I'm curious, what are your thoughts about the idea that cover drivers are preventing the company from creating new FT jobs? I think that in theory, it's true - utilizing PT employees to run regular routes negates the need for the company to hire more FT drivers. However, I was talking a co-worker (w/ 20+ years seniority) today, who said he doesn't cover drive for this very reason. He said, "I don't believe in cover driving." While I do think he makes a good point -if PT employees are willing to drive, there is no need for more FT drivers- I also think that this battle cannot be won by seniority employees abstaining from cover driving. My center is to the point where they are taking the lowest seniority employees on as cover drivers, because they are the only ones willing. My point is, as long as there are any employees willing to do the job, it doesn't matter how many seniority guys pass up the opportunity, because the jobs will still be filled by new employees who have the time (and don't have other jobs that conflict with the occasional cover driving). I think this sort of mentality isn't the way to fight the company's efforts to eliminate the need for more FT employees. Instead, I believe this battle can only be won through contract negotiations (tighter restraints on how many days a cover driver can drive before hiring another FT employee, the role of FT vs PT, etc...). What do you think about the issue?