UPS Cannot Take Away MRA?

Yeet

Not gonna let ‘em catch the Midnight Rider
Some get outright irate if they work past 5 PM.
This is one thing I don’t get. I mean, I get it, different strokes and all but I didn’t pursue this line of work for over a decade making pennies if I didn’t think I would cash in later. I climbed the ladder, I’m here and you’re going to pay me. A lot. 8 hour days don’t provide the paychecks I’m after.
 

JustDeliverIt

Well-Known Member
This is one thing I don’t get. I mean, I get it, different strokes and all but I didn’t pursue this line of work for over a decade making pennies if I didn’t think I would cash in later. I climbed the ladder, I’m here and you’re going to pay me. A lot. 8 hour days don’t provide the paychecks I’m after.

And when was this ever a 9 to 5 job. If you don’t understand the situation going in that’s on the individual.
 

PT Car Washer

Well-Known Member
This is one thing I don’t get. I mean, I get it, different strokes and all but I didn’t pursue this line of work for over a decade making pennies if I didn’t think I would cash in later. I climbed the ladder, I’m here and you’re going to pay me. A lot. 8 hour days don’t provide the paychecks I’m after.
You can always use your seniority to demand more work. I am sure the dispatcher will accommodate you.
 

JustDeliverIt

Well-Known Member
An hour or two of bonus paid at OT rate each day is an incentive to work a little harder.

We are not a bonus center so if that works for people then fine. But much like everything with this company, you show them more and they take time away from you. End up screwing yourselves. In the end work at a good, safe pace and you’re done when you’re done.
 

Yeet

Not gonna let ‘em catch the Midnight Rider
That eventually they will adjust completely away and expect you to do the same amount of work, because you demonstrated you could
I used to work at a local grocery chain warehouse in my late teens that paid you by how fast you filled orders. We would run our asses off and make around 180% of the standard which was about $22 an hour back then. Every few months they would send an auditor to watch you fill an order and he would adjust the time allowed if you did it quickly. So of course if we saw someone watching us with a clipboard we would drop anchor.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
I used to work at a local grocery chain warehouse in my late teens that paid you by how fast you filled orders. We would run our asses off and make around 180% of the standard which was about $22 an hour back then. Every few months they would send an auditor to watch you fill an order and he would adjust the time allowed if you did it quickly. So of course if we saw someone watching us with a clipboard we would drop anchor.
Had a driver next to me in my loop who constantly ran his ass off had a lot of pick ups and usually got a couple hours of bonus. He bust out 150 stops and then pick up seven or 800 pieces by 5 o’clock eventually they coded all his work out to basically nothing and now the same amount of work nets him Close to an hour over allowed every day, got him self caught in the trick bag.
 

msbusterbrown

Buster: a person that stops or prevents something
Don't really have any idea for certain, and I'm guessing I'm interpreting the language wrong if no one has mentioned it yet, but the NMA has this language under Article 22, Section 5(e): "Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above in Section (b), as a result of a Market Rate Adjustment, shall not have their hourly rate reduced due to the implementation of this Article." That's essentially what's happening effective (whenever UPS is choosing to take the MRA away, which I'm guessing is after January 15th, 2022 nationwide).

It doesn't really make sense for the company to be permanently unable to reduce the pay rate to pre-MRA levels, but that said the language SEEMS to say that once an MRA has been implemented to raise the pay rate above the contractual minimum ("Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above...") the pay rate cannot go back down to the contractual rate ("...shall not have their hourly rate reduced due to the implementation of this Article".)

I know how UPS would get around it for seasonal re-hires, since their offer for permanent employment also includes the pay rate that they will be dropped to ($15.00/hr, the contractual minimum, at least for the hub I work out of, which I'm guessing is going to be applicable to most, if not all, hubs nationwide). That said, those who had already attained seniority are not accepting a new, permanent job offer that stipulates their pay rate as being less than the MRA rate that they were raised to, so those employees are losing upwards of $5.00/hr without exactly "agreeing" to it as seasonal re-hires are.

The only other thing I can think of as far as the intent of that language is that if the company chooses to pay people a greater pay rate (as it has at various hubs nationwide, at differing rates for different regions, through the implementation of the MRA), the contract language essentially can't dictate that the company HAS to pay the contractual rate, even if it's less. But that seems to be something that's assumed by default, since why WOULDN'T the union want employees to make a higher pay rate (at the very least because union dues are calculated based on one's pay rate)?

In addition, Article 22, Section 5(c) states as follows: "The wage rates and increases provided in (a) and (b) shall be a minimum." So that language is already stating that the company CAN pay a higher rate if they choose to do so. It's basically the loophole that's been exploited for a while now to allow the company to pay new hires bonuses that make their effective pay rate greater than that of seniority employees. If Article 22, Section 5(e) is actually saying that the company can implement an MRA to raise pay rates and that contractual language cannot force the company to pay a lesser rate, then it's redundant to have Section 5(e) in addition to Section 5(c).

