Seniority question

My full time sup decided to start using wall sweeps(i.e. someone who walks down the line pulling irregs and taping) on the unload and he said that the person who did it had to be their everyday and could not leave early and would have to be wall sweep everyday and there is one from each area, now what im wondering is can they do that just make a new position without posting it as a bid and then tell them they lose the seniority rights to go home?

And one day the guy who did wall sweep was gone sick and i volunteered to be his replacement but later i seen a lower seniority guy doing the job and i asked why i wasnt doing it and they said cause my full timer said specifically witch person he wanted to do it.
my stewed who im not sure is right said they can but i dont trust that guy anymore he seems way to buddy buddy with the sups.

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

Originally Posted by Under paid slaves

My full time sup decided to start using wall sweeps(i.e. someone who walks down the line pulling irregs and taping) on the unload and he said that the person who did it had to be their everyday and could not leave early and would have to be wall sweep everyday and there is one from each area, now what im wondering is can they do that just make a new position without posting it as a bid and then tell them they lose the seniority rights to go home?

And one day the guy who did wall sweep was gone sick and i volunteered to be his replacement but later i seen a lower seniority guy doing the job and i asked why i wasnt doing it and they said cause my full timer said specifically witch person he wanted to do it.
my stewed who im not sure is right said they can but i dont trust that guy anymore he seems way to buddy buddy with the sups.

I deal with this daily.

A kid, who has 7 months in, walks around and does whatever the P/T sup asks. He's buddy-buddy with this sups, so he does the bulk/irreg, taping and cleaning slide. Meanwhile, I am a 7 year f/t in the roughest single person load.

Unfortunately, the new contract the TEAMSTERS VOTED YES TO, has no language regarding "preferred jobs". The previous contracts did.

Basically, suck it up. The yes voters screwed you!

[sx2700]

Originally Posted by IDoLessWorkThanMost

Unfortunately, the new contract the TEAMSTERS VOTED YES TO, has no language regarding "preferred jobs". The previous contracts did.

Basically, suck it up. The yes voters screwed you!

It also took out the language that said UPS must provide health insurance to part timers, so look for that little cost saving cut to come in the future.

[brownIEman]

Actually, there is still language about preferred jobs in the contract.

http://www.teamster.org/divisions/pa...ent_071012.pdf

pull it up and do a search for preferred job. However, retape I do not believe would qualify as a preferred position.

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by sx2700

It also took out the language that said UPS must provide health insurance to part timers, so look for that little cost saving cut to come in the future.

As I read it, UPS still has to provide health insurance to part timers, just not the same as the full timers, and it does not kick in for new employees until 12 months, 18 for dependent coverage. So actually, the cost savings have already kicked in. If it makes you feel any better, it looks like the UPS health plan part timers are being moved to is similar to the lesser cost plan management and technical employees were moved to several years ago. Also, it is likely that in the next contract negotiations in 5 years the company will target the drivers plan as well if health care costs continue to balloon the way they have been. It will be difficult if not impossible to compete without addressing those costs.

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

Actually, there is still language about preferred jobs in the contract.

http://www.teamster.org/divisions/pa...ent_071012.pdf

pull it up and do a search for preferred job. However, retape I do not believe would qualify as a preferred position.

Oh, that's interesting....thank you for that...

interestingly, then the supervisor is wrong, because clearly a "wall sweep" is a preffered job. It's a no brainer - pulling bulk and retapes or unloading.

Normally, the people who stay late are given this "extra" time through seniority. If that's the case, and this person gets the most time whos doing the sweeping, the job should be seperated from the unload position and given to the person with the most seniority. A good steward would fight this and win this.

Just IMO

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by IDoLessWorkThanMost

Oh, that's interesting....thank you for that...

interestingly, then the supervisor is wrong, because clearly a "wall sweep" is a preffered job. It's a no brainer - pulling bulk and retapes or unloading.

Normally, the people who stay late are given this "extra" time through seniority. If that's the case, and this person gets the most time whos doing the sweeping, the job should be seperated from the unload position and given to the person with the most seniority. A good steward would fight this and win this.

Just IMO

I would tend to agree with you.

I have a tough time seeing "wall sweep" as a seperate job however. In my mind it is just another part of the overall unload position, I am unsure what this sup is trying to accomplish by making it a seperate duty. I do agree it is something that would seem to be able to be defined as a local practice, so likely yes, a strong steward would either get it bid to the most senior employee or get the sup to back off of making it a seperate position.

[bhowey]

There isn't seniority at my building. Sups put people in posistions so they make their numbers.

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

Originally Posted by bhowey

There isn't seniority at my building. Sups put people in posistions so they make their numbers.

Correct, until it's done in a way that is done improperly and unjustly, someone documents it and stands up for themselves. There are battles worth fighting.

The original post is dependant upon whether he/she is full time or part time and if it's bid or not. The langauge I read in the contract only addresses part-timers with preferred jobs. But, technically 22.3 jobs are two part-time jobs as well, so technically the language should apply to both (but I doubt it does in most locals)

The most important thing is even if there are preferred jobs, signing your name on the list doesn't garauntee a particular job, but just that you are on the list to be moved. The F/T has the authority to put whoever they want wherever.

therefore, there isn't much of a case here *** except if the wall sweep or etc is P/T and you are with more seniority P/T being sent home - or F/T being sent home at 8 while the sweep goes over 5***