Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by NinerFaithful, Jul 24, 2014.

  1. NinerFaithful

    NinerFaithful New Member

    Here in Northern California we opened up a new center where I was put in a position to transfer or face layoff 5 years ago. My commute is 45 min to 1 and 1/2 hr one way as opposed to 15 min to my old building. I actually have some seniority now at this new building but with the economy better id like to transfer back to my old building. My commute sucks on top of never seeing my family as it is. Here in Cali when you transfer your seniority starts over. I've got 8 yrs driving. What are your thoughts? My thoughts- I think starting your seniority over is absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!! If it's a transfer within your region your seniority should remain the same.

    Nor Cal

    CHALLY9TX Active Member

    Do you have a route? If you don't then I would probably transfer based on what you said about commute and family stuff. If you have a route I'd think about it more. Just my opinion.

    Sent using BrownCafe App
  3. NinerFaithful

    NinerFaithful New Member

    I still don't have a route- however I'm pretty close. But then again I've been saying that for the last 3 years lol

    Nor Cal
  4. turdbrown

    turdbrown Member

    you will lose your driving seniority, but u will still have your 5 weeks vac a yr, but will be picking last. You will be at the bottom, so u will be working more hrs doing all of the crap rts. and not have your own rt. You will still not be able to get home at a decent time, might even be later. Think about it b4 You do it. It is a stupid rule! You put in your time and your seniority should transfer. I also don't like that you can only transfer within your district.
  5. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I wish driver transfers were allowed nationally. The only potential problem would be the different pensions in other regions or locals. To avoid "pension shopping" transfers could be handled similarly to a" change of operations." That would mean the transfering drivers would stay in their original pension.

    Sent using BrownCafe App
  6. 959Nanook

    959Nanook Member

    Maybe but better to be paid for hours worked than not being paid for hours commuting.

    Sent using BrownCafe App
  7. You ever think about moving closer to work?
  8. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Do you have idea how logistically difficult that would be?

    Resident know-it-all.
  9. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Yeah. It wouldn't be.
  10. 959Nanook

    959Nanook Member

    I hope that was facetious. It would be a nightmare... one I doubt we will experience because I doubt it would fly with the Teamsters for a second.
  11. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    It isn't rocket science. Only UPS and/or the Teamsters could #!*% something up that should be so simple. And it's not like there would always been a massive exodus of people trying to move around.
  12. PiedmontSteward

    PiedmontSteward RTW-4-Less

    The "educational" line in the NMA for PT employee transfers should be removed. PT Employees should be allowed to transfer a certain number of times over the lifetime of an agreement (let's say twice, but unlimited for legitimate educational reasons) as long as their seniority is end-tailed and there's an opening at the location at their new building.

    FT employees should only be able to transfer if the company is hiring off the street at a location and have exhausted all available PT'ers on the seniority list. I know if I were to be bumped out of a driving job after waiting 15 years (and that's about how long it's going to take for me in my hub) by someone transferring in, I would be livid.

    All that being said, the OP should have been allowed to transfer back into his original building as it was a layoff situation once the work returned. If it's a forced transfer (ie layoff following work), I think seniority should dove tail rather than end tail. But that's all handled in the local supplement.
  13. BigUnionGuy

    BigUnionGuy Got the T-Shirt

    That is exactly.... how it should happen.

  14. 959Nanook

    959Nanook Member

    Your proposal is quite different and much more expansive than the the OP's question about returning to his original building now that Operations are stabilizing after Center expansion (which I assume is in the same Local).

    Aside from the fact that the Teamsters have NO vested interest in your proposal so they aren't going to bother to support it (especially Locals that are on the short end of the stick), what is simple about it? It is an HR disaster for UPS that would be forever chaotic trying to get the correct amount of pension contributions to the correct Pension Trusts. What happens when the next round of contract negotiations roll around? Which contract would a transferred Teamster vote... his shop's Local or his Pension Trust's Local? How does the transferred Teamster vote in Local elections since he is now represented by two Locals... does the Teamster vote both Locals? If the Teamster votes both elections because the Teamster has a CONCURRENT vested interest in both Locals, does the Teamster pay dues in both Locals? This is just the highlights of the nightmare that the Teamsters want no part of.

    Personal example... I have two pensions (Local and Western) that exceed Central Region pensions by a mile with seven years seniority in Package and three years seniority in Feeder. I have an ailing father in Missouri (true story)... I should be able to transfer to Missouri for the next opening in Package near my father AND bring my pension with me? Central States Region is reason enough why nationwide transfers for Teamsters won't happen much less dragging pensions along in the process. The animosity would be so thick that it would be unbearable so what would the point be?

    Sent using BrownCafe App
  15. Teamstersavant

    Teamstersavant New Member

    I agree. That's the dilemma im currently faced with myself.

    Sent using BrownCafe App
  16. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    All of these issues could be ironed out rather easily. It not that complicated. The model to look at for how to proceed is the change of operations language.
  17. 959Nanook

    959Nanook Member

    Fine, if they can be ironed out so easily, you can start with the issues raised in this thread. This is an oversimplification that is naive and we have tried to explain why it is complicated. Your proposed "model" language is woefully inadequate for handling the complexities. Change of operations involve one BA's jurisdiction or is at least isolated to the same Local's jurisdiction in the majority of situations? When more than one Local is involved, they are almost always in the same Region or at least contiguous? The intended scope of the change in operations language and allowing nationwide transfers while maintaining original pensions are night and day. This involves EVERY single Rider and Supplement in the nation.

    Have you ever wondered why transfers are only allowed within a Region as it is? What, if anything, has changed to make inter-regional transfers easier? Have you EVER heard IBT or even rank and file Teamsters asking for this enmasse? I will tell you why you will not hear rank and file Teamsters crying out for this... it threatens the institution of seniority. Speaking of seniority... how does the Teamster vest in the gaining Local?

    Sent using BrownCafe App