Does anyone knows what this language might mean other than what I'm interpreting it as? Might it just be redundancy? I know contract language is oftentimes intentionally left vague so that it can be interpreted as it suits the company/union depending on who brings up the argument of the language being vague, but this is a pretty high level of redundancy, and it's not separated by multiple pages to explain it as being due to forgetting that some language had already been mentioned, as both sections are part of Article 22. So what's going on in this case
The language is in there to protect the union workers’ wages.
How do you know it’s a MRA?
If the interpretation of the language is disagreed upon then article 8 tells you how to get an interpretation.
 

msbusterbrown

Buster: a person that stops or prevents something
It’s written to protect “Seniority employees” who already have a wage higher then the implemented MRA.

Essentially a 10 year employee who already makes let’s say $20 an hour based on contractual raises, can not have their wages regress to what the new MRA is.
I'm just going to say in advance that I'm typing certain things in all caps to emphasize, not to yell.

So now that you mention it I didn't interpret the language that way because of the wording. It just doesn't seem to be how anyone would interpret the language at first glance. If that was the intent of the language, why is it worded in this order: "Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above in Section (b), as a result of a Market Rate Adjustment..." It seems to say that IF you're receiving a rate higher than Article 22, Section (b), AS A RESULT of a Market Rate Adjustment, then...

So it seems to be referring to employees who are receiving an hourly rate that is higher DUE TO the Market Rate Adjustment. If the language was intended to say what you mentioned, then the wording would be swapped, like this: Seniority part-time employees who are receiving an hourly rate higher than set forth above in Section (b), shall not have their hourly rate reduced AS A RESULT OF A MARKET RATE ADJUSTMENT.

At least, I see no reason to make the language unnecessarily difficult to interpret by phrasing it the way it is phrased if the intent was to state what you stated. If the company were to claim that that was the intent of the language, I think any arbitrator would say that it flies in the face of typical reading comprehension to interpret the language in that manner.

I can't imagine a situation where a market rate adjustment results in a DECREASE in pay rate (economically speaking, technically it would be possible in a situation where the labor market is inundated with a surplus of workers and a company knows it can pay less and get just as many workers since there will be more than enough people willing to do it for less as long as they, at the very least, have a job). Anytime the words "market rate adjustment" are mentioned it's automatically assumed that the pay rate is increasing, based on a cursory Google search.
Superteeth2478, it’s not specific. You’re correct in saying that it is vague. A seniority employee part-time is defined as working on past their 30 days of work (90 days consecutively). So this would be any seniority employee (not limited to ones before 2018 because it doesn’t say that). A 22 S 5 A is specific in writing that.. (.. as of August 2018..) Furthermore (e) references schedule (b) for the newly hired part-time employees (and additionally if schedule (a) ends up in a lower raise for all part-time employees who attained seniority as of August 2018 they get the (b) schedule raise.) if (e) references (b) it is including all the above part-time employees (with seniority). So you again are correct in mentioning redundancy, (c) says the wages in these schedules are minimums but in (e) if employees are receiving an hourly rate higher ‘as a result of a market rate adjustment’ (that’s important) It’s Just like COLA’s, if the index go down one year, they cannot take a prior raise away, it becomes a fixed part of base income.
 
Here’s a great example:
bonus driver let’s say his name is Jim does about 220 stops every day in about eight hours. Naturally Jim skips his lunch runs his ass off and God knows what else to get that done every day. The company loves him right?

Bonus driver Jim puts in for an eight hour day he’s got kids baseball game to get to the company gives him 225 stops Jim comes to me and says I can’t do 220 stops I go to the company and they say Jim does 220 stops every day before eight hours I tell Jim go out and do the best you can and if you need help call Center.

Jim wants an easier day for his eight hour day but the company doesn’t care so Jim calls the center and asked for help after he did about 175 stops and gets help and then magically he starts getting followed and getting discipline for not grabbing the handrail, not using his flashers, not honking his horn, not calling out UPS at every stop, running and jumping to deliver packages.

Jim went from superstar to discipline King just like that.

Don’t be Jim.
Stop chasing bonus work at a pace you can do for 30 years
So moral of the story is don’t be a Jim ?
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Bonus is paid at the same rate as overtime
Agreed bonuses paid at the same rate as overtime. The issue comes in when Jimbo wants an eight hour day. Now Jimbo has to run his nuts off to get close to the numbers he always runs. Most drivers can do that for a few years until the body starts to wear down. And the bonus starts to get dwindled away by I.E manipulating the pick up and area codes.
 
Top