The Vote No explained Youtube video Part 2: More Clarification

[Moneythehardway]

Youtuber Tyler just posted this updated video this morning Aug 15th, 2018 after first video gets a lot of attention and questions. He clarifies the contract language that should get a No vote.

Have at it.

 

[BrownMonk]

He didn't clarify anything. 22.4 drivers will get paid more than casual package guys that almost every Local has now with full time benefits and pension so I don't mind that as much. I only have a problem with them not being 9.5 eligible. The package drivers work before them so no issue there. That "if work is available" has always been around. Which Local is not having routes cut and then a long line forming to go home? The math is whacked too. The p/t timers getting the $13 is a huge amount for anyone. I heard that about 40% of p/t are under $1100 an hour so a large jump for most. The problem I have is the Art 6 stuff and the 70 hour rule. I understand the thinking with getting double time but my supplement already addressed it so I didn't have to worry before the National put it in. I'm sure the art 6 stuff will be used by managers that are trying to push for production. I understand that there was another problem that they tried to fix but it opened a wide door with the fix.

 

[BrownMonk]

Here's the real deal assessment. If you are a p/t time employee(newer), you got a win with benefits/rate/new jobs so it is probably yes. If an older p/t, you didn't get anything to vote no because it is the same since you are staying p/t for whatever your reason is(other job/just need benefits, etc). If you are a feeder driver, there is nothing real bad in it for you. If you are package driver, there are some issues and you need to decide if they are bad enough to vote no.

 

[542thruNthru]

The guys sure does make some good points.

 

[BrownRecycler]

People can get on the 9.5 list with the contract.

The Union shall circulate and collect the names of package drivers who wish to be covered by the provisions of this Section twice each year. These lists shall be provided to the Company by January 5th and June 5th of each year. The Employer shall make a reasonable effort to reduce package car drivers’ workdays below nine and one half (9.5) hours per day for those on the list where requested. If a review indicates that progress is not being made in the reduction of assigned hours of work, (i.e. the package driver has worked more than 9.5 hours on three (3) days in a workweek), the following language shall apply, except for the period from November 15th through January 15th of the following year:

Looks, Tyler isn't wrong about the "if works available" argument .... except if workers "not" work and get paid based upon availability, shouldn't package handler should to? It seems to me more like a contract language/division class discrimination like to me. Because where am at, if there is no more volume and the guaranteed hours fulfill, provided that if the worker show up on time, they are dismiss or ask for more works. It is clear as he pointed out in the Wisconsin area that his job sites are problematic. He is having problem with his logistic area.

22.4 is obviously an experimental classification and adapting is very difficult which means it makes saying no easier. Adapting is hard. Period. It is tempting to say No.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

It is clear as he pointed out in the Wisconsin area that his job sites are problematic. He is having problem with his logistic area.

Who talks like this lol.
Certainly not hourly employees.

 

[BrownRecycler]

Who talks like this lol.
Certainly not hourly employees.

Yeah, he is an hourly employee.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Yeah, he is an hourly employee.

You're not.
Good day sir.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Who talks like this lol.
Certainly not hourly employees.

Just because he sounds intelligent doesn't mean he's not a driver.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

People can get on the 9.5 list with the contract.

The Union shall circulate and collect the names of package drivers who wish to be covered by the provisions of this Section twice each year. These lists shall be provided to the Company by January 5th and June 5th of each year. The Employer shall make a reasonable effort to reduce package car drivers’ workdays below nine and one half (9.5) hours per day for those on the list where requested. If a review indicates that progress is not being made in the reduction of assigned hours of work, (i.e. the package driver has worked more than 9.5 hours on three (3) days in a workweek), the following language shall apply, except for the period from November 15th through January 15th of the following year:

Looks, Tyler isn't wrong about the "if works available" argument .... except if workers "not" work and get paid based upon availability, shouldn't package handler should to? It seems to me more like a contract language/division class discrimination like to me. Because where am at, if there is no more volume and the guaranteed hours fulfill, provided that if the worker show up on time, they are dismiss or ask for more works. It is clear as he pointed out in the Wisconsin area that his job sites are problematic. He is having problem with his logistic area.

22.4 is obviously an experimental classification and adapting is very difficult which means it makes saying no easier. Adapting is hard. Period. It is tempting to say No.

We know we can get on the list, we're pissed that 22.4 drivers can't get on the list.

 

[BrownRecycler]

You're not.
Good day sir.

I am not an employee? Then, what? A driver's boot licker?

 

[BrownRecycler]

We know we can get on the list, we're that 22.4 drivers can't get on the list.

Am getting tired of this 22.4 mental gymnasium. Bullcrap.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Am getting tired of this 22.4 mental gymnasium. Bullcrap.

Huh?

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

I am not an employee? Then, what? A driver's boot licker?

 

[BrownRecycler]

Huh?

22.4 interpretation and discussing are tiring. And, this is a big red flag for my decision.

 

[BrownRecycler]

View attachment 207305

Good day to you.

 

[40 and out]

He didn't clarify anything. 22.4 drivers will get paid more than casual package guys that almost every Local has now with full time benefits and pension so I don't mind that as much. I only have a problem with them not being 9.5 eligible. The package drivers work before them so no issue there. That "if work is available" has always been around. Which Local is not having routes cut and then a long line forming to go home? The math is whacked too. The p/t timers getting the $13 is a huge amount for anyone. I heard that about 40% of p/t are under $1100 an hour so a large jump for most. The problem I have is the Art 6 stuff and the 70 hour rule. I understand the thinking with getting double time but my supplement already addressed it so I didn't have to worry before the National put it in. I'm sure the art 6 stuff will be used by managers that are trying to push for production. I understand that there was another problem that they tried to fix but it opened a wide door with the fix.

There may be a lot of RPCD's only working 4 days a week due to "if work is available". How much will UPS try to deliver on the weekend? I think it is a bad idea.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

22.4 interpretation and discussing are tiring. And, this is a big red flag for my decision.

There is no interpreting that 9.5 and 8-hour request language does not apply to 22.4. It's written plain as day.

 

[BrownRecycler]

There is no interpreting that 9.5 and 8-hour request language does not apply to 22.4. It's written plain as day.

I am talking about in general. It seems like if Teamster contract was an Olympic and new sport have been added in the game that everybody trying to figure out except this sport is complicated.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

I am talking about in general. It seems like if Teamster contract was an Olympic and new sport have been added in the game that everybody trying to figure out except this sport is complicated.