Working through vacations

[Overpaid Union Thug]

We haven't been aloud to work during our vacations for a while now. I'm glad. Part-timer cover drivers get more work that way and inside part-timers have more opportunities to double shift.

 

[Catatonic]

not even honey do's?

Oh yeah ... plenty of those.

 

[fethrs]

1. They have a right to work their vacation if they choose to
2. They obviously have more seniority so theyre entitled per the NMA to take whatever week they damn well choose to

I'm on vaca this week, worked all of 12 hours in 2 days because I could. Did not take any work away from anyone as I did my usual job (not a driver) and we are usually short people so it wasn't a big deal. Sup was ok with it and I got a few hours in but still had time off.

 

[Ghost in the Darkness]

Well last year in June I changed positions from p/t unloader air driver to friend/t driver I was told I still keep half vacation days so when bidding came around in october of course I was last to bid and the weeks I could bid was Jun thru nov guess what all taken. so they said sorry about your luck. I called the union they said weeks should have been allotted for that. Talked to my sup he said nope goes by number in building of employees. So as time went on and so did bbqs they all are taking r/o s and it pisses me off because I got no vaca.
Any words of wisdom

They do vacation bids for the following year in October where you are? How odd!
Anyway the year you become a ft driver they can stay pt hours as vacation but it all depends on if you were a driver or a pt for more of the year. As for the year after that you definitely should be getting 45hrs vacation time per week of vacation. Why are you not allowed to bid Jan-May for vacation weeks?

 

[UPS Lifer]

Because I like helping my sup out....Plus I owe him for not firing me when I walked out on the job a few years back

I really admire your loyalty!

It does not matter what the circumstance is. Seniority is what it is. I have always respected the seniority issue. Nobody has to justify why they picked a week or worked. If they followed the contract and picked their time by seniority so be it. Anyone who does not like it .... Tough luck.

For those of you who can't respect the seniority issue....

Your time will come and turn about is fair play but if you follow the convictions you have now you will probably do it a little differently won't you? Only you can answer that question. For all you know the senior employee ran into tough times and realized that he/she could not afford to go anywhere and decided at the last minute to work. If it didn't violate the contract or state law... it really is none of your business, is it?

 

[Dustyroads]

well said, lifer

 

[IVGottaBeDreaming]

Does anybody have the problem of hourly employees working through their vacations?? People just don't get it, they not only take work away from a union worker, but they also might take a specific weeks vacation away from someone that is junior to them that might have wanted it.

Maybe they changed it a few weeks before and got it moved back a couple weeks. That's what I did because I wanted to be off when I move.

 

[raceanoncr]

For all of you that could, would, should work through your vacation, well, knock yourself out, if that's what you wanna do. I ain't gonna comment on the rightness, wrongness, legality or whatever. That's your business, I guess.

But think about this, in addition to what alot of other posters have said. What if so many of us did this, we were in negotiations for a new contract, the economy was still in dire straits (sounds like a neat rock group, huh?), the company still was not making the $ they wanted to? We now have it IN our contract that we earned X-amount of days/weeks of vacation. The company says we have to cut back to stay viable and vacations are one of the areas that we're putting into negotiations since so many of you don't value your vacation anyway. Evidently, you don't need it. What if we have to make concessions and this is one of them? Could we be sending the message we don't need vacations by working through them?

Just wondering.

 

[Dark_Team_135]

There are a couple of reasons why the Union doesn't want people working their vacations:

1) If people take them all, the company will be more likely to need to hire permanent employees to cover for the members that are on vacation which is good for all of us.

2) When negotiations come around the company is always trying to reduce the number of vacations that we get and guess why they say it is a good idea? "Well your people are working through them any way so obviously they don't need as many as they are getting now."

If a person changes their vacation, they should only be able to change to a week where no one is off already or if they get it oked by the other members in the center that may have wanted that week off and couldn't get it because that member chose his vacation that week and locked others out of taking it.

