Contract Changes Summary Part 1 Note: I had intended to just make this one post, but its freaking huge and its taking me forever to type up explanations of all the changes, so Im going to just post it in parts over the next few days as Im able to finish different sections. For those of you who were unable to attend the contract explanation meetings at the union hall on Thursday, I am going to give you a summary of the changes to the contract that were discussed. I attended both meetings, and felt both went very well. There were a lot of questions from the members who attended that Business Agent Brian Hamm, and President Zuckerman answered. At one point in the second meeting President Zuckerman was asked whether he would run against Hoffa/Hall in 2016. He briefly explained that he couldn’t answer that question during an official union meeting (that would be considered a campaign action which cannot be done at such a meeting), but said that he would do everything he could to ensure that they would not be re-elected in 2016, which caused loud applause from those gathered. One piece of bad news that I do want to explain before I get into the changes in the contract, President Zuckerman updated us on where we stood from a legal standpoint on the contract being implemented. Local 89 hired several lawyers to look into our options, even bringing one of the writers of Article 12 of the IBT constitution out of retirement as an advisor. Unfortunately, the legal team came to the conclusion that due to the wording of Article 12, Section 6 that gives the IBT the right to modify Article 12 if they feel it is in the best interests of the union, what they did in forcing the contract on Louisville, Philadelphia, and Western Pennsylvania, was legal and cannot be fought in court. Morally wrong, absolutely, but sadly we can’t press charges based on morality. President Zuckerman, in response to a question about what we could do to stop this from happening again in the future, explained that we have two options. One would be to elect strong delegates across the country to attend the next IBT convention and call for an amendment to Article 12 of the constitution there. The second option is the one many of us have already been talking about; voting Hoffa/Hall out of office in 2016 so they won’t be involved in future negotiations at all. A piece of good news to follow that, Business Agent Brian Hamm announced that as of Wednesday night, he heard a grievance with the company about the 125 full time jobs that the company owed us from the last contract, but did not fill until after August 1st. Local 89 took the position that those jobs were part of the 2008-2013 contract and therefore should fall under the 3 year progression from that contract, rather than the 4 year progression from the new contract. Local 89 was successful in this grievance, and all 125 of the jobs owed to us from the prior contract WILL be under the prior 3 year progression. Any part-time employees who went into one of those full-time jobs will have their progression freeze end three years after the date that they went full-time. Brian explained that had the company forced the four year progression on these members, it would have cost each one of them 15-16,000 dollars in that extra year of progression. This was a major win for those 125 members which will surely come as great news to them and their families. Now, on to the changes in our local contract. I will be listing the Article first, then explaining the change as best I can. Article 2, Section A. The contract used to say that the company only had the right to modify the work week during December and during any week in conjunction with a recognized holiday. The new contract expanded that to allow them to modify the work week during the week after Thanksgiving, and the week after New Years/New Years Day. This was a company proposal that the Local 89 negotiating committee rejected, but the company put it back into their final offer, which our membership then rejected by 94%, but was ultimately forced on us by Hoffa/Hall and the IBT. Article 2, Section G. This is a new section in the contract that our committee typically referred to as the 7:00-7:30 proposal. Previously in the Housekeeping/Hub department, the company would occasionally change a full-time employees start time, but not allow that employee to exercise seniority rights outside of the building they worked in, despite the fact that all Housekeeping employees are under the same management team. For example, say you were the top senior in the Housekeeping department and you worked in Wing B. The company would come to you and say that they were going to change your start time from 7:00 to 8:00. All the junior housekeepers in other buildings were remaining at 7:00, and the company would not allow you to use your seniority to move to another area in order to keep your start time. This language was an attempt by Local 89 to fix that problem. What it basically says is that if a FT housekeeper/hub employee has their start time change for 5 consecutive work days by a half hour or more, they then have the right to use their seniority to move into the most junior employees building to keep their normal start time, and the most junior employee must then move into the assignment and start time left by the senior employee. Article 2, Section H. This is a new section in the contract that our committee fought for and won. It grants 6 hour employees the right to a 30 hour work week, and basically mirrors the language that gives full time employees the right to a 40 hour work week. In the event that there is going to be a layoff day for a 6 hour employee, that employee may request to be given 30 hours of work, and the company will grant it. As with full-time employees, if there is no work to do on a given day, the company has the right to offer the 6 hour employee work on a different shift in order to give them their guarantee. Article 3, Section A. There were two changes in this article. Change number 1: This was a simple change to add ULD/Container Repair to the list of job assignments. Change number 2: This was a company counter proposal to establish a belt maintenance mechanic review committee to give the union the right to review maintenance work that is done by subcontractors, and allow us to attempt to challenge whether we feel that work should be ours or not. Local 89’s actual proposal on this issue called for a complete end to subcontracting (which will be mentioned a few more times later). Local 89 has taken the position that there is a lot of work being done at Worldport by outside vendors that is the same type of work that we do, and therefore should be given to union employees in order to create more full-time jobs. The company disputes this, of course, but our committee argued strongly for this proposal. This review committee language was what the company countered our demands with. It is nowhere near what we were actually fighting for, and it was rejected along with the rest of the contract by the membership, but again, the IBT forced the contract on us, so it is the language that is now in effect. Local 89 is establishing its side of this review committee and will do its best to utilize this language to help us for the time being. Article 3, Section B. This section has multiple changes related to part-time transfers. Our negotiating committee felt that there were a number of problems with UPS’s part-time transfer lists and sought several different solutions to the problems we felt were most prevalent. Change number 1: In the last contract, and all the ones that I can recall before that, the company had the right to freeze transfers during what we call “prime vacation”, which is May, June, July, and August. That, along with the freeze during November and December of peak season left us with only six months out of the year where part-time employees could transfer into better jobs. Local 89 felt the prime vacation freeze made it much harder for our members to move into better part time jobs during the summer, when UPS is typically hiring many employees fresh out of high school into good jobs, and we were successful in reducing this by two months. The prime vacation freeze will now only include the months of July and August, giving us eight months out of the year that transfers will now be available. This should greatly help improve upward mobility into better part-time jobs for our members. Change number 2: Our negotiating committee was successful in getting the process for transferring into a 6 hour job overhauled. 