Maybe for you
Buyout
But that’s why I said this is a ridiculous idea hatched by UPS. It was meant to go against the grain of what contractual items afford bargaining union employees.. equality and fairness.
Is it fair for a package driver going into feeders to have to go to the bottom of the seniority list in feeders?
Is it fair for a package driver to keep his company seniority going into feeders and jump ahead of all those that put in their time working nights just to get bumped off a day job?
Is it fair for a 30 year part time employee to go to the bottom of the full time seniority list when he goes into packages and lose all his company seniority?
Is it fair for a laid off package driver to not be able to work in another center in the same building instead of being laid off?
Is it fair for a package driver not to be able to bid on an open job in another center in the same building?
Is it fair for a package driver not to be able to bid on a feeder opening using his company seniority?
Sorry, but our contract does not promote equality and fairness across the board. There are niche's everywhere.
But when most companies offer a buyout they want to get rid of senior employees.
Getting rid of low seniority drivers doesn’t make much sense to tge bottom line, especially after the company is going to payout over a billion dollars. @thebrownblob said ↗
The big issue with this is that if they went by building seniority, they would have lost a ton of feeder drivers everywhere that they could not afford to lose. Most buildings were package driver heavy, not feeder driver heavy.
So to get rid of those extra package car drivers, they had to allow some lower seniority package drivers get it over higher senior drivers in other centers and feeders.
They could have combined centers and allowed drivers to switch centers if one lost more than they could afford and another one didn't lose that many.
But then here is all the fairness and equality issue again.
A higher senior driver in a center just had 10 drivers above him in seniority just come over to his center. Not very fair.
The fair and equal way to do this would have been building seniority, not center seniority, in a building with multiple centers, all along. But it is not this way in most buildings. So where was the equality and fairness in the contract all along that @brownblob talked about?
I seriously doubt any grievance will have a positive outcome.
I doubt it also. The way the buyout took place seems to be sanctioned by the Union.
Is it fair for a package driver going into feeders to have to go to the bottom of the seniority list in feeders?
Is it fair for a package driver to keep his company seniority going into feeders and jump ahead of all those that put in their time working nights just to get bumped off a day job?
Is it fair for a 30 year part time employee to go to the bottom of the full time seniority list when he goes into packages and lose all his company seniority?
Is it fair for a laid off package driver to not be able to work in another center in the same building instead of being laid off?
Is it fair for a package driver not to be able to bid on an open job in another center in the same building?
Is it fair for a package driver not to be able to bid on a feeder opening using his company seniority?
Sorry, but our contract does not promote equality and fairness across the board. There are niche's everywhere.
I get what you’re saying but personally, I think all those things are “fair”, Because they are uniform across the board and we understand how it works.
Changing the rules, so the buyout went through in a different manner of seniority would be unfair in my opinion.
In reality life‘s not fair, but our contract definitely helps keep things a lot more equal so that the company cannot pit us against each other or play favorites.
If we constantly change those things, then it would be unfair.
I get what you’re saying but personally, I think all those things are “fair”, Because they are uniform across the board and we understand how it works.
Changing the rules, so the buyout went through in a different manner of seniority would be unfair in my opinion.
In reality life‘s not fair, but our contract definitely helps keep things a lot more equal so that the company cannot pit us against each other or play favorites.
And I get what you're saying, but if UPS went by building seniority, they most likely would not have been able to lose the drivers that they needed to lose everywhere.
Offer a buyout to eliminate laid off drivers just to have to hire more feeder drivers and still have the same number of laid off package drivers does not make sense for a buyout.
They went by the only semi fair way to do it, by seniority by center or by feeders, to lose the drivers they needed to lose, mostly.
A few like @gumby paid the price and I hate that happened.
And I get what you're saying, but if UPS went by building seniority, they most likely would not have been able to lose the drivers that they needed to lose everywhere.
Offer a buyout to eliminate laid off drivers just to have to hire more feeder drivers and still have the same number of laid off package drivers does not make sense for a buyout.
They went by the only semi fair way to do it, by seniority by center or by feeders, to lose the drivers they needed to lose, mostly.
A few like @gumby paid the price and I hate that happened.
I don’t have a problem with the way it was handled as far as seniority goes at least in my local. Like I said, I think it was the most fair way although there wasn’t going to be any perfect way.