Also, if people want to trade vacations it should be oked by the others in the center. The reason being, we had senior members taking vacations and later trading them with their buddies with much lower seniority and doing it every year...Coincidence? I don't think so...

 

[bubsdad]

For all of you that could, would, should work through your vacation, well, knock yourself out, if that's what you wanna do. I ain't gonna comment on the rightness, wrongness, legality or whatever. That's your business, I guess.

But think about this, in addition to what alot of other posters have said. What if so many of us did this, we were in negotiations for a new contract, the economy was still in dire straits (sounds like a neat rock group, huh?), the company still was not making the $ they wanted to? We now have it IN our contract that we earned X-amount of days/weeks of vacation. The company says we have to cut back to stay viable and vacations are one of the areas that we're putting into negotiations since so many of you don't value your vacation anyway. Evidently, you don't need it. What if we have to make concessions and this is one of them? Could we be sending the message we don't need vacations by working through them?

Just wondering.

This is one of the reasons I have taken on this battle here. I'm still in the process of garnering support. I have seen it done at other companies. Why would the company continue to pay someone twice for 1 week's work? The people who do this aren't seeing the damage they are doing, and won't until it affects them. Right now all they can see is their big bonus for working through their vacation. It is wrong on many levels. Takes weeks of availibilty away, takes work away from cover drivers, reduces the actual number of drivers needed on the extra board, and 1 driver gets paid twice for 1 week before a junior driver gets paid once for same week. This has been discussed on here before and the majority feels it is wrong.

 

[705red]

I have filed 4 grievances for this over the last month and another one will be filed on Monday morning for a total of 5 over the last few weeks.

We are hit with layoffs, 22.3s, feeder and part time air drivers and all at the same time we have part time air drivers working 6 to 9 hours a day. UPS freight doing our feeder pick ups and delivering the work to palatine, and laid off part time air drivers being recalled on a daily basis without the 2 week letter of recall.

I could understand if they called a driver in off of vacation to cover a route to avoid a sup working grievance, but not when people are laid off or going home daily. 3 guys worked through July 4th week, that is a prime week and other would have taken that time off.

 

[UPS Lifer]

I have filed 4 grievances for this over the last month and another one will be filed on Monday morning for a total of 5 over the last few weeks.

We are hit with layoffs, 22.3s, feeder and part time air drivers and all at the same time we have part time air drivers working 6 to 9 hours a day. UPS freight doing our feeder pick ups and delivering the work to palatine, and laid off part time air drivers being recalled on a daily basis without the 2 week letter of recall.

I could understand if they called a driver in off of vacation to cover a route to avoid a sup working grievance, but not when people are laid off or going home daily. 3 guys worked through July 4th week, that is a prime week and other would have taken that time off.

I do not disagree with taking vacation there is NO WAY, I would ever work through vacation being in management. But I do know management who do this. Obviously management is different, we get paid whether we take vaca or not.

It has been 30 years since I was a driver. I can certainly understand not having enough money to go on a real vacation. I got the general feeling that this thread was started over sour grapes against how seniority works. I just can't imagine a senior person taking a prime week of vacation with an INTENT of working instead? Why would someone do that? So, if we assume that any person who works is not trying to screw over another Teamster, there must be another reason this is happening.... which means that a solution could be found.

My question is .... What language do you use to file a grievance? Is there something in the contract that prohibits working your vacation? Or is the grievance against some procedure that management is doing or not doing?

You were talking about a lot of different things going (or not going) on in your second paragraph.

And you say you have filed 4 so far.... What have the outcomes been?

This seems like one of those issues that could somehow be worked out to everyone's satisfaction at the local level. I really don't understand what the hub-bub is all about.

 

[trouble maker]

I do not disagree with taking vacation there is NO WAY, I would ever work through vacation being in management. But I do know management who do this. Obviously management is different, we get paid whether we take vaca or not.

