Grievance based on new MOU?

Carrierguy · Aug 20, 2023

RollinRural said:
No lawyer would handle it because they’ll tell you that the union has the right to negotiate into agreements.
It’s laughable to me now that you guys are interested in this to get a few hundred bucks of back pay when a third of us did about 100k-200k dollars worth of free work due to rrecs being delayed which was clearly a violation of the arbitrators decision.
Like someone else here said, you go after picking up penny’s while I go after dollars.

What on earth are you talking about? Every carrier would benefit from this…

Carrierguy · Aug 20, 2023

RollinRural said:
The odds of winning a grievance against this mou are ZERO.
here’s why: the union has the right to negotiate poorly.

Except it wouldn’t be about poor negotiating. In contract law this is referred to as a Mutual Mistake.

Taken from the Cornell Law School website:

In contract law, a defense used by one party to argue that a contract is invalid. In order to use the defense of mutual material mistake to argue that formation of the contract was improper, a party must argue that: (1) there was a mistake; (2) that the mistake must be material, meaning, that it must concern substantive characteristics of the subject of the contract; and (3) the mistake was mutual, meaning both parties had the same mistaken belief.

The evidence for this? The new MOU

An employer has a duty to pay its employees correctly 100% of the time. If at any time the employer becomes aware of an employee being compensated for less than what they are due, then said employer has the responsibility to pay the employee what is owed.

Carrierguy · Aug 20, 2023

SilverHair said:
I think what Carrierguy is getting at is USPS never should have knowingly used a mathematically incorrect coverage factor, where two unequally time credited items were averaged together.

Simple example from school days that may help explain this:

Let’s say a mid-term exam counts for 25% of your grade and a final exam counts for 75% of your grade. You score a 60% on the midterm, but a 100% on your final exam. Weighting the mid-term as 25% of the grade and the final as 75% of the grade gives a final grade of 90% for the class. If the two scores are just added together and averaged as if both were weighted equally at 50% each, the final grade would be 10% lower at 80% for a final grade. The student was cheated out of 10% of their final grade not due to not mastering the material, but because a mathematically flawed averaging system was used.

If both coverage factors have always been captured separately, I think Carrierguy is wanting a recalculation of coverage factor to back credit routes that lost time credit due to a mathematical flaw in the system. Whether it was intentional or a glaring mathematical oversight, time credits were unfairly reduced, and carrier salaries/number of relief days affected (as well as many other compensation/retirement items). I do not know labor law, so don’t know if there is a valid fight to be made. Our legal team *should* know the answer to this.

Thanks yes that’s what I was thinking. Sorry was driving and typing out my thoughts

RollinRural · Aug 20, 2023

The contract law you’re quoting does not apply to labor contracts by bargaining units. It’s referring to a contracts between two parties such as hiring a painting contractor to paint your house.
You’re so lost on this stuff I don’t even know where to start. Such a waste of time…

Carrierguy · Aug 20, 2023

RollinRural said:
The contract law you’re quoting does not apply to labor contracts by bargaining units. It’s referring to a contracts between two parties such as hiring a painting contractor to paint your house.
You’re so lost on this stuff I don’t even know where to start. Such a waste of time…

mutual material mistake

www.law.cornell.edu

Here’s my source. Where’s yours?

Carrierguy · Aug 20, 2023

RollinRural said:
The contract law you’re quoting does not apply to labor contracts by bargaining units. It’s referring to a contracts between two parties such as hiring a painting contractor to paint your house.
You’re so lost on this stuff I don’t even know where to start. Such a waste of time…

Who brought up painters? Nothing I’ve shown you refers to the topic of the contract. Nor is any one contract more/less important in the courts eyes.

Trying to shove a baseless claim without any form of evidence is the act of an intellectually stunted individual. Anyone who proclaims to understand everything but does not support their claims is surely hiding the fact that they are a fool.

