Depends on the situation--if it is done to ensure customer service I am all for it. If it is done simply to make their numbers look good--I have a problem with that.
What I was thinking when I wrote that was the time we had to deal with a power outage during the sort. Management and hourlies worked together to make sure the feeders pulled on time. We also worked together when we had to recover the contents of a feeder pulling a set of doubles which had been broadsided by a car that ran a red light.
Perhaps you should actually
read the contract before you create ignorant stereotypes about those who wish to uphold it.
The two scenarios you refer to would clearly be considered "acts of God" under Article 3 section 7 of the Master Agreement, and as long as the company
first made every effort to employ as many hourly employees as possible, it would then be entitled to have supervisors perform the work as needed in order to avoid service failures
without being in violation of the contract.
I believe the problem here lies in your
personal definition of what constitutes an "Act of God". Misloads caused by managements incompetence or willfull refusal to adequately plan and staff the operation are
not "Acts of God". Christmas (at least in the context of the labor agreement) is
not an "Act of God". Climactic conditions that are typical for the area in question are
not "Acts of God".
Contrary to what you may choose to believe, the language was
not intended to screw over the customers or cause sweet little old ladies to be denied their medication because some "Joe Union" threatened to file a grievance. The
intent of the language is to protect our work and minimize the number of employees who are laid off and not making hourly contributions to the pension fund that
you will benefit from when
you retire.