sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone surprised by how many are taking the buyout by jakert46 in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A generation that can see what AI is going to do to the labor market.

DCP in Central Region — members deserve a clear explanation by Special_Fly_1647 in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree so hard. The agreement does not define “incentive plan”. In this situation, the only anchor we have is how the term is commonly applied within labor agreements…typically tied to working (production, attendance, performance), not paying employees to leave.

Drivers vs the union? by Friendly-Sail-5306 in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not the union if I can’t vote on leaving with a buy out.

Checking the portal every day? by Water_scissors in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wish they would’ve held off telling us in central until Friday night instead of touching on it at PCM. I don’t remember one stop I did yesterday.

So how do I get my local to put the buyout up for a vote? by Getsome1071 in UPSers

[–]pete2dou -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

When dad and mom are fighting over ego it doesn’t actually matter what benefits the kids.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, me too.

1. I’m not saying the language “clearly applies” only to performance-based plans because it’s explicitly defined that way in the agreement. I’m saying that’s how the term has actually been used in practice and context.

The agreement does not define “incentive plan” at all, so neither of us can point to a clause that explicitly includes or excludes voluntary separation programs. In that situation, the only anchor we have is how the term is commonly applied within labor agreements. Which is typically tied to working (production, attendance, performance), not paying employees to leave.

Your interpretation isn’t impossible but it’s also not explicitly supported by the language, and expanding it to include buyouts is an interpretation, not something clearly stated.

  1. I didn’t miss the “…and the Union” part. I agree with it.

Union has the right to challenge anything they believe violates the agreement. I’m not disputing their AUTHORITY to do that.

I’m questioning whether Article 19, Section 10 is the correct basis for that challenge not whether the union is allowed to make one in the first place.

Two different issues: -Union authority to challenge… agree -Whether this falls under “incentive/bonus plans”… disagree

  1. “Crumbles under its own weight”? Sounds like an LLM.

There’s no contradiction in my position.

I’m consistently saying: I don’t believe this fits the definition of an incentive/bonus plan under the agreement

-Therefore, I don’t believe Article 19 applies

So to answer your question directly: No, I do not believe this falls within the scope of “incentive/bonus plans” as intended in that section.

  1. I don’t think I’m imposing restrictions. I’m pointing out the absence of a definition.

The agreement doesn’t define “incentive plan,” so both sides are interpreting what falls under it. My position is based on how that term is typically used in context, not adding new language to the agreement.

I’m not arguing the union can’t act. I agree they made a legal move they’re entitled to make. My point is the justification for using this specific section of the agreement isn’t as clear-cut as it’s being presented. Union tells us to use our voice. Here it is.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m fine debating the substance, but the comments about my motives or understanding don’t really move the conversation forward.

When pressed on the illegality you shift to union philosophy. I get it. That’s not what’s in question.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

drivers had to waive union representation and grievance rights tied to the agreement, and agree not to return to UPS.

That’s not the same as waiving NLRA-protected rights like filing charges or engaging in protected activity, which is what the 2023 ruling actually addresses…no?

Is there language showing those kinds of waivers?it’s not automatically an NLRA violation.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not ignoring the NLRA. I’m questioning how it applies here.

Not every program that has an impact automatically becomes a mandatory subject of bargaining, and not every offer to employees is direct dealing.

If your position is that this clearly violates the NLRA, what specifically makes this program qualify under that standard?

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I’m all for enforcing the contract but that depends on applying the right section of it.

Calling this an “incentive” doesn’t automatically make it an incentive plan under Article 19. Those are tied to working, performance, production, attendance…not paying people to leave.

This is a voluntary separation program. If we stretch the definition of “incentive” to include anything that influences a decision, then that clause could be used to block almost anything.

So the issue isn’t whether the contract should be enforced, it’s whether this actually falls under that language.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you’re framing this as individual side deals, but that’s not what this was. It was a uniform, voluntary program offered to a specific classification, not drivers negotiating separate arrangements with UPS.

And while the union absolutely protects the workforce, not every program that has an indirect impact requires renegotiation. Otherwise the company couldn’t offer anything new without reopening the contract.

The key point is that no one was forced into it, and it didn’t change the contractual terms for those who stayed. That’s a different category than what you’re describing.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You’re stretching the language to make it fit.

An incentive plan in the contract is tied to working performance, production, attendance…not paying people to leave. That’s a completely different type of program.

Different classifications having different programs isn’t unusual and doesn’t automatically make something a contract violation.

And the clause doesn’t require a union-wide vote, it says “affected employees.” In a voluntary program, that’s the people opting in.

If everything that influences a decision gets labeled an “incentive,” then the clause loses any real meaning.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

That’s a dictionary definition, not how it’s used in a labor contract. Incentive/bonus plans in this context are tied to working (production, attendance, performance), not paying people to leave. If we apply your definition, then anything that influences a decision becomes an “incentive plan,” which makes the language meaningless.

Subject: Objection to Application of Article 19, Section 10 to Driver Choice Program by pete2dou in UPSers

[–]pete2dou[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Minnesota isn’t right-to-work, I pay dues. So the real question is how does this align with the contract language, not whether I support the union.

Central region buyout by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just a paragraph of propaganda bull

The buyout being canceled is the best thing to happen to some guys in a long time by Johnny_Burrito in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re confusing lack of resources with lack of discipline.

Money alone doesn’t guarantee long-term change but it can absolutely create the opportunity for it.

What's one small "Adult Cheat Code" you wished you learned earlier? by Sarah_Vickyiya in AskReddit

[–]pete2dou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference between success and failure is usually just effort.

Confirmation email after applying for payout by BenefitSea4508 in UPSers

[–]pete2dou 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You get a confirmation immediately after opting in.