Buyout

@wellknownmember said ↗

I was told that the seniority went by how vacations were picked.

If feeders in your building picked vacations separately from package drivers, then there was a separate buyout for feeders and packages, depending on how many the local business needs could let go.

Same with packages. If a building had more than one center and the centers picked vacations separately, then there would be a specific buyout number per center as to how many they can let go.

So yes, a junior employee in the same building, but another center, can get it and a senior driver in another center not get it. Or no feeder drivers get it at all.

The issue is that the original DCP agreement, the one that drivers signed up for, did not say this. The wording said needs of the business per facility by seniority, it did not say per classifications in the facility. The agreement seemed to lean toward facility seniority, which was not followed.

Note that the number of applications that will be approved is not unlimited. Applications will be considered according to the local needs of the business. If the maximum number of applications is exceeded for a specific facility, approvals will be granted in full-time seniority order.

@wally said ↗

That's a raw deal protecting junior union members over senior. Totally unnecessary too. The union should have insisted a top down seniority order be used.

@thebrownblob said ↗

Then guess what would’ve happened?

The constant naysayers and Monday morning quarterbacks like yourself would’ve said the “union made a deal with the company to use seniority differently than normal. It’s an outrage!

@wellknownmember said ↗

I was told that the seniority went by how vacations were picked.

@bubblehead said ↗

Who told you that?

@gumby said ↗

I want my turkey

@thebrownblob said ↗

Then guess what would’ve happened?

The constant naysayers and Monday morning quarterbacks like yourself would’ve said the “union made a deal with the company to use seniority differently than normal. It’s an outrage!

@wally said ↗

Not me, I've been through center merges where company union time ruled. It is what it is. People understand, "That guy was here longer".

I believe in this very unique case, time in should rule. These guys put their time in, have seniority. Some guy with 10 less years bumping a senior driver is total bullsheetrock!

@bubblehead said ↗

Who told you that?

@wellknownmember said ↗

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.

@wellknownmember said ↗

That is all speculation. Whether a grievance will even be heard is also speculation. I guessed on what the outcome of a grievance may look like and the number of buyouts UPS wanted to do.

What is not speculation, or a guess, is how UPS decided who got the buyout and who didn't and it does seem to be sanctioned by the Union.

It does make some sense. If a building had 30 laid off package drivers and no laid off feeder drivers, and a large number of these feeder drivers had more seniority than the highest senior package drivers, what does UPS do?

Do they allow 20 buyouts for the building? What if all 20 went to feeder drivers? Now they are short 20 feeder drivers and still have 30 laid off package drivers.

One could say that the package drivers could then fill the feeder vacancies. What if they don't want to go into feeders? You could be forcing a package driver into feeders just to work, and then he has to be trained.

UPS then would have to train 20 feeder drivers, where, if the package drivers got the buyout, they don't have to train anyone. They would just bring back some laid off drivers.

Was this the right way to do it? It is the right way to do it based on business needs, but not necessarily fair to some higher senior drivers.

We are just going to have to accept what our Union negotiated, like it or not.

@wellknownmember said ↗

That is all speculation. Whether a grievance will even be heard is also speculation. I guessed on what the outcome of a grievance may look like and the number of buyouts UPS wanted to do.

What is not speculation, or a guess, is how UPS decided who got the buyout and who didn't and it does seem to be sanctioned by the Union.

It does make some sense. If a building had 30 laid off package drivers and no laid off feeder drivers, and a large number of these feeder drivers had more seniority than the highest senior package drivers, what does UPS do?

Do they allow 20 buyouts for the building? What if all 20 went to feeder drivers? Now they are short 20 feeder drivers and still have 30 laid off package drivers.

One could say that the package drivers could then fill the feeder vacancies. What if they don't want to go into feeders? You could be forcing a package driver into feeders just to work, and then he has to be trained.

UPS then would have to train 20 feeder drivers, where, if the package drivers got the buyout, they don't have to train anyone. They would just bring back some laid off drivers.

Was this the right way to do it? It is the right way to do it based on business needs, but not necessarily fair to some higher senior drivers.

We are just going to have to accept what our Union negotiated, like it or not.

@wellknownmember said ↗

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.

Yes, most likely we will have to accept it.

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.

In a contract, everyone gets the same thing when the company decides some people are left out. Like I said, no matter what happened because of the company being in charge of this someone was going to be disappointed. There was no way to satisfy.

@gumby said ↗

I seriously doubt any grievance will have a positive outcome.

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 ↗

That's what I tried telling my wife.

How long should I stick around here and still no get a favorable outcome?

@oldngray said ↗

If you win the grievance you get to go back to work?

@gumby said ↗

I seriously doubt any grievance will have a positive outcome.

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 ↗

That's what I tried telling my wife.

How long should I stick around here and still no get a favorable outcome?

@oldngray said ↗

If you win the grievance you get to go back to work?

@thebrownblob said ↗

2028 so we can fire up the strike bunker?