Why do they even write these things if they are going to have wording in master ups contract that disallows sections? Complete waste of time, and it is throughout the contract.
Taken from same section of book how many different ways can you word it:
- (a) Notwithstanding any provision in any Supplements, Riders or Addendum the progressions set forth in Sections 2(c) and 3 below will be controlling with regard to any employee entering a full-time job after August 1, 2013 covered by those Sections.
- This Sub-section shall supersede any provision to the contrary in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum.
Yeah..Cant figure it out myself. One of the troubles with the contract language is they are written by lawyers, to be understood by lawyers and /or be to be interpreted by lawyers on a later period, not written in clear precise meaning or intent. Basically you are voting on the the contract with half the information required.
It is called the "Dumbing Down Effect", the purpose is to keep the majority in the dark on what they are voting for, add that to the voter apathy and you can guarantee passage. Seriously what percentage of the membership knows what is going on or care (5 %).
My supplement will affect my pension benefit and health and welfare coverages, they do have a major impact. The Central Supplement is a big one, it covers a majority of the members (got voted down on the first ballot in 2013).
I do have an issue with the young, uninformed part time vote effecting language that would reduce or eliminate any senior full time pension or health and welfare benefits. I expect much the same with this contract if it goes to vote, a great effort to gather the newly hired part time vote in order to pass the (Master). Then it will be easier to ambush the supplements, really I understand the term brotherhood but It grieves me that my over 40 year, informed vote will be cancelled out by a 19 year old part timer with 3 months.
I am guessing that both the Union and Company have statistics to who been voting on previous contracts (full-time, part-time and seniority) from difference regions. It would be a good guess that a vast majority of the membership who voted (No) last contract were high seniority, informed Full Timers.
