Integrity
Binge Poster
To My Fellow UPS Workers and Teamsters Brethren,
The purpose of this discussion thread is not to gripe or complain about conditions at UPS, management, the Union or for that matter anything at all about UPS. The sole purpose of this discussion thread is to discuss the following work-related issue with other employees as an initial step in engaging in some concerted activity to bring this issue up to the company or the union as a group.
It is my hope that by addressing this issue in concert we not only be working for our own mutual aid, protection and improved working conditions, but we will be working for the benefit of any and all coworkers that may have been adversely affected by this issue.
Have you ever heard or seen posted on the BC the statement "Seniority gives you the right to work, not the right not to work."?
I saw it recently posted in a discussion thread and I thought it necessary to open a discussion about it because I think it is an often misunderstood and often misapplied statement.".
As I see it, the true statement should be and always should be "Seniority gives you the right to work and the right not to work." Based upon the needs of the business.
Let me make one statement clear before I proceed, "needs of the business" over rides seniority in many instances and it is even mentioned in some places in the Master and some supplements as an over riding principle.
That being said. How can seniority provide both the right to work and the right not to work?
You may be asking yourself; is Integrity trying to tell me that seniority can offer 2 what seems to be opposite rights?
Well the answer is kind of, yes.
The prevailing point of seniority is preference, some call it "right of first refusal" but that terminology isn't widely used and often misunderstood.
Although I haven't seen that exact terminology in any contract language, I think the principle behind how the term is being used really does apply.
The more commonly accepted term used is "offer from the top force from the bottom".
Now this terminology, if properly applied , clearly shows that seniority gives the right (the preference) to work, and it also shows that seniority gives the right (the preference) not to work.
Remember this; seniority must be honored in an honest way but legitimate "needs of the business" must come first because if the business fails because a legitimate need is not met then how will seniority benefit anyone in a failed business.
On a similar note "needs of business" must never be misapplied to dishonestly circumvent seniority but that issue and practice is better left for another discussion.
Sincerely,
I
The purpose of this discussion thread is not to gripe or complain about conditions at UPS, management, the Union or for that matter anything at all about UPS. The sole purpose of this discussion thread is to discuss the following work-related issue with other employees as an initial step in engaging in some concerted activity to bring this issue up to the company or the union as a group.
It is my hope that by addressing this issue in concert we not only be working for our own mutual aid, protection and improved working conditions, but we will be working for the benefit of any and all coworkers that may have been adversely affected by this issue.
Have you ever heard or seen posted on the BC the statement "Seniority gives you the right to work, not the right not to work."?
I saw it recently posted in a discussion thread and I thought it necessary to open a discussion about it because I think it is an often misunderstood and often misapplied statement.".
As I see it, the true statement should be and always should be "Seniority gives you the right to work and the right not to work." Based upon the needs of the business.
Let me make one statement clear before I proceed, "needs of the business" over rides seniority in many instances and it is even mentioned in some places in the Master and some supplements as an over riding principle.
That being said. How can seniority provide both the right to work and the right not to work?
You may be asking yourself; is Integrity trying to tell me that seniority can offer 2 what seems to be opposite rights?
Well the answer is kind of, yes.
The prevailing point of seniority is preference, some call it "right of first refusal" but that terminology isn't widely used and often misunderstood.
Although I haven't seen that exact terminology in any contract language, I think the principle behind how the term is being used really does apply.
The more commonly accepted term used is "offer from the top force from the bottom".
Now this terminology, if properly applied , clearly shows that seniority gives the right (the preference) to work, and it also shows that seniority gives the right (the preference) not to work.
Remember this; seniority must be honored in an honest way but legitimate "needs of the business" must come first because if the business fails because a legitimate need is not met then how will seniority benefit anyone in a failed business.
On a similar note "needs of business" must never be misapplied to dishonestly circumvent seniority but that issue and practice is better left for another discussion.
Sincerely,
I
