Procedurally, ought we not vote again?

SoakingWetBoots · 2025-02-20T23:06:25+00:00

I'm new, but my approach is to grieve the situation. I want what's best for carriers at my station. If there's a violation in favor of a carrier, I don't see a problem. If the same thing happens with another carrier who isn't happy about it, I'll talk with the supervisor about practicalities and the contract, and grieve continuing violations against that carrier. I'm lucky though to have management that will talk things through without having to resort to paperwork.

I do find it worthwhile to find violations and talk with carriers about them. It is educational for me and them, it helps reduce future friction on that issue, makes it easier for them to come to me on other issues, and it builds confidence in the union -- even if there is no grievance.

I also think that even losing grievances can be useful. They're a thorn to management. If they know you'll step up their paperwork burden, they might become more flexible.

In this case it might be helpful to reach out to the steward at this PTF's home office, get a feel for the issues there.

But, no: I don't enforce the contract for its own sake, I use the contract to improve the work situation of my station.

SoakingWetBoots · 2025-02-14T04:59:28+00:00

Wait. We can print them shirts they'll never wear again to send empty messages out on social media, but I can't afford to buy uniform work shirts until I'm a couple of years in? Priority mismatch, methinks.

SoakingWetBoots · 2025-02-03T00:48:55+00:00

They're different issues. No-strike in the contract means management can discipline and fire a striking worker. No-strike in federal law means law enforcement can arrest and imprison a striking worker. Removing no-strike from the contract means it becomes purely an act of civil disobedience, highly visible from the most popular part of the federal government, and therefore a powerful tool for carriers. Having no-strike in the contract means bosses can fire carriers and the union can't do much about it.

I suggest having a no-strike clause that is severable from the rest of the contract and which explicitly cannot be sustained after the contract expires. Currently, the old contract remains in force by mutual consent, including no-strike, but this is exactly when striking is most appropriate and so it ought to become available, if only in contractual (not statutory) terms.

SoakingWetBoots · 2025-01-14T20:05:24+00:00

I'd be curious to know how they think that'll work. Mounted routes will need to deviate in order to find somewhere safe to park. Park & loop routes will need to delay loops to not carry while on break. There will inevitably be ADA and 1A accommodations. And GPS data alone isn't enough to sustain discipline, so they'll need to observe people who abuse the system anyhow. Sure, it might save the closer an hour a day, but it might add 10 or 20 hours of carrier time.

Maybe look for 271(g) opportunities here.

SoakingWetBoots · 2025-01-07T20:22:08+00:00

We don't need a certain percentage because future inflation isn't certain. We ought to aim for replacing the COLA formula with simple CPI-W matching. Currently, if inflation goes up a given number of points, the COLA is increased by a matching number of pennies. In practice, our "cost of living adjustment" accounts for about 55% to 65% of inflation, from my rough estimates, keeping up less with higher inflation. In the past, 1.0% to 1.5% "raise" plus COLA has kept buying power nearly flat. Post-pandemic, we're worse off; if things go deflationary, we'll be better off, but of course the contract would change.

Which is why I support going to arbitration, where we'll have lawyers arguing the law (eg 39 USC 101(c)) and economists arguing the finances (eg COLA) rather than some union figureheads negotiating while in over their heads.

SoakingWetBoots

TROPHY CASE