Superteeth2478
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
Last edited: