Welp..... it’s out

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
I don't get how they can say $#!+ is retroactive, and then not include the whole period that we missed previously... to me, they're just a bunch of shell-game playin' lying bastids... bait and switch...

How hard would it have been to look at what the NALC has as a schedule for their Table 2 peeps and get the same for our peeps??? Didn't they *SAY* they were gonna get what the NALC already had??? Again, they're just a bunch of bait and switch lying bastids... just sayin'... 😳
 

PastOThirty

Well-known member
I don't get how they can say $#!+ is retroactive, and then not include the whole period that we missed previously... to me, they're just a bunch of shell-game playin' lying bastids... bait and switch...

How hard would it have been to look at what the NALC has as a schedule for their Table 2 peeps and get the same for our peeps??? Didn't they *SAY* they were gonna get what the NALC already had??? Again, they're just a bunch of bait and switch lying bastids... just sayin'... 😳
(y)
 
I'm a table 2 regular that was on the higher pay scale as an rca. I took a pay cut to go regular. Luckily, my route is a 43 K so it wasn't as bad as if i'd gotten a 40 k route. To stay at a lower pay level until the last two steps is frustrating.

The main thing that has me leaning towards a no vote is the RCAs being sent up to 50 miles. The language isn't clear if this will be required. We're having a hard enough time finding RCAs.
 

UnknownUser

Active member
Just think about how much less I'll have in my tsp over the years because of the gap in salary. CutPaste_2019-06-19_15-33-01-673~2.png
Bold numbers are table 1.

I figured they'd just tack on a couple steps but seriously life is not getting cheaper and it's going to hurt my tsp and that affects my retirement. I was hoping for better news, but hey, atleast we have jobs! For now!
 
Last edited:

btdtret

Well-known member
littlesew&sew -- "The main thing that has me leaning towards a no vote is the RCAs being sent up to 50 miles. The language isn't clear if this will be required. We're having a hard enough time finding RCAs."

-- You can bet manglement will not mention that during the interview.

-- Seemingly to add insult to injury: If the mileage is less than that between home and the permanent duty station, mileage reimbursement cannot be claimed. ( why not base the mileage on the distance between the permanent duty station and the temporary duty station an RCA is sent to? )

-- Will the "50 miles" be based upon scanner data?
 

Morty

Well-known member
I would do a "yes" vote.

My reasoning: a financial collapse is near. The elite wealthy are predominantly Democrat. Funny how a few months before the 08 election the 💩 hit the fan. Why would it be any different?

A no vote will be arbitration, the market will crash fall of 2020 to make sure no Trump re election, and we will conceed all in arbitration as the USPS goes under.
 

tabletwoblues

Active member
I would do a "yes" vote.

My reasoning: a financial collapse is near. The elite wealthy are predominantly Democrat. Funny how a few months before the 08 election the 💩 hit the fan. Why would it be any different?

A no vote will be arbitration, the market will crash fall of 2020 to make sure no Trump re election, and we will conceed all in arbitration as the USPS goes under.
We don’t want arbitration. It’ll end with table 5 and us throwing parcels for the clerks a hour before our routes every morning.
 

FrozenToes

Well-known member
I am voting yes, it’s not perfect by any means. You are not getting a better deal in arbitration guaranteed and you can kiss table 2 ever being equal too table 1 goodbye forever. I am table 1.
I disagree. Historically Arbitrators have compared contracts to the other crafts.
Maybe an Arbitrator would make Table 2 12.4 years ( like The NALC and NRLCA Table 1) instead of 14 years
Maybe an Arbitrator would keep the COLA time frame the same as the other postal unions vs. the giveaway from the NRLCA ( to the tune of $400 for a 40K).
 
Last edited:

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
NALC Table2 has 15 steps at 46 weeks each step... reaching top pay step at 12.4 years... (y)
NRLCA Table2 has 15 steps at 52 weeks each step... reaching top pay step at 14 years.. (n)

NRLCA waits until the FINAL 2 steps to eliminate the vast majority of the shortfall in pay, whereas the NALC gradually closes the gap at EACH step of their pay table...

So, really NRLCA Table2 peeps got screwed again, imo... you're better off than you were, but you sure as hail didn't get what the NALC already had, as advertised... bait and switch, shell game, call it what you want... I'd say it's more like the hide the salami game is what you got... just sayin'... :oops:
 

gerl2

Well-known member
Screwed us on first COLA. Instead of starting at Jan. 2018 skipped to April 2018. 645 down to 229!
Table 2 is longer time to reach top step. Table 1 12.4 years: Table 2 14 years.
Vote NO!
I had waited for to see like most my vote will be NO I am on table one so not much harm for me except the determine of mail count? Do you think the nice PO is going to work with our Union on a mail count after they have screwed us every year, all of a sudden they are going to play nice? Not to mention give the step 2 a doggie bone in 15 years, and the RCA's going to other stations, please when we have to bring them in now they make a mess of things can't imagine what it will be like with so many bouncing around untrained on our routes, our service is already falling because of this very reason.
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
I disagree. Historically Arbitrators have compared contracts to the other crafts.
Maybe an Arbitrator would make Table 2 12.4 years ( like every The NALC and NRLCA Table 1) instead of 14 years
Maybe an Arbitrator would keep the COLA time frame the same as the other postal unions vs. the giveaway from the NRLCA ( to the tune of $400 for a 40K).
Watch APWU get a better deal for their Table 2 peeps in arbitration... I figure they'll come out closer to what the NALC already has... which is what the NRLCA *SAID* they were going to get for you... can anybody say... liar, liar, pants on fire... :unsure:
 

Joe Reeser

Well-known member
This is the last sentence in the RRECS MOU: In addition, these provisions will not be cited by either party in any collective bargaining procedures to include negotiations, national level grievances, rights and interest arbitration.

If we can't cite the MOU in a grievance, doesn't this make the MOU unenforceable?
 
I agree that we might lose the tables equaling out if it goes to arbitration. But waiting until the end isn't a big win in my eyes.
The increased contribution for rca health insurance premiums looks good, but it doesn't apply to me so I haven't really looked closely at it.
I just don't see being able to hire and retain RCAs when they only are guaranteed one day a week if hired for a K route, may be required to work Sunday and holidays, drive/destroy their personal vehicle in some offices, and work up to 50 miles away (if this passes).

In Illinois, gas tax is doubling (up 19 cents a gallon) July 1; EMA goes up 4 cents, AND minimum wage will be increased over the next few years to $15 an hour.
I just don't see any RCAs being hired and sticking around. Especially when they get to orientation and find out the hours and benefits ccas get. We've recently lost several that were hired as RCAs but switched to cca before they even got through training.
 

gerl2

Well-known member
Say no... Go to arbitration...Lose in arbitration...then work to rule....no rushing, grieve every damn instance, make life miserable.. If we are to get frigged... then share the pain...
I am with you on this, the fight is within me. I grow angry every day to every week at how our situation continues to deteriorate and no hope for better. This contract is a joke with not solving any major issues.
 
Top