It has been 30 years since I was a driver. I can certainly understand not having enough money to go on a real vacation. I got the general feeling that this thread was started over sour grapes against how seniority works. I just can't imagine a senior person taking a prime week of vacation with an INTENT of working instead? Why would someone do that? So, if we assume that any person who works is not trying to screw over another Teamster, there must be another reason this is happening.... which means that a solution could be found.

My question is .... What language do you use to file a grievance? Is there something in the contract that prohibits working your vacation? Or is the grievance against some procedure that management is doing or not doing?

You were talking about a lot of different things going (or not going) on in your second paragraph.

And you say you have filed 4 so far.... What have the outcomes been?

This seems like one of those issues that could somehow be worked out to everyone's satisfaction at the local level. I really don't understand what the hub-bub is all about.

Lifer, This post wasn't started over sour grapes. I am the steward of the building that I work in and it was brought to my attention that this was being done. It has nothing to do with seniority. For one example, let's say that I am right ahead of you on the seniority list to pick vacation weeks. I take the second week in august and it max's out the # of drivers that can be off for that week. You only get two weeks a year and the only time you can get away is that week. That week comes , and I decide that since I can't afford to go away, or because I can't live within my budget, I might as well work. You mean to tell me, you wouldn't be pissed off!! You stay home and GET PAID PERIOD!!! The 2nd example is this. By working, you take work away from a junior driver who relies on covering these vacations to pay his/her bills. There was a meeting about this 2 weeks ago with my BA and UPS's labor manager. The decision was that it will stop immediately. I was told that I should mind my own business ( by the 5 or 6 people that have been doing this). When I asked one of our on car sups how do you code that, I was told that I didn't want to go there, and I would be opening up a can of worms. So I opened up the can, screw em'

 

[UPS Lifer]

Lifer, This post wasn't started over sour grapes. I am the steward of the building that I work in and it was brought to my attention that this was being done. It has nothing to do with seniority. For one example, let's say that I am right ahead of you on the seniority list to pick vacation weeks. I take the second week in august and it max's out the # of drivers that can be off for that week. You only get two weeks a year and the only time you can get away is that week. That week comes , and I decide that since I can't afford to go away, or because I can't live within my budget, I might as well work. You mean to tell me, you wouldn't be pissed off!! You stay home and GET PAID PERIOD!!! The 2nd example is this. By working, you take work away from a junior driver who relies on covering these vacations to pay his/her bills. There was a meeting about this 2 weeks ago with my BA and UPS's labor manager. The decision was that it will stop immediately. I was told that I should mind my own business ( by the 5 or 6 people that have been doing this). When I asked one of our on car sups how do you code that, I was told that I didn't want to go there, and I would be opening up a can of worms. So I opened up the can, screw em'

I appreciate your explanation but you stated that this wasn't about seniority or sour grapes and then proceed to talk about the person who is right below (seniority) and pissed off (sour grapes) LOL!

You have a valid and logical argument but my comment and questions have more to do with the contract than with the logic you discuss. If the contract does not protect (I do not know if it does?) the less senior person if a more senior person works vacation, then the more senior person can work. I give you this much.... it does take the management team to say sorry John Smith, you are on vacation this week and you are not working. SO, both parties are responsible for doing the right thing. Here is the rub.... there is probably a need on both sides. The drivers needs money, and the management team needs his/her experience on the route.

I think it is good that the union and senior management sat down to discuss this and what ever they came up with should be followed. If your management team is not following this shame on them and do what you have to do...

But please.... don't tell me this is not about seniority and sour grapes! If these other drivers had more seniority, there would be no thread here. For example, if the lowest seniority driver in your center decided to work his vacation that he has to take in January... NOBODY would care except the cover driver who has less seniority.

There is always someone who is going to have sour grapes over a seniority issue. Can you imagine what it would be like without seniority!!!!

