System maintenance completed. Please clear your browser cache and log in again.

Post history

View previous revisions and diffs for this post.
Hide history
Edited 22d ago by thebrownblob
The union is using article 6 to say this is an extra contract agreement. It’s kind of a weak argument. It’s 100% voluntary.local 710 in Chicago didn’t win a very similar case a few months ago. The company has pretty much won every one of these that I’ve ever heard of:payingofPaying people a market rate adjustmentpayingadjustmentPaying people ato show up bonusandbonusIn my opinionThe driveropinionDriver bonus program, that the company implemented against the will of the union and they don’t really even recognize. I understand the thought process behind the lawsuit. I just don’t think it’s going to win.
Rendered before/after
Before

The union is using article 6 to say this is an extra contract agreement. It’s kind of a weak argument. It’s 100% voluntary.

local 710 in Chicago didn’t win a very similar case a few months ago.

The company has pretty much won every one of these that I’ve ever heard of

Paying people a market rate adjustment

Paying people to show up bonus

In my opinion

Driver bonus program, that the company implemented against the will of the union and they don’t really even recognize.

I understand the thought process behind the lawsuit. I just don’t think it’s going to win.

After

The union is using article 6 to say this is an extra contract agreement. It’s kind of a weak argument.

It’s 100% voluntary.local 710 in Chicago didn’t win a very similar case a few months ago. The company has pretty much won every one of these that I’ve ever heard of:

paying people a market rate adjustment

paying people a show up bonus

and my opinion

The driver bonus program, that the company implemented against the will of the union and they don’t really even recognize.

I understand the thought process behind the lawsuit. I just don’t think it’s going to win.