Overtime MOU going away Feb 21st
- Thread starter Jjf133
- Start date
Porch Pirate
Active member
Like others have said, just increase the rate to 300% and let it be what it’s supposed to be: help at a premium rate from your Faithful Regular staff. Also, mandating should fall under a 300% rate as well.
From every logical argument, this is an overall negative for the craft. I don't care what individual carrier may want the extra money. This is a horrible mou and should not be renewed - especially during negotiations.
Prior grievances were for 200-500% pay depending upon district. Why the nrlca decided to lowball their own members is beyond my comprehension. Or maybe it was because some stewards were getting results but, others were...lackluster.
Dream on
Porch Pirate
Active member
You know I’ll talk my steward and see what he can make of that and see what may come of it. He has been trying to slap on financial penalties for various things such as city side using rural vehicles and not filling the tanks and such but of course no one seems to know who took what vehicle and when… but I digress! I sure like the idea of a 500% my goodness. Thanks for the info.
How difficult will it be to document how much time was used for regulars to carry routes that were not theirs?
Easy or Difficult?
Could this information be used in contract negotiations to show sufficient RCA's are not being hired? If the NRLCA leadership is not collecting this information to keep themselves informed or for contract negotiations I think the word is sellout.
Easy or Difficult?
Could this information be used in contract negotiations to show sufficient RCA's are not being hired? If the NRLCA leadership is not collecting this information to keep themselves informed or for contract negotiations I think the word is sellout.
dblogan3829
Active member
I'm glad to get some OT. I'm not a small route BTW.
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
I don’t see a “logical argument” against it. What would those be? There are contractual protections against any negative outcomes that I have seen concerning this Mou. I love logic. What logical arguments against this Mou are there?
Morty
Well-known member
I've got a step 4 and this mou is in it as an exhibit, one of the key anchor points. If they don't re up, then I probably have something to do with itDon’t worry they will sign a new MOU likely the following day. As they have been doing everytime it expires
To sum it up, once you pass 2080 AND volunteer, you DO NOT get paid despite the mou ( both parties agreed to ) stating you do.
Morty
Well-known member
See above
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
True at the end of the guarantee period, but you’re paid up until you have exceeded 2240, not 2080, because these overtime hours don’t add to your 2080 hours. If you are exceeding 2240 and working your 9.6 hour route in 6 hours everyday day you would loose out (when switching to hourly pay for the year) because you barely would work over the 2240 while being paid tons of overtime hours.I've got a step 4 and this mou is in it as an exhibit, one of the key anchor points. If they don't re up, then I probably have something to do with it
To sum it up, once you pass 2080 AND volunteer, you DO NOT get paid despite the mou ( both parties agreed to ) stating you do.
In general, unless you’re a very fast carrier, you would make out very well monetarily, especially when you’re paid the large check (about this time of year, in February) after you exceed 2240. Unless you’re volunteering and you’re a very fast carrier, I still see no logical reason not to continue this MOU.
Does your step 4 have something to do with having your thrift savings matching $ taken away because they shouldn’t have been matching as much as they did, if you had been switched to hourly?
The nrlca cannot collect that information. It comes from usps at request. The information given is always suspect to errors in timekeeping and sweetheart deals. It is never 100% accurate.
If the NRLCA does not agree to the MOU is there reason to believe the USPS will be able to force this at arbitration anyway?
Absolutely, especially since the tools already agreed at a discount wage. This mou was snake snot. It gave many mgrs a way to now force carriers without additional repurcussions because the mou layed out agreed upon terms of money. Volunteer or not, mandating happens.
The mou put nrlca at the cheapest labor rate for crafts. It also gave usps an easy out to not staff or hire to complement needs. It also suppressed rca wage because they don't really need to hire since they have regular carriers to fulfill assistance hours. Anyone with any type of brain could see the longterm detrimental effects of this mou on wage, retention and attrition. Look at the number of regulars leaving employment before service eligibility for retirement since this mou came about. It's not about the individual, it's about another knife into the craft.
justacarrier
Well-known member
My understanding is that the USPS is the one that doesn't want to renew the MOU.
stillfirstclass
Well-known member
shows off the lack of common sense. or do they have something else up their sleeevesss?
U caught my attention
Well-known member
Thumbs up to
They have the data collected during the MOU to use against us.
It just makes me sad.
They have the data collected during the MOU to use against us.
It just makes me sad.
I personally have no issue with this. I don't volunteer during Christmas and winter months due to snowy/icy weather or the fact that it gets dark early. I just say "NO". I do occasional Sundays throughout the year and get some extra OT during the nicer months based on when I feel like it (mostly if I know I will finished my route by 1-2pm). I do it too because I get paid well for the task. NOW, if this changed to we can be TOLD to do extra I wouldn't like that so much ... I would imagine my salary would triple if that was the case but I don't need/want money that much that I would have to live in a LLV.
I know in my office there are several regulars that help daily all year long ( I think they are little "unwell" but whatever) ... that being said the RCA in my office will probably quit when their load just doubled/tripled as of the 22nd; mail will be stacking up, etc etc ... same old story at least in my office.
On another note, at one point in the summer some carriers were making so much money in my office that district was quoting saying carriers are making more than the higher ups in the USPS and are making too much money
... we can work as slaves, lack of vehicles and lack of vehicles that are safe, working in horrible conditions; snow, ice, heat , etc etc but it becomes an issue when someone in an office sees that the peon carriers are making much more than them
I know in my office there are several regulars that help daily all year long ( I think they are little "unwell" but whatever) ... that being said the RCA in my office will probably quit when their load just doubled/tripled as of the 22nd; mail will be stacking up, etc etc ... same old story at least in my office.
On another note, at one point in the summer some carriers were making so much money in my office that district was quoting saying carriers are making more than the higher ups in the USPS and are making too much money
... we can work as slaves, lack of vehicles and lack of vehicles that are safe, working in horrible conditions; snow, ice, heat , etc etc but it becomes an issue when someone in an office sees that the peon carriers are making much more than them
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
Let’s say the MO you no longer exist. If there were/Are carriers that allowed management to mandate them to work before, why would those carriers not allow it after the MOU expires? The same lack of backbone in those carriers before would still exist, and still allow managers to override the contract, and work those regulars unfairly. Having the MOU I love those that want to work more to do so, And takes the burden off those unwilling to not be mandated. From what I see if there was mandated carriers before there will be mandated carriers after the MOU expires.
