UPS Driver Responds to the Haters

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
And delivery driving isn't Union work? And we put a stop to using laid off delivery drivers in the car wash.
There you go twister story some more. You already know you’re a liar. It’s full-time work and you’ve allowed the company to violate the contract year after year. You have no desire to see it fixed because it benefits you but not the people who are below you.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Does that require the company to keep a bench of delivery drivers on the clock in case something comes up?
Doesn’t sound like they would have a bench if they have an “emergency” every day now does it genius? These amazing daily “emergencies” could be handled by the people who are supposed to be doing it.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
Hey jackass, don’t tell me what the Central region says I’m in the central region, and I’ve taken several of those cases to the panel and to the air committee and the problem was solved by adding more full-time driver’s, you do know those are union members, right? The ones you’ve been allowing the company to stick it up their ass for 40 years while bitching and moaning about part-time pay? I’ve asked you more than once to tell me what Location you’re in so I can help you fix this problem but you’re too much of a coward to tell me. You are a cancer to the union and a scab for the company.
You said “The company does not need to be incentivized, we have a contract.”

The contract says the company must use union members before management, which is what he’s doing.

He is doing nothing wrong. Morally or contractually. The company clearly thinks it is cheaper to pay him to do the bargaining work instead of creating a full time job. He clearly would rather do what he’s doing then sign a full time bid list

The only solution is to create incentive for the company to WANT to create more full time jobs, which would be to increase the pay for part time work, so it is cheaper to pay 1 full time guy to do the work instead of 2 part timers
 
There you go twister story some more. You already know you’re a liar. It’s full-time work and you’ve allowed the company to violate the contract year after year. You have no desire to see it fixed because it benefits you but not the people who are below you.
What is FT work anymore? We have FT and PT working next to each other performing the same job? Yet one makes twice the wage as the other just because he has a friend after his name instead of a P. Or in my case I make the same as a FT and more then a 22.3 or 22.4?
 

BadIdeaGuy

Moderator
Staff member
You said “The company does not need to be incentivized, we have a contract.”

The contract says the company must use union members before management, which is what he’s doing.

He is doing nothing wrong. Morally or contractually. The company clearly thinks it is cheaper to pay him to do the bargaining work instead of creating a full time job. He clearly would rather do what he’s doing then sign a full time bid list

The only solution is to create incentive for the company to WANT to create more full time jobs, which would be to increase the pay for part time work, so it is cheaper to pay 1 full time guy to do the work instead of 2 part timers
Almost every other local has said you are wrong.

Until you have read your contract, and understand it, I don’t expect your contributions to this conversation to be particularly productive.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
You said “The company does not need to be incentivized, we have a contract.”

The contract says the company must use union members before management, which is what he’s doing.

He is doing nothing wrong. Morally or contractually. The company clearly thinks it is cheaper to pay him to do the bargaining work instead of creating a full time job. He clearly would rather do what he’s doing then sign a full time bid list

The only solution is to create incentive for the company to WANT to create more full time jobs, which would be to increase the pay for part time work, so it is cheaper to pay 1 full time guy to do the work instead of 2 part timers
The contract says groundwork is for ground drivers. Continually using air drivers to do that work is a violation of the contract pure and simple.

For example, here we had ground work for air drivers for several months in a row grievance was filed, and it was determined another full-time job was necessary, and they could no longer use the air drivers in such a way continually. The company was obliged to follow the contract by hiring more full-time workers.
 
You said “The company does not need to be incentivized, we have a contract.”

The contract says the company must use union members before management, which is what he’s doing.

He is doing nothing wrong. Morally or contractually. The company clearly thinks it is cheaper to pay him to do the bargaining work instead of creating a full time job. He clearly would rather do what he’s doing then sign a full time bid list

The only solution is to create incentive for the company to WANT to create more full time jobs, which would be to increase the pay for part time work, so it is cheaper to pay 1 full time guy to do the work instead of 2 part timers
What I don't understand is why has it been it the Unions interest to have minimum wage PT Union members? I can see the company wanting to keep the Union divided and a transit majority labor force. But why the Union?
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
Almost every other local has said you are wrong.

Until you have read your contract, and understand it, I don’t expect your contributions to this conversation to be particularly productive.
What did I say was wrong? Trust me, I love to learn and will admit so if I am.