And I get what you're saying, but if UPS went by building seniority, they most likely would not have been able to lose the drivers that they needed to lose everywhere.
Offer a buyout to eliminate laid off drivers just to have to hire more feeder drivers and still have the same number of laid off package drivers does not make sense for a buyout.
They went by the only semi fair way to do it, by seniority by center or by feeders, to lose the drivers they needed to lose, mostly.
A few like @gumby paid the price and I hate that happened.
If there’s anything I think it is unfair here is that I know for a fact, my local hasn’t seen this agreement so we really can’t speak to what’s in it and I don’t think that is helpful at all. The international should make disagreement available to the local locals or to at least all the locals may be some have seen it, but mine definitely has not.
If someone like @gumby seniority has been violated by letting another employee who would normally not have rights over him get this buyout he deserves an answer. Hard for any local to give 100% answer without understanding the agreement fully.
If there’s anything I think it is unfair here is that I know for a fact, my local hasn’t seen this agreement so we really can’t speak to what’s in it and I don’t think that is helpful at all. The international should make disagreement available to the local locals or to at least all the locals may be some have seen it, but mine definitely has not.
If someone like @gumby seniority has been violated by letting another employee who would normally not have rights over him get this buyout he deserves an answer. Hard for any local to give 100% answer without understanding the agreement fully.
I would donate to a @gumby GoFundMe page to try and raise the $150K he got screwed out of so that he can retire.
I would donate to a @gumby GoFundMe page to try and raise the $150K he got screwed out of so that he can retire.
I know a driver from your neck of the woods who was in the same boat as @gumby
He was denied, with less senior building employees getting it. He talked to his local's President, who is also the BA for UPS. He said he would check into it and get back with him. The President got back with him the next day and told him that he found out that UPS went by seniority. Not facility seniority, but feeder seniority for any feeder buyouts, if any, and then center seniority, by center, separately if more than one center in a building as long as they picked vacations separately.
I would assume the local President talked to Pat Darrow. For those not familiar with Ohio, Pat Darrow is the Secretary Treasurer and Principal Officer of his local, the President of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters, President of Joint Council 41, Assistant Director of the IBT Package Division and sits on the Central Region Negotiating Committee. I'm sure he would know what he is talking about.
Drive about 45 miles North and ask the President of the local for yourself who told him that. Or reach out to Pat Darrow.
Bottom line, this is how UPS did it, as per every post on Social Media, including here, so it is not hearsay.
Whether it is going to stand up in the grievance process, we will see. But I'm sure UPS does not care.
The rumor was that about 10,000 signed up and the agreement limited that to 7,500. Was UPS going to let all 10,000 take it? I don't know. But, if the grievance process plays out and it is decided UPS must go by facility seniority, then UPS will just let anyone who applied get the buyout that had a junior employee in the building get it over them. They are not going to go back and take it away from anyone who already got it.
This could be what UPS wants.
Our local president is telling everybody here that he has not seen the MOU or a list of who applied and who was accepted, so he doesn't know any of that.
That's likely what every PO should be saying at this point.
Our local president is telling everybody here that he has not seen the MOU or a list of who applied and who was accepted, so he doesn't know any of that.
That's likely what every PO should be saying at this point.
That’s what my PO is saying.
That’s what my PO is saying.
Don't you find it kind of strange that they made a deal on Easter Sunday and had given the approvals or denials 2 days later?
Don't you find it kind of strange that they made a deal on Easter Sunday and had given the approvals or denials 2 days later?
Yep, I said there’s no way they could’ve got these completely right in one day. UPS is notorious for screwing things up anyway.
Ideally, it would’ve been better to restart the whole thing and let other people who may have not signed up because the union was telling people not to sign up.
But it is what it is
Yep, I said there’s no way they could’ve got these completely right in one day. UPS is notorious for screwing things up anyway.
I wonder how many people ended up turning it down?
We have had two people in my local
At least that was one good thing in the language.
Not get me wrong a 150k is a lot of cash. But when you do the math the company is getting a pretty good deal.
At least that was one good thing in the language.
Not get me wrong a 150k is a lot of cash. But when you do the math the company is getting a pretty good deal.
Absolutely, they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Absolutely, they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Ive been trying to figure out the math . My number would be 135k or less, just because of the higher tax bracket. Honestly its probably around $3500 a week we get paid with health care and pension.
Log in to reply.