I think some Teamsters forget that you can talk all you want about the "Brotherhood" but each employee has their own needs and those needs also should be respected as long as they do not violate the contract.

I will stand up for a senior employee any day of the week.

I still am looking for the answers to my questions from 705... I want to better understand his point of view on the grievances.

 

[outamyway]

I did it as a part time air driver. I scheduled two weeks off and only worked one.

Not enough air drivers to worry about seniority scheduling and nobody "covers" us.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I did it as a part time air driver. I scheduled two weeks off and only worked one.

Not enough air drivers to worry about seniority scheduling and nobody "covers" us.

The point being made here is that no one was displaced because you chose to work--no harm, no foul.

However, suppose one of your fellow air drivers wanted one of the two weeks that you had scheduled for his vacation? Suppose his wife works too and that was the only week that their combined schedules could be accomodated--would you have still chosen to schedule that week off knowing full well you had no intention of actually taking the week off, thereby depriving him of a week off the same time his wife would be off?

 

[705red]

I do not disagree with taking vacation there is NO WAY, I would ever work through vacation being in management. But I do know management who do this. Obviously management is different, we get paid whether we take vaca or not.

It has been 30 years since I was a driver. I can certainly understand not having enough money to go on a real vacation. I got the general feeling that this thread was started over sour grapes against how seniority works. I just can't imagine a senior person taking a prime week of vacation with an INTENT of working instead? Why would someone do that? So, if we assume that any person who works is not trying to screw over another Teamster, there must be another reason this is happening.... which means that a solution could be found.

My question is .... What language do you use to file a grievance? Is there something in the contract that prohibits working your vacation? Or is the grievance against some procedure that management is doing or not doing?

Lifer article 52 of local 705's agreement speaks on vacation, and no were in it does it allow us to work through vacations. Article 53 covers optional days and vacations and allows an employee to when picking that week to opt to work it and take the pay for it. This is the only week that can be worked through. I filed under article 45 for guarantees, because drivers that were scheduled to work that week were not giving work because of the drivers on vacation working.

You were talking about a lot of different things going (or not going) on in your second paragraph.

And you say you have filed 4 so far.... What have the outcomes been?

Labor agrees that no one should work through their vacations no we are waiting to meet this week again and if not settled we will be moving it to panel.

This seems like one of those issues that could somehow be worked out to everyone's satisfaction at the local level. I really don't understand what the hub-bub is all about.

Drivers getting paid 50 hours of vaction pay while drivers not receving their 40 hour guarantee because they were not worked, its a real big "hub bub"

 

[UPS Lifer]

Drivers getting paid 50 hours of vaction pay while drivers not receving their 40 hour guarantee because they were not worked, its a real big "hub bub"

Thanks for the answer.... Let us know how everything turns out.

The "hub bub" I was talking about was the ability for both sides to get together and get this settled. I don't understand why it can't be settled.

I can understand your point of view. Back when all the drivers were working and there were no layoffs and cover drivers were working and resources were spread thin this might not have been a big issue. But right now if people are laid off it is a big thing.

I still don't buy the part where the less senior employee is upset because they couldn't get that week off. Your argument has merit.

Here is an example of what I have seen happen. A less senior driver asks a senior driver to switch vacations and the senior driver agrees. The way I handled that was every driver in between had to OK the switch. If just one driver didn't OK the switch it was a no go. If my mind serves me well, the less senior driver could not get everyone to agree and had to give up.

 

[Diego]

If we are short handed we have drivers that come in and work. All available drivers have to work before this happens.

 

[Dustyroads]

When drivers work through or sell the option week, they are never allowed to put that week up on the schedule. Although I am opposed to selling any weeks, both in priniciple and practice, if we were going to allow drivers to sell weeks other weeks of vacation, they should have to make that decision before ever putting them up on the schedule. Then they wouldn't be bumping someone else from that week.

Again, I could never imagine selling any of my vacation, it's unthinkable.