You’re saying the contract does not say the company must use union members to do union work before management can do the work?
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
What is FT work anymore? We have FT and PT working next to each other performing the same job? Yet one makes twice the wage as the other just because he has a friend after his name instead of a P. Or in my case I make the same as a FT and more then a 22.3 or 22.4?
This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about but thank you for trying to squeeze it into something that we don’t control.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
What did I say was wrong? Trust me, I love to learn and will admit so if I am.

You’re saying the contract does not say the company must use union members to do union work before management can do the work?
You’re confusing, the practice of “continually” violating the contract, which is what’s happening here. Naturally, if there’s no other choice always better to use union members but if it’s happening all the time it’s clear it needs to be made a full-time job. As the contract says.
 
The contract says groundwork is for ground drivers. Continually using air drivers to do that work is a violation of the contract pure and simple.

For example, here we had ground work for air drivers for several months in a row grievance was filed, and it was determined another full-time job was necessary, and they could no longer use the air drivers in such a way continually. The company was obliged to follow the contract by hiring more full-time workers.
We did the same and only use air drivers for exceptions. Of course since I am the highest seniority air driver both FT or PT and the most experienced it often falls on my shoulders. I have been trying to give the work to other air drivers but they prefer to pick and choose what they want to do.
 

BadIdeaGuy

Moderator
Staff member
What did I say was wrong? Trust me, I love to learn and will admit so if I am.

You’re saying the contract does not say the company must use union members to do union work before management can do the work?
You don’t want to learn here. You came in with your mind made up.

He should be used to deliver ground. In emergencies.

Real emergencies. The rest of the time, the work should go to an adequately staffed group of RPCDs or 25.13s.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
We did the same and only use air drivers for exceptions. Of course since I am the highest seniority air driver both FT or PT and the most experienced it often falls on my shoulders. I have been trying to give the work to other air drivers but they prefer to pick and choose what they want to do.
The word “continual” is a subjective word. That’s why it has to be brought to a panel. Because the company will abuse it.
 
You’re confusing, the practice of “continually” violating the contract, which is what’s happening here. Naturally, if there’s no other choice always better to use union members but if it’s happening all the time it’s clear it needs to be made a full-time job. As the contract says.
I guess our differences is the frequency. Most weeks I get no extra ground work and other weeks (last 2 weeks) I end up working a few 10 or 12 hour days including car wash. I admit I do perform air work almost everyday. Vacations and disabilities.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
The contract says groundwork is for ground drivers. Continually using air drivers to do that work is a violation of the contract pure and simple.

For example, here we had ground work for air drivers for several months in a row grievance was filed, and it was determined another full-time job was necessary, and they could no longer use the air drivers in such a way continually. The company was obliged to follow the contract by hiring more full-time workers.
So, multiple people grieved, it cost the company money and they were incentivized to create a full time job

Clearly no one is grieving the work at his building then right? So no one must really care. The company is happy doing what they’re doing, he’s happy doing what he’s doing, and no one else wants to be doing that work or otherwise they would he grieving and fixing the problem, like what Happened in your building

Like I said, if you want the company to create more jobs, make it so it makes it more sense for them to do so. It’s cheaper to pay one guy to do full time work rather than two part timers to do the same work, except in our case when there is such a massive wage gap between full and part timers. How is that wrong?

Why do you expect him to grieve for work that he wants to do to take hours and pay away from himself to create a position that apparently no one else is fighting over?
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
So, multiple people grieved, it cost the company money and they were incentivized to create a full time job

Clearly no one is grieving the work at his building then right? So no one must really care. The company is happy doing what they’re doing, he’s happy doing what he’s doing, and no one else wants to be doing that work or otherwise they would he grieving and fixing the problem, like what Happened in your building

Like I said, if you want the company to create more jobs, make it so it makes it more sense for them to do so. It’s cheaper to pay one guy to do full time work rather than two part timers to do the same work, except in our case when there is such a massive wage gap between full and part timers. How is that wrong?

Why do you expect him to grieve for work that he wants to do to take hours and pay away from himself to create a position that apparently no one else is fighting over?
Because it’s not his job? Because he’s the one constantly on here getting you whipped up about part-time pay? Because he tries to act high mighty about contractual language, and how bad the contracts are, and yet he violates it daily, knowingly, even gloats about it? So in your opinion, the company doesn’t need to follow a contract and as far as you know, nobody wants to do the work? Or maybe they just don’t know about it because of people like him? Or maybe people like you? What other things do you think we should allow the company to do as long as nobody says anything?
 
Top