On repeated occasions @RollinRural you have chosen to make outlandish statements without a single shred of evidence to backup your claim. Despite multiple parties telling your on various occasions that you are incorrect. You choose to be nothing but an obstacle to open discourse. Your incessant “thumbs down” on post, while not substantiating why you disagree. You are so pigeonholed in your thinking that you will stand in the way of topics beneficial TO YOU, solely, so that you do not have to deal with the discomfort of telling another individual that they are correct

SilverHair · Aug 20, 2023

Carrierguy said:
Except it wouldn’t be about poor negotiating. In contract law this is referred to as a Mutual Mistake.

Taken from the Cornell Law School website:

In contract law, a defense used by one party to argue that a contract is invalid. In order to use the defense of mutual material mistake to argue that formation of the contract was improper, a party must argue that: (1) there was a mistake; (2) that the mistake must be material, meaning, that it must concern substantive characteristics of the subject of the contract; and (3) the mistake was mutual, meaning both parties had the same mistaken belief.

The evidence for this? The new MOU

An employer has a duty to pay its employees correctly 100% of the time. If at any time the employer becomes aware of an employee being compensated for less than what they are due, then said employer has the responsibility to pay the employee what is owed.

This is an interesting find. No idea where things could go if this could be argued. Below are some thoughts from Devil’s Advocate perspective:

#2 seems obvious when looking at any simple example of a mixed curb and cbu route. But #1 and #3 require that both parties admit they made a mistake. Don’t know how both parties could have been so mathematically ignorant to make this mistake. Especially since both sides had engineers (albeit industrial engineers) they were consulting.

Don’t know what excuse USPS might make, but something along lines of different types of boxes served couldn’t be split out at first, just total boxes served were recorded, and now they can split them apart. It wasn’t a mistake, but an unfortunate limitation at the time. Or it was on the list for programmers to do, but it would have been more unfair to delay RRECS any further so it wasn’t a mistake but just delayed implementation, blah, blah, blah. I know that’s lame, but something along those kind of lines.

And our union might say they knew it was wrong all along, not a mistake, and didn’t go along with it. USPS implemented it anyway without the union’s consent. Hence Labor Board complaint and Step 4. Something along those lines.

Haygrrl · Aug 21, 2023

SilverHair said:
I think what Carrierguy is getting at is USPS never should have knowingly used a mathematically incorrect coverage factor, where two unequally time credited items were averaged together.

Simple example from school days that may help explain this:

Let’s say a mid-term exam counts for 25% of your grade and a final exam counts for 75% of your grade. You score a 60% on the midterm, but a 100% on your final exam. Weighting the mid-term as 25% of the grade and the final as 75% of the grade gives a final grade of 90% for the class. If the two scores are just added together and averaged as if both were weighted equally at 50% each, the final grade would be 10% lower at 80% for a final grade. The student was cheated out of 10% of their final grade not due to not mastering the material, but because a mathematically flawed averaging system was used.

If both coverage factors have always been captured separately, I think Carrierguy is wanting a recalculation of coverage factor to back credit routes that lost time credit due to a mathematical flaw in the system. Whether it was intentional or a glaring mathematical oversight, time credits were unfairly reduced, and carrier salaries/number of relief days affected (as well as many other compensation/retirement items). I do not know labor law, so don’t know if there is a valid fight to be made. Our legal team *should* know the answer to this.

Michael Gann is a joke..bit I'm always hopeful

Haygrrl · Aug 21, 2023

Carrierguy said:
Except it wouldn’t be about poor negotiating. In contract law this is referred to as a Mutual Mistake.

Taken from the Cornell Law School website:

In contract law, a defense used by one party to argue that a contract is invalid. In order to use the defense of mutual material mistake to argue that formation of the contract was improper, a party must argue that: (1) there was a mistake; (2) that the mistake must be material, meaning, that it must concern substantive characteristics of the subject of the contract; and (3) the mistake was mutual, meaning both parties had the same mistaken belief.

