we need concrete language in our contract that flat out prohibits pvds. With O'Brien in office I predict if we don't get that language, we will strike. Pvds are a huge issue, and they need to be abolished!
 

UPSER1987

Well-Known Member
There is an ongoing arbitration case in Portland that started November 11th, but it was postponed until next year. Obviously there was some funny business there so ups could abuse the use of pvds for another peak season. We have some real strong people on the union side arguing that case so I am hopeful for a positive outcome for our side. Besides that, we need concrete language in our contract that flat out prohibits pvds. With O'Brien in office I predict if we don't get that language, we will strike. Pvds are a huge issue, and they need to be abolished!
As others have said, there will be no strike. So there’s that.
 

35years

Gravy route
Ok,

That just means they are seasonal drivers who are not REQUIRED to use thier own vehicles.

Nothing preventing them from voluntary using thier own vehicles.

There needs to be more language.

Here, they are shutting volume to PVDs way before driver start time using non seniority seasonals.

So seasonals and PVDs are combining to deliver my stops 2 hours before I get out to my route.

I don't know about you, but even if it is just seasonal in a rental, I want to punch in and punch out early...Not the seasonal.

We need language in the master. Otherwise next year they will be starting the seasonals (pvds or not) 4 hours before our start and seniority drivers will continue to be out till 11 p.m.
 

Rack em

Made the Podium
Ok,

That just means they are seasonal drivers who are not REQUIRED to use thier own vehicles.

Nothing preventing them from voluntary using thier own vehicles.

There needs to be more language.

Here, they are shutting volume to PVDs way before driver start time using non seniority seasonals.

So seasonals and PVDs are combining to deliver my stops 2 hours before I get out to my route.

I don't know about you, but even if it is just seasonal in a rental, I want to punch in and punch out early...Not the seasonal.

We need language in the master. Otherwise next year they will be starting the seasonals (pvds or not) 4 hours before our start and seniority drivers will continue to be out till 11 p.m.
Isn't is funny how they for some reason hire RPCDs during the normal times of the year, but during the seasonal period they hire an absurd amount of non union workers!? We need rock solid language on seasonals and how they can be used, otherwise the company will continue to screw the union workers over as much as they can.

I still can't believe that our union could ever allow the company to hire so many non union workers to steal OUR work. Sometimes I wonder why the :censored2: I even pay dues because I sure as :censored2: ain't being represented!
 

Whither

Scofflaw
Well I'll be the first to say that we don't have to worry about PVDs any more. Vincent Perrone from LU 804 has already won this case and as he states in this post is waiting for the IBT to back the decision. Now that OZ has won it will be a slam dunk. PVDs are a thing of the past and good riddance!!!!
View attachment 361156
At the September membership meeting, a couple days after the decision, our UPS BAs were on the same page: 'No PVDs this peak'. That position changed in the mean time, and those of us who are interested were told that the decision was 'limited to the 804' and that either there is a national, or else Central region, grievance re: PVDs awaiting a hearing. It is bizarre: the arbitrator specifically underscored Art 26.1 NMA, stating that PVDs are plainly package drivers, the company requires them to use their personal vehicles to make deliveries, and therefore the company is violation of Art 26.1. What's the position of the 542?
 

Whither

Scofflaw
Sometimes I wonder why the :censored2: I even pay dues because I sure as :censored2: ain't being represented!
I think the same problems that happen in government occur on a smaller level in unions - not that 1.3 million members makes the Teamsters a small organization. The issue with representational/service models is they open up the possibility that the institution, and/or its officials, develops and pursues interests contrary to the interests of its membership.

I don't know how to do it, but I'm confident this union needs more rank and file participation, that's the best way we, each and all, can advocate for our concerns and interests.
 

upser2020

Well-Known Member
One option that in theory would get rid of the need for seasonal employees(talking from a hub perspective not sure how this would play out with drivers):mandatory overtime during peak

Also the op suggested pvds and seasonals be required to pay union dues. I don't think that would be doable in right to work states
 

Rack em

Made the Podium
One option that in theory would get rid of the need for seasonal employees(talking from a hub perspective not sure how this would play out with drivers):mandatory overtime during peak

Also the op suggested pvds and seasonals be required to pay union dues. I don't think that would be doable in right to work states
They do pay union dues, that's why the union allows seasonal employees.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
At the September membership meeting, a couple days after the decision, our UPS BAs were on the same page: 'No PVDs this peak'. That position changed in the mean time, and those of us who are interested were told that the decision was 'limited to the 804' and that either there is a national, or else Central region, grievance re: PVDs awaiting a hearing. It is bizarre: the arbitrator specifically underscored Art 26.1 NMA, stating that PVDs are plainly package drivers, the company requires them to use their personal vehicles to make deliveries, and therefore the company is violation of Art 26.1. What's the position of the 542?
My post was sarcasm. I only posted it because it's one of the many things people were saying during the election. Its been a while since I read the arbitration but I do know that PVDs are still working in LU804 so we must have missed something on what the actual decision meant.
 

Whither

Scofflaw
My post was sarcasm. I only posted it because it's one of the many things people were saying during the election. Its been a while since I read the arbitration but I do know that PVDs are still working in LU804 so we must have missed something on what the actual decision meant.
I didn't miss the sarcasm 😉 but I was curious how your local leadership had understood it. I wonder if the company is 'giving a choice' to seasonal drivers in the 804 re: using their personal vehicles, e.g., 'You'll be more likely to get work if you voluntarily agree to use your own vehicle'.
 

35years

Gravy route
At the September membership meeting, a couple days after the decision, our UPS BAs were on the same page: 'No PVDs this peak'. That position changed in the mean time, and those of us who are interested were told that the decision was 'limited to the 804' and that either there is a national, or else Central region, grievance re: PVDs awaiting a hearing. It is bizarre: the arbitrator specifically underscored Art 26.1 NMA, stating that PVDs are plainly package drivers, the company requires them to use their personal vehicles to make deliveries, and therefore the company is violation of Art 26.1. What's the position of the 542?
Oh my goodness,
I saw your signature ... MPLS 1934
My dad was part of that strike/riot.
He worked downtown MPLS
Tear gas, busted heads...
He lost his job, but not his life.

Our strike at UPS in 1997 was very tame in comparison.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
I didn't miss the sarcasm 😉 but I was curious how your local leadership had understood it. I wonder if the company is 'giving a choice' to seasonal drivers in the 804 re: using their personal vehicles, e.g., 'You'll be more likely to get work if you voluntarily agree to use your own vehicle'.
We got about the same explanation. Something about how PVDs were being used, trained, advertised and the times of year they were being used made the arbitration more about 804 than PVDs across the country.

Like @Rack em said though. There is another case waiting to be heard out of Washington. So we'll see what happens.
 
Top