Correction to one of my posts

[dannyboy]

Not a chance this year, and the language here counts none of the time during the seasonal period toward seniority. The vacation replacement period is the way you described except their seniority starts the first day worked after the freeze period, Labor Day.

Here it is totally different.

Say you worked 5 days before Christmas. Then you were brought back the first of February. The five days do not count, but your seniority starts the first of February. The only way those 5 days before Christmas would count is if someone else was hired the same day in February, and did not work before Christmas. Then you would be the senior person.

Our seniority starts the day you are hired, no free period.

So see, in your contract, you already have watered down language when it comes to seniority. And that is the way it works. Incrementalism in action.

d

 

[Bubblehead]

Here it is totally different.

Say you worked 5 days before Christmas. Then you were brought back the first of February. The five days do not count, but your seniority starts the first of February. The only way those 5 days before Christmas would count is if someone else was hired the same day in February, and did not work before Christmas. Then you would be the senior person.

Our seniority starts the day you are hired, no free period.

So see, in your contract, you already have watered down language when it comes to seniority. And that is the way it works. Incrementalism in action.

d

I'm on board with your theory of incrementality. You would have had to have your head in the sand for the last decade not to see it. I was trying to convey the thought that this was an issue far down the list in comparison to some others. Since this "incrementalism" seems to be the angle Danny Boy was going in, I'm going to take the liberty of shifting the focus to another issue that has been affected by incrementalism. That would be the plight of the part timer. Their contractual rights and entitlements have been raped at a proportion unequalled by any other entity within this company. I'm interested to know the thoughts of others as to how this occured and what can be done now that it is what it is.

 

[dannyboy]

The plight of the part time employees was not done incrementally. It was done pretty much in the last contract.

There is no fixing it, as the company will not give back what it has gotten, nor will the union strike for a large group of non dues paying employees. That simple.

The problem lies in the fact that the company has seen how the union is willing to shaft some employees to allow others to make more, or for the union to look better, or for the union to hide more money. Any of the above fits well.

Look to see the base start to shrivel as the teamsters looses its focus and its bread and butter, and spends more time and money going after new meat.

Kinda like businesses that give special deals to new customers, while treating the ones they already have like crap.

Charter Cable comes to mind. Signed up with them at 99 a month. That was to be my rate, period. After about 8 months it bumped up to 155. Went and talked to them, got it back down to 99. The next month, back up again. So now I have another provider, and they are wasting money trying to get new customers at 99 a month, instead of keeping the ones they already had.

I see the teamsters doing the same with the UPS drivers. Just on a larger scale.

Unless of course, the teamsters get new leadership...........

d

 

[whiskey]

I'm on board with your theory of incrementality. You would have had to have your head in the sand for the last decade not to see it. I was trying to convey the thought that this was an issue far down the list in comparison to some others. Since this "incrementalism" seems to be the angle Danny Boy was going in, I'm going to take the liberty of shifting the focus to another issue that has been affected by incrementalism. That would be the plight of the part timer. Their contractual rights and entitlements have been raped at a proportion unequalled by any other entity within this company. I'm interested to know the thoughts of others as to how this occured and what can be done now that it is what it is.

Both management and teamsters have chosen to go down the wrong path. There is nothing we can do now. Except keep our fingers crossed.

 

[Bubblehead]

Both management and teamsters have chosen to go down the wrong path. There is nothing we can do now. Except keep our fingers crossed.

I agree. But on that note, at some point I believe it will have to addressed. At some point, and possibly by the end of this contract, minimum wage will catch up to the starting wage. Without the lure of benefits, the company may find itself without applicants for the numerous vacant positions. At that point neither side will be able to ignore or perpetuate this issue any longer