The evidence for this? The new MOU

An employer has a duty to pay its employees correctly 100% of the time. If at any time the employer becomes aware of an employee being compensated for less than what they are due, then said employer has the responsibility to pay the employee what is owed.

Sounds good to me

Joe Reeser · Aug 21, 2023

RollinRural said:
Rrecs has aligned evaluations with work load nearly perfectly, whereas prior it was completely out of whack not even close to reality. It’s far and above a fairer system.

ATCBigE · Aug 21, 2023

RollinRural said:
Im at least 10 hours under on my 68 std hour rt.
I run to the door usually. Over 300 scans daily. About half to the door.

10 hours under and you think that this is a fair system??????

One of these things is not like the other.

Joe Reeser · Aug 21, 2023

RollinRural said:
Now we have the data for every route.

Yes, we have data for every route. We also know some of that data is garbage because for the bundled flats alone they're willing to give us a 19% bump.

But even assuming the data were "nearly perfect," that data is run through a proprietary formula which no one really understands, is far from transparent, and the applicability is quite questionable.

One can have the best data in the world but if the formula isn't 'proper' then you're still ending up with garbage.

glen · Aug 21, 2023

ATCBigE said:
10 hours under and you think that this is a fair system??????

One of these things is not like the other.

We have H and J routes that use to be 45k routes still finishing 10 hours under evaluation and they definitely don't have 300 scans and 150 to the door.You now get compensated for the work you do routes with 80 scans and 20 to the door get paid less than routes with 300 scans and 150 to the door some people think it's fair others do not.

Carrierguy · Aug 21, 2023

You all took a thread topic that would benefit every single carrier and managed to ruin it. Instead of coming together you all have devolved into attacking each other’s routes. This is why the union is absolute garbage, because rural carriers as a whole are garbage.

Garbage in, garbage out.

YOUAREthecurrentresident · Aug 21, 2023

Carrierguy said:
because rural carriers as a whole are garbage.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Wilco183 · Aug 21, 2023

RollinRural said:
View attachment 11343

Kid wondering how long the boomer has been sporting his guttocks.

ATCBigE · Aug 21, 2023

glen said:
We have H and J routes that use to be 45k routes still finishing 10 hours under evaluation and they definitely don't have 300 scans and 150 to the door. You now get compensated for the work you do routes with 80 scans and 20 to the door get paid less than routes with 300 scans and 150 to the door some people think it's fair others do not.

How do you know you are getting paid properly for everything you do??? Again I have no issue with RRECS if it was what they said, and I have zero issue with route that deliver more getting more pay. That's only fair too. No transparent. I can't verify anything. My AUTHDIS was short double digits (I didn't check it in the evening)(going to check tomorrow).

bagofrats · Aug 21, 2023

ATCBigE said:
100% complete and utter lie. For some routes it did (personally my route is probably one of the more fair evals with RRECS). I think mine is fairly close to where it should be. It is the CBU that just got hammered and destroyed.

I disagree with your comment that cbu routes were destroyed. The box delivery credit is unfair, certainly, and should be rectified. My route's more than half cbus. It increased by 25 hours. I put in the work, I learned what compensated, I took parcels to the door. I wasn't complacent. To be honest my route would have gone up just based on volume, but the route most similar to mine in size in our office is now 10 hours smaller than mine, whereas pre-rrecs it was 4 hours larger. The carrier's actions have a lot of influence on their evaluation.

Carrierguy · Aug 22, 2023

RollinRural said:
View attachment 11343

Way to prove my point.

I gave an idea that would benefit all carriers and you choose to attack me

All because the post office never gave you a mail count and acting as if another carrier was the one at fault for that

Ineverslice · Aug 22, 2023

ATCBigE said:
100% complete and utter lie. For some routes it did (personally my route is probably one of the more fair evals with RRECS). I think mine is fairly close to where it should be. It is the CBU that just got hammered and destroyed.

The high mileage routes got hammered also.