710, 705?

AnonyMusser

Well-Known Member
I'm sure the 11,000 or whatever non-voters will be sure to buddyh and complain about this contract. That's a certainty.
After a couple years of "just til next summer, just til I finish the rest of the credits on my degree" when they develop the perspective to realize they had a chance to change it maybe. The final tally was 2-1 in favor. All the bluster around work everyone just caved at the last second and said they wanted their retro check.
 

hondo

promoted to mediocrity
Local 705 passes their toilet paper unworthy contract with a 2634 yes/1300 no vote. 3934 votes out of the entire local. Disgustingly pathetic.
That's 2000 less people than work just in my building. We'll get everything we deserve on this one.
I fully expected to be pretty much unaffected by this contract (not even pay issues). Boy was I wrong. Anyway, I've heard the explanations for the changes, and will just have to see how it works out.
 

VonDutch

Bite your tongue, Missy
I knew that, thought people could imply the comedy in my post.

Or perceive it?

One of the things a CACH driver told me the local tossed in at the last moment was the creation of a lower waged, no CDL required, shifting position at CACH that would work alongside the normal rate shifters.
 

upschuck

Well-Known Member
Or perceive it?

One of the things a CACH driver told me the local tossed in at the last moment was the creation of a lower waged, no CDL required, shifting position at CACH that would work alongside the normal rate shifters.
Perceived is correct.

Hope they also put in that none in existence now could be turned into one of those. How much lower of a rate?
 
I believe the dollar amount was $2 less

That's correct.

And as far as language the local worded the proposal "not intended to replace" rather than "shall not replace". Like ups won't take advantage of that.
Worst of all is that this proposal was introduced by the local and not the company.
 

710 steward

Well-Known Member
That's correct.

And as far as language the local worded the proposal "not intended to replace" rather than "shall not replace". Like ups won't take advantage of that.
Worst of all is that this proposal was introduced by the local and not the company.

A lot of these so called leaders know it's their last stand. Those brief cases full of hundies have become parting gifts.
 

upschuck

Well-Known Member
The only good that could come from that is for someone who could not obtain a CDL or DOT card could still get a "feeder position". I don't trust the company on that "intended" wording at all.
 

VonDutch

Bite your tongue, Missy
The only good that could come from that is for someone who could not obtain a CDL or DOT card could still get a "feeder position". I don't trust the company on that "intended" wording at all.

If you can't obtain a CDL or pass the DOT you shouldn't have a feeder position.

I've flown a kite when I was a kid but that doesn't mean I'll talk the union into a job piloting our planes.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
The only good that could come from that is for someone who could not obtain a CDL or DOT card could still get a "feeder position". I don't trust the company on that "intended" wording at all.
Full time shifter jobs around here are 22.2 and don't require a CDL.
 

upschuck

Well-Known Member
If you can't obtain a CDL or pass the DOT you shouldn't have a feeder position.

I've flown a kite when I was a kid but that doesn't mean I'll talk the union into a job piloting our planes.
I'm sure they will still have a feeder school training. I don't mind(from my limited knowledge of what it says) that part of the language, it is the two dollar reduction in pay for that position I don't like; I could see a 50¢ reduction, because they could not go on road, if necessary.
 
Top