UPS Cannot Take Away MRA?

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?
 
Last edited:

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
Well, those calls for assistance from @Bubblehead and @BigUnionGuy are pretty much the best answers, honestly! They butt heads and are oftentimes at odds with one another but I'm sure both agree that the other is well-informed at least some of the time.
 

Brown287

Im not the Mail Man!
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.
 

Superteeth2478

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
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?
When was this language "implemented"?
 

eats packages

Deranged lunatic
It's all whack right now. An employee who is at $15 will earn $1 then get the MRA all the way up to $27. State minimum goes up to $15.75 in the same time. Company reduces MRA to $21.

Your "real union rate" is whatever historical culmination of union and state minimum wage rates and increases occurred during this time. Plus local agreements. It's a real mess. My PT rate would barely scratch $17 still
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
I guess if you consider a few Dollars more important then quality home time.
We have multiple centers in our building. All three were bonus centers, one center voted it out. Guess what happened? About 10 new routes were added as well as new drivers. The bonus babies are often injured have more accidents and make sure new drivers are not hired. And don’t even get me started on the fact that the company can almost always find a reason to discipline or terminate someone chasing bonus. I always get a chuckle when the company decides you made too much bonus and they change The allowance and Drivers think they can file a grievance on the bonus numbers.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
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
 

Poop Head

Judge me.
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
Jim shoulda known better and just called in.
 
Top