Section 1a Article 37
- Thread starter hellfire
- Start date
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Don't pay attention to time allowances.
They are MADE UP numbers that are not based in reality.
What a time allowance?
Hump dump and roll
Well-Known Member
Yes as a piggy back on a 9.5 grievance. Such as the company has failed to take into consideration the age and physical ability of so and so in its failure to relieve so and so of excessive overtime.
Lead Belly
BANNED
There are No production standards recognized by your local union.
That is why you file. You cannot compare a 60 yr old to a 30 yr old, and you cant compare anyway, yet they do. That is why you file, and file and file.
hellfire
no one considers UPS people."real" Teamsters.-BUG
The language is very clear, I wonder how much this contractual agreement comes into play.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
They will push you as far as you let them.
hellfire
no one considers UPS people."real" Teamsters.-BUG
Yes, we have all heard this a million times, we all know the games UPS plays. The language is very clear, I just wonder contractually how this is enforced.
hellfire
no one considers UPS people."real" Teamsters.-BUG
So have you seen outcomes ?
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
It is enforced by growing very thick skin and grieving every time they cross the line, both Art 37 issues of harassment and 9.5.
It's all about creating perceived liability with an extensive paper trail.
This can also be done by filing complaints with Dept of Labor.
I'm living the outcome.
After numerous grievances and a labor charge or two, I was paid $1200 and no longer "dispatch" daily according to their standards.
I average about 45 hrs a week.
Lead Belly
BANNED
Strong stewards, business agents, and locals. Oh yea and members that will walk the walk.
hellfire
no one considers UPS people."real" Teamsters.-BUG
So in other words you don't have experience with said issue
PiedmontSteward
RTW-4-Less
As a steward in the hub, I haven't had to use it in a grievance but I've used it to get management to back off on production harassment.
I've seen it work to get a 35+ year driver back at panel on the basis of discipline for age discrimination.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
"Intestinal fortitude" is the applicable term. No one is going to do it, for you.
Some members think it's the Local Unions job to take care of it.
Show them you have the guts to stand up for yourself.... And they will.
-Bug-
PiedmontSteward
RTW-4-Less
"Perceived [legal] liability" is one of the few things that can get UPS moving on stuff like this. If there's even perceived age discrimination, an EEOC charge can also help grease the skids.
The "gold standard" for a grievance like this involves two witness statements to support the grievant's version of events. This is next to impossible with a lot of the harassment/intimidation that goes on; a comment made by a supervisor in passing in the building or an on-car supervisor doing a production ride along.
That's why the recent Whole Foods "recording" case is so interesting; while it wasn't applicable to harassment per se, it granted workers the right to record an anti-union captive audience meeting in spite of the company's policy to the contrary. While I wouldn't recommend someone doing so, a recording like this is going to eventually surface.
I'm just curious if anyone is going to have the nuts to try and run with it.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Getting the legal bill (for services) is a big motivating factor.
Things won't happen overnight.... But, they will happen.
-Bug-
