Excellent points throughout.
I personally haven't listened to my BA re: 6 punches -- "Our hands our tied by bad contractual language (Central supp), work the ones you can, and let them know you're fatigued or have family obligations when you can't." A couple years ago I worked 6 punches close to 4 months straight and it's just no way to live. You feel awful a few weeks, like a zombie. You're also at greater risk of accidents and injuries.
So far, as I had expected, 6 punch discipline has been used only a scare tactic at my building. I know a driver who has had 2 pending terminations over 6 punch occurrences. Yes,
not 1 but 2 haha: the first wasn't enough, so they issued him a second a couple months after the first. It's been a few months; the company has failed to pursue either pending term.
I myself got a warning letter and then they were going to give me a second warning letter 7 weeks after the first; so much for progressive discipline lol! I pulled up UPSers, showed the center manager my timecard, and got a couple "late punches" tossed out -- "See, I was on time." So he never issued the warning letter. I kept calling in every Sat right up to peak.
My rationale has been 1) It's a hill worth dying on. Let us remember that UPS made record-shattering profits in 2020. Now consider: the company has raked in more profit
in the first 3 quarters of 2021 than it did throughout 2020.
2) They need us as much as ever. Collectively we have plenty of leverage. It doesn't make sense for the company to fire otherwise reliable employees for refusing to show up 6 days a week. That would only aggravate their staffing problem.
3) Contractual support. In the Central, the company would have a panel case -- perhaps stronger than ours -- but I'm not convinced it's a slam dunk. That might be another reason why they haven't tried to "make an example" out of anyone yet. Because, if they lost ... Anyway, here's overlooked language from the infamous Art 22.4b NMA.
View attachment 362861View attachment 362862
We certainly have a strong case that the company has failed in its "commitment to protect existing RPCDs from being forced or scheduled to perform weekend delivery work." We can easily demonstrate that the company claims "regular Saturday volume ... consistently requires RPCD drivers [LOL, redundant much?] to work Saturday." Although that last paragraph reads "
because of the 25% limit," in my building the company is more often than not well beneath that limit, at times by 20 or more 22.4s. So that would offer additional support that the company has failed to uphold its commitment. The downside is this language leaves 22.4s high and dry.
I'm not sure if panel cases allow "extra-contractual" arguments, but there is also the argument re: injuries, accidents, and danger to public safety. At a rowdy safety meeting I once got a division-level safety manager to volunteer that the company is well aware of these risks, and has the data to show longer hours and 6 day weeks are dangerous.
yeah.