6 hour jobs will now be posted and awarded in a system that will basically mimic how existing full time jobs are done. These transfers wont be called a bid as that term is used exclusively for FT offers and has other language tied to it, but it is more or less the same. Whenever 6 hour jobs become available they will be posted in the middle of the week and at that point all employees who are interested can then put their name on the list for those jobs. The postings will then be taken down the same day on the following week, and the job or jobs will be awarded no less than 10 days after the list being taken down. Any employees awarded positions will then be posted so that everyone can see who received the jobs and what their seniority is. Now, this will require us, as the employees, to be more vigilant and get into the habit of checking BID/X once a week if we are looking for a 6 hour transfer, similar to how you do for a FT job right now, which some will see as a drawback. However it will be a far more efficient system that doesnt cause people to waste their transfer options by putting their name on tons of lists all at the same time and then declining a job they didnt really want. Now youll have the ability to see more specifics about what the job is and then you can decide whether to put your name down. It will also give a much better indication of where you stand on getting a 6 hour transfer as the list will be live, rather than one that is only updated to remove old names once a year as is the current case. The first 6 hour jobs using this new system were posted on Wednesday night, May 21st, and will be taken down the following Wednesday. If I recall correctly, there were three work areas posted, Worldport Wing Ramp, Hub, and Remote Ramp, and each of these areas were asking for multiple employees. Around 30 jobs, in total. All you do is go to the 6 hour transfer tab on BID/X like you always have, and you’ll see the new system that looks almost identical to the full-time bid system. Look at the different jobs that are up, and if you are interested in one of them, click the button to add your name and then see where you stand on the list. Change number 3: This change is actually worked into the midst of the 6 hour transfer language above. In addition to having to post a list of all 6 hour jobs that were awarded, the company now must post lists of all 3 hour jobs that were awarded. There has always been an “awarded positions” tab on the BID/X page, but it is seldom if ever updated, so no one ever knows if they were skipped, or if there are even people getting transfers at all. This will correct that. All three of these changes bring much needed updates to the part-timers ability to transfer, as well as a great deal of transparency to the entire process, which it has been sorely lacking for a long time. Article 3, Section C. This article used to describe how full time employees received overtime for their 6th day of work. Three words were added “and part-time” so that now this section also applies to 3 hour and 6 hour employees as well. What this seemingly insignificant change does is alter what day of work counts as the 6th day for a part-time employee. For example, in the past if you were Monday through Friday and you double shifted on Sunday, that would be considered the start of your work week, and you would receive your 6th day overtime on your normal Friday night. This language changes that to mirror how full time employees currently receive 6th day pay. Now, in that same example of you being Monday through Friday and double shifting on Sunday, the Sunday shift would be considered your 6th day, and you would receive your overtime on that sort, and normal time on the Friday sort. This was a company proposal. The Local 89 negotiating committee rejected this on the grounds that it will cause a reduction in overtime hours for part-time employees that double shift for a 6th day. Normally an employee will receive less time on a Sunday than they would have on their normal Friday shift, so having their overtime moved to Sunday now will result in fewer hours at the overtime rate. Despite our committee’s rejection, the company added this back into their final offer, which was rejected by 94%, but was then forcibly enacted by the Hoffa/Hall and the IBT, and so the language now stands. Article 3, Section D. In negotiations the Local 89 committee fought for major changes to the company’s de-ice procedures. This was one of the issues we argued over the longest. The language that was updated in the contract is not what we were fighting for, it was a company counter offer that they felt attempted to fix our issues. It gives us two 10% de-ice opt-outs over the life of this contract. The first will be done later this summer. The second is to be offered in the third year, so it will be done next summer. While this does not correct the general issues we have with how the company chooses it’s de-ice employees, it will still allow many full-time employees who do not wish to de-ice the opportunity to get out of that work. Article 3, Section G. This was another item that the Local 89 negotiating committee and the company argued over for a long time, and will bring a much needed improvement to 3 hour employees during peak season. In the past, 3 hour employees received a single ten minute break during their sort, which for most of the year is decent enough. Unfortunately, during peak season 3 hour employees typically work much, much longer hours, and as we had no language for a second break, we wouldn’t receive one until state law dictated that we get one which is after we’ve worked eight hours. What would often happen is that an employee would get a break in the first hour or two of their sort, and then would wind up working seven and a half hours, so they’d never be given a second break. I’m a 3 hour employee myself, so I knew how badly this needed to be corrected. The Local 89 negotiating committee was successful in winning new language that will give three hour employees a second break once they have reached six hours of work during the months of November and December. While we would have preferred for this language to be applied the entire year, there’s only a small amount of sorts outside of peak season where a three hour would be expected to work more than six hours, and so having this apply during November and December should cover the vast majority of the times we work very extended sorts. This is very good language for 3 hour employees, and will bring much needed relief to them during peak season months. Part 2 will hopefully be coming in the next few days.
Posted on: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:37:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015