UPS Responds

Contact the Teamsters (0.00 / 0)

It seems unlikely a union would prevent its members from receiving additional benefits.

UPS is probably using the contract issue as an excuse.

Do they extend civil union benefits to same sex management couples? Hmmmm ....

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 13:52:22 PM UTC

Read the UPS Statement (0.00 / 0)

You ask "Do they extend civil union benefits to same sex management couples? Hmmmm ...."
Do you not believe their statement or didn't you read it the first time? It seems to be pretty straighforward to me. Read it again:

"As a matter of corporate policy, UPS currently offers same sex benefits to all non-union employees -- management as well as administrative workers. This includes all such employees in New Jersey, even though the state has failed to recognize gay partners as married spouses"

---

by: billbrown201 @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 15:48:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected re: management (0.00 / 0)

But I still dispute the argument that the union contract prevents UPS from extending the same benefits to organized workers that they willingly give to their managers. Most times the tail wags the other way - unions get concessions, then the company has to match them for the managers. I have e-mailed the national Teamsters to hear what they have to say. I am unable to locate contact info for local Teamsters in NJ. Anybody out there got a contact at a state local? Anyone out there a UPS manager who has applied for and received benefits?

I certainly agree with everyone who said marriage is the only status worth having for same sex couples; I'm not trying to prove civil unions are worth diddly-they aren't. But the claim "the contract stops us or we would" is so unlikely to be true ... I'd like a Teamsters lawyer to confirm that.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 16:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

UPS is right - it is the fault of the New Jersey legislature, not UPS (4.00 / 5)

Hi, everyone.  Ms. McIntire, UPS' manager of public relations based out of the company's Atlanta headquarters, just emailed me basically the same letter.

For those just waking up to this story - those who hadn't seen the many Blue Jersey posts on the failure of the civil unions law over the past five months, or who have for whatever reason had not read similar investigations of the civil union law's failure that have run in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Bergen Record, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Associated Press, it may seem like UPS is somehow a stand-out rogue company.

That's not the case.  178 civil-unioned couples have complained to Garden State Equality over the past five months that employers are not recognizing their civil unions - 178 complaints involving almost 178 different companies.

In the case of UPS, if we as a progressive community were to suggest that all who believe in equality take their business elswhere, you know what?  UPS's biggest competitor, Federal Express, also doesn't grant benefits to New Jersey civil unioned couples.  Just like UPS. 

Indeed, the problem is widespread and it's the fault of New Jersey law, as Ms. McIntire of UPS suggests.

There only one way out of this mess:  The legislature has got to change the law so that there's marriage equality in New Jersey.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 13:59:19 PM UTC

Why marriage matters (4.00 / 3)

Wow - it would be hard, maybe impossible, to find a clearer example of how civil unions do not work in the real world than this one.

UPS provides equal benefits to same-sex couples in Massachusetts, but not in New Jersey. Why? Because Massachusetts has marriage equality, and New Jersey has something else - something other and less than marriage.

It really is as simple as that.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 14:00:58 PM UTC

two things are clarified.... (3.75 / 4)

1)  Marriage is the only currency of commitment the the world truly understands.  Marriage equality means just that. 

2) Generally speaking, corporate america is a half step of the government in matters of equality. 

The usual UPS driver who comes to my neighborhood is totally cool...I am an E-Bay freak, i see her ALL THE TIME.  She and her PARTNER are my neighbors.  this is less and less of an abstract concept for me all the time. 

so if UPS is between a rock and a hard place as this letter suggests, then this is proof that Civil Unions are an insufficient legal arrangement to guarantee equal rights for all NJ'ans.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 14:03:00 PM UTC

Excuses, excuses (4.00 / 1)

Didn't we go through the same kind of thing when Laurel Hester was pleading with Ocean County to extend her benefits coverage to her partner?  One excuse the county freeholders made was that "it was a mattter for negotiations with the union" so they couldn't do it unilaterally.  They wound up doing just that, after GSE and the community got involved, and the Governor put some pressure on them--it took a struggle to get them to do the right thing, but they finally did it. 

In all my years (about 30) as a union rep, I often heard the same kind of excuse from management--"we can't do this until the next contract negotiations"--and I never, ever heard of any union insisting on waiting until the next contract was negotiated before agreeing to correct an injustice.

Yes, the law needs to be changed--I think we all agree how important the "M word" is.  But UPS management could fix this if they really wanted to.  Once again, the real bottom line is that it will cost them money--and they just don't want to admit that.

Frankly, I don't buy the "blame the legislature" excuse in this case--it's too easy a way out for UPS management.  If they're "between a rock and a hard place," all they have to do is move the rock--it's not that hard.  And I think that employee has a damn' good discrimination case--through either the union's grievance procedure, the state, or both--if management remains stubborn. 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 16:44:14 PM UTC

Exactly as I thought! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Dottie -- I would really, really like to heard from someone at Teamsters 177 about the UPS argument that, "Oh, we can't DO that!"

