Anytime you are driving that truck, loading that trailer, sorting those boxes, that is your assignment. Get it?
Enough said!
V. O. T. E.
- Thread starter Anonymous 10
- Start date
Enough said!
Now add in the cover driver who is apparently covered for 9.5, under 4 years, into a loop that has weekly routes dissolved. Senior drivers whose route is dissolved, can bump lowest seniority drivers within that loop. Cover driver then gets put on a stacked garbage truck with 235 stops. Pretty sure the cover driver doesn't make 9.5 that day.
That sounds like pretty strong language there.
That sounds like pretty strong language there.
Was he (cut and pasted from TA) assigned to cover a route for a full week but is prevented from completing that bid or assignment due to reassignment by the Employer?
Or was he considered unassigned?
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Are you a troll or just getting off on argument for the sake of argument? Everyone can see the huge whole in the language but you.
upswife75
Well-Known Member
I'm Sorry Tejano408 But If You Are Going To Capitalize Every Single Word In Your Run On Sentence At Least Have The Courtesy To Capitalize The Last Word Otherwise I Just Can't Take You Seriously You Dropped The Ball
Your a quitter! I feel sorry for you.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Did you just discover memes 9.5? Those are funny though...lol. I think there's a few things going on with the arguing. Everyone is actually right in some way on this one. If the driver is suppose to cover a route for the week, he is considered assigned and has 9.5 protection...if he/she gets bumped, that's seniority for ya. If he is unassigned and is called in to cover a sick day or a day off then he doesn't have protection. That's the way I read it. The intent of the language is to protect. UPS will of course try to work it their way. If your stewards suck, then you suffer the consequences of having a crappy steward. If your stewards/BA rule, then you'll be fine.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Most of our unassigned drivers RARELY run the same route twice in week let alone a full week. We get bumped or the routes are cut. The language doesn't protect against that. If it did it would specifically state that it does. To argue otherwise is idiotic.
It's been a while since I was in Package, but cover drivers NEVER were assigned anything for a week. You would have to check every day to see what you were doing.
The language is crap.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
So...do you guys not have vacations? Who covers drivers when they're on vacations? Do they just move people around? That doesn't make sense. Plus this is a problem in your area. My centers cover drivers cover vacations all the time. If they cover sick days and days off, then there's no protection. I still don't see how this is bad. Low man on the totem pole has always had the goo end of the stick. Plus the language change says the driver is still protected even if "prevented from completing his assignment due to reassignment by the employer."
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
The only way there is a "hole" in the language is if a driver with less than four years doesn't do his due diligence the beginning of each week and try to get himself "assigned" to a route, if he is intent on opting into 9.5 protections. First, he/she should go up to the dispatcher and find out what they are to be doing that week; again, if the PLAN is for them to be assigned to one route, then they have 9.5 protection right there, nothing ambiguous about it. If the dispatch supe, oncar supe, or center manager tells them they will be on such-and-such this WEEK it is a done deal. The only worry one would have is if the management person in question would blatantly lie and say they never said anything like that, opening up a he said-she said debate; how that is won, I don't know.
Now, if upon asking mgmt what the assignment for the week will be the answer is, "Well, not sure. Bobby has off today and tomorrow, so I'll put you on him. Tiffany has off Friday, and I think Jim has off Thur-......", well that driver isn't being ASSIGNED a route, therefore they are not covered by 9.5 protections. However, if it were me, and I really wanted to qualify for protections I'd be asking around, seeing if I can't get a cover who due to years of service qualifies for the list-or just doesn't care-and maybe has an assigned route locked down. I'd see if he'd mind doing what I'll be doing, and if he agrees getting the approval of mgmt, although a reason other than "Trying to make sure I can qualify for the 9.5. list" will need to be given. This scenario would only be feasible if the low-seniority guy knows the route in question, and if the cover driver has good knowledge of the center's routes.
The point of all this is new guys should be encouraged to be proactive and aggressive in pursuing what they would like, which is "an assigned route" or management agreeing to assign them to ONE route for that week, on Monday. Once they have that they are protected. The stewards and other knowledgeable employees should educate the newer or less-experienced drivers about their rights, tell them what to look for and how they can get it. However, the language as it stands is not weak; drivers must make sure their efforts to be protected by them aren't weak.
Now, if upon asking mgmt what the assignment for the week will be the answer is, "Well, not sure. Bobby has off today and tomorrow, so I'll put you on him. Tiffany has off Friday, and I think Jim has off Thur-......", well that driver isn't being ASSIGNED a route, therefore they are not covered by 9.5 protections. However, if it were me, and I really wanted to qualify for protections I'd be asking around, seeing if I can't get a cover who due to years of service qualifies for the list-or just doesn't care-and maybe has an assigned route locked down. I'd see if he'd mind doing what I'll be doing, and if he agrees getting the approval of mgmt, although a reason other than "Trying to make sure I can qualify for the 9.5. list" will need to be given. This scenario would only be feasible if the low-seniority guy knows the route in question, and if the cover driver has good knowledge of the center's routes.
The point of all this is new guys should be encouraged to be proactive and aggressive in pursuing what they would like, which is "an assigned route" or management agreeing to assign them to ONE route for that week, on Monday. Once they have that they are protected. The stewards and other knowledgeable employees should educate the newer or less-experienced drivers about their rights, tell them what to look for and how they can get it. However, the language as it stands is not weak; drivers must make sure their efforts to be protected by them aren't weak.
Better quit doing that!!!!........or you might go blind...........Mr. one eyeball!!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Unassigned drivers and TCDs cover for all vacations and absences. Just like anywhere else I guess. It is bad that ANYONE can't get protection. Seniority shouldn't dictate whether someone is deserving of the 9.5 list.
It doesn't matter how "pro active" they are if another driver can come in and bump them off the route they've been running for four days already. Now management will just say "We didn't reassign him. He was bumped by another driver. Totally not our fault. And he doesn't have four years in as a driver either by the way. Sorry." PLUS.....there are plenty of weeks when vacations aren't heavy that don't allow unassigned drivers to stay on a route entire week.The only people that weren't pro active in this case was those that were responsible for the lack luster language. No matter which side of the table they were sitting on.
Similar threads
