A cop out. Buts is your buddy? The contract (language) is printed to be read by average layman (laymen). Seems pretty clear to most of us @Bubblehead .You think I'm trying to sell you something.
I will acquiesce.... that it's confusing to the average layman.
The language could simply state:
"Seniority employees are paid holiday pay on these named dates. But if required to
work, you receive the premium pay."
Problem not solved.
As I have pointed out in the past (numerous times)....
The Central Region language pre-dates.... Article 40.
What's your Local Union's opinion ?
Similar to mine ?
-Bug-
I'm not the "average layman", nor am I confused.
We'll see in August???
....and I have asked you "The Historian" repeatedly, if not Article 40, what is this ancient language, "accept as otherwise provided in this agreement" referring too???
If you are what you represent yourself to be, I guarantee it....What's your Local Union's opinion ?
Similar to mine ?
and don't offer benefits. show there, and I was glad to be out. As much as UPS has their issues.. could be worse.Thats what one thing that annoys me. At my hub there is all these drivers that take their lunch break after theyre done with the route. And they act like theyre doing right and not getting screwed by taking it after. Wtf is that? Thats not a lunch break.
I know I see that all the time in my center and annoys the
out of me. And to top it off at times they are being all chummy chummy taking lunch with the on car supervisors in the office .. little do they know that they will be dispatched heavier when thier lunch is coded out end of day ...
Never Ups like to negotiate with bonuses but teamsters will always reject them . I received a couple in late 80s and early 90s.and a 500dollar bonus was 348after taxes 1000 dollar signing bonus which was only 600 bucks . Union would rather see them bonuses as a raise for sure
You said you’ve received them. But you said the Teamsters will always reject them? Which is it?
This is so awesome! Lol!!!
Awwwww...It's not that I don't want to.... It's because I don't have an honest answer.
The people that negotiated it are long gone, and does anyone know what the
true intent was ? Doubtful. You and I have gone round and round about this.
My position has always been, it can't be in reference to Article 40 because
of the timeline. That's all.
That wasn't a personal slam. (believe it or not)
We have a mutual friend that speaks very highly of you.
(Bet you're wondering who that is)
Besides, anyone reading your posts.... can deduce you've been around the block.
-Bug-
Yeah, kind of cool, two knowledgeable guys trying to hash out some poorly written language. This is how we get better language. Honest debate and discussion.
NopeIt was.... wasn't it ? Almost seven years ago.
I wonder if @Bubblehead has changed his opinion now ?
Can't get any better now. Historic contract- remember?
Sure, it was historic lots of things were addressed, but still lots of things to go.
When do you think they will try to take the pension?
Depends on the raises the members will or won’t demand moving forward. I think watered down healthcare will be the first move by either side.