Maybe UPS is telling the truth, but I'd like to hear the Teamsters agree that 'taint nuttin' to be done until the next contract ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 17:05:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to disagree - this IS a blame the legislature situation (4.00 / 2)

because there are 160 other companies in New Jersey that are doing the same thing UPS is doing.  It may be more than that - we only know about the 160 companies that GSE knows of through the 178 cases that have come our way.  That's no excuse for UPS, to be sure - it shares in the blame. 

But when a problem is that widespread, it means the legislature screwed up in letting it happen.  In the Laurel Hester situation, BOTH the Ocean County Freeholders and the pathetic then-domestic partner law were to blame.  It wasn't an either-or.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 19:55:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missing the point? (4.00 / 3)

Of course - yes, the Teamsters may be able to persuade an arbitrator that UPS is not contractually prohibited from extending benefits to its civil-union'd employees. Or maybe they can even convince UPS that their contract doesn't really prevent them from doing so in the first place. Ms. Brazier should certainly press them to try.

But, IMHO, the outcome would have no effect on other employers, and no impact on the continuing problems second-class civil unions are causing in New Jersey.

This isn't about whether the Teamsters can or should pull a rabbit out of a hat in this one instance. This isn't about searching for who to blame. The Legislature created this second-class status and gave employers (union and non-union alike) a ready-made excuse for discrimination.

And, it's the Legislature's job to fix it.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 20:47:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The NLRB Responds (0.00 / 0)

UPS most certainly CAN make changes before 2008, with the Teamsters blessings. Do the Teamsters so agree? I dunno. I suspect the couple who await UPS' move into the 21st century would prefer not to wait until the NJ state legislature grows a neck and a spine on the topic of same sex marriage. I'm missing no points, here, folks: I was willing to go to the barricades for Reed Gusciora's marriage bill. But somehow it seemed many people couldn't being themselves to even say the words back last December. So now we're here. And here I think we will be until the rump session of 2010.

MEANWHILE ... here are the rules, per the National Labor Relations Board. If I'm reading this correctly, if UPS approaches the Teamsters and the Teamsters agree to negotiate, then the necessary change can be made in somewhat more than 60 days. That's considerably quicker than sometime in 2008, and it would benefit at least one couple ni the near term. And that IS the point, if you happen to be that couple. Meanwhile, if anyone wants Reed to reintroduce his bill, I suspect he could be convinced, if he actually though he'd get actual support from his peers.

"Publicinfo"  
To: denniscmcgrath@yahoo.com

You should find the following explanation on pg. 6 of the "Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act" posted on the agency's website (www.nlrb.gov) at http://www.nlrb.gov/...

"Section 8(d) [of the National Labor Relations Act] provides further that when a collective-bargaining agreement is in effect no party to the contract shall end or change the contract unless the party wishing to end or change it takes the following steps:

Bargaining steps to end or change a contract.

  1. The party must notify the other party to the contract in writing about the proposed termination or modification 60 days before the date on which the contract is scheduled to expire. If the contract is not scheduled to expire on any particular date, the notice in writing must be served 60 days before the time when it is proposed that the termination or modification take effect.

  2. The party must offer to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed changes.

  3. The party must, within 30 days after the notice to the party, notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute if no agreement has been reached by that time. Said party must also notify at the same time any State or Territorial mediation or conciliation agency in the State or Territory where the dispute occurred.

  4. The party must continue in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract until 60 days after the notice to the other party was given or until the date the contract is scheduled to expire, whichever is later."

From: denniscmcgrath@yahoo.com [mailto:denniscmcgrat...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:24 PM
To: Publicinfo
Subject: question about bargaining and benefits

[FROM: Dennis C. McGrath ]

Hello: I live in New Jersey , where we recently introduced civil unions for same-sex couples. A unionized employer, UPS, is saying it cannot extend certain benefits to legally recognized same sex partners because these workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement and no changes to their benefits can be made until the contract is renegotiated in 2008. I realize this is a far more complex question than you might care to answer, given the amount of information I'm able to provide here, but in general, is it true that an employer cannot change the benefits package offered through a collective bargaining agreement except through another round of bargaining, even if the change is an improvement in benefits? Thank you.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 23:54:07 PM UTC

The law and the legislature (0.00 / 0)

I certainly didn't mean to let the legislature off the hook--of course they need to grant full marriage rights; we all agree on that.  But at the very least, people covered by collective bargaining agreements shouldn't have to hold their breath and wait until that happens.  While boycotting UPS is not a good idea at all, we should keep up the pressure on them until they do the right thing.  And let's go after FedEx, too. 

BTW, Joan Hervey and Linda Geczi were "civil unioned" today in Plainfield, on the anniversary of their domestic partnership in Maplewood.  Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs presided--and has committed to perform their marriage ceremony when the legislature makes it possible.

Keep up the struggle, folks--nobody ever said it was going to be easy! 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:16:48 AM UTC