Is this allowed...???

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Far from ideal but better than having supervisors run the packages out. Seems like a temporary fix until it can be addressed in the contract.

I think it's better to have a supervisor run the packages, and a driver at top rate be paid the grievance, then it is to pay a pt employee $11 an hour. The company isn't doing the preloader any favors, they're doing it because it's cheaper for them. Let them get away with it and they'll just do it even more. They need to properly staff their center.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I think it's better to have a supervisor run the packages, and a driver at top rate be paid the grievance, then it is to pay a pt employee $11 an hour. The company isn't doing the preloader any favors, they're doing it because it's cheaper for them.

We had one involved in a minor accident last year, that's when the company said no one under 21 can run a misload or something left in the building unless they are 21.

From the contract standpoint, I really don't know.


Just putting my 2¢ in. And I'm outta this thread


Beer time

 

[What The Hawk?]

Maybe it's allowed where you are, but it isn't where I am.

 

[KOG72]

Maybe it's allowed where you are, but it isn't where I am.

What are we talking about???

 

[oldngray]

 

[What The Hawk?]

What are we talking about???

Watching porn while driving.

 

[Mugarolla]

Because "shuttle" isn't a designation for moving ground packages.
We allow air drivers to be paid air rate to "shuttle" ground packages to drivers here, and honestly I think it's wrong. This situation takes it to a whole other level. This just ain't right man.

It should not happen, and rarely does happen. It is a last resort, short of management running it.

I'm just going by what I am told at my local barn. Personally IDGAF

Copy. I don't care either, it's just that some people won't give it up.

Far from ideal but better than having supervisors run the packages out. Seems like a temporary fix until it can be addressed in the contract.

Agreed. and again, it rarely happens.

I think it's better to have a supervisor run the packages, and a driver at top rate be paid the grievance, then it is to pay a pt employee $11 an hour. The company isn't doing the preloader any favors, they're doing it because it's cheaper for them. Let them get away with it and they'll just do it even more. They need to properly staff their center.

No grievance to pay if there is no one present, qualified and available. File one and you will find out.

We had one involved in a minor accident last year, that's when the company said no one under 21 can run a misload or something left in the building unless they are 21.

From the contract standpoint, I really don't know.


Just putting my 2¢ in. And I'm outta this thread


Beer time

Kind of weird, because Article 40 overrides any and all supplements, riders and addendums.

Maybe it's allowed where you are, but it isn't where I am.

See the above post. Maybe they just don't do it where you are at and a sup does it.

What are we talking about???

BEER.

 

[KOG72]

Watching porn while driving.

I can do it with no hands

 

[Catatonic]

View attachment 158807
Or like a @Monkey Butt ?

My cuz Lary!

 

[What The Hawk?]

The on car sup for my first road test wanted me to shuttle air..for my road test. Yet I'm not being paid to take a road test. Thankfully he wised up and didn't let me do that.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

No grievance to pay if there is no one present, qualified and available. File one and you will find out.

I'm not gonna pretend I'm an expert, quite the opposite to be honest.
But you're saying they can just under staff, say no one is available, and get away with paying someone 1/3 of the rate of a bid driver?

How often does this have to happen before their local steps up and stops this nonsense?

The air exception classification is a way to prevent this from happening. In a lot of ways, air exception is a handout to the company, and they can't even manage to follow those guidelines? What a joke. Where does it stop?

 

[FrigidFTSup]

Maybe it's allowed where you are, but it isn't where I am.

Yes, your local contract supersedes Article 40....

 

[FrigidFTSup]

Kind of weird, because Article 40 overrides any and all supplements, riders and addendums.

Good God, stop beating me to the punch.

 

[FrigidFTSup]

The on car sup for my first road test wanted me to shuttle air..for my road test. Yet I'm not being paid to take a road test. Thankfully he wised up and didn't let me do that.

Yeah, I'm sure you looked at the guy who determined whether or not you were going to get to drive and told him to screw off. We all believe it.

 

[What The Hawk?]

Yeah, I'm sure you looked at the guy who determined whether or not you were going to get to drive and told him to screw off. We all believe it.

Nowhere in my post did I say I DID anything. Because I didn't. Stop seeing that isn't there.

 

[cosmo1]

I provided proof but you continue to stick your fingers in your ears like a child

Well.......

 

[Mugarolla]

The on car sup for my first road test wanted me to shuttle air..for my road test. Yet I'm not being paid to take a road test. Thankfully he wised up and didn't let me do that.

I would have done it, and as soon as he wrote down that I passed, I would have made him pay me for it.

 

[Mugarolla]

Good God, stop beating me to the punch.

You said it backward though.

 

[ThatOnePreloader]

Agreed.



Not to air drive, but to shuttle....there is no qualification requirement.



He should be getting mileage.



You know how this works.

This was unforeseen, due to call-ins, late air trailers, etc and whatever UPS claims. This then goes to present, qualified and available. Guess what. No qualified and available to run them.

No grievance to win.

Now, if this was a daily occurrence, there is merit for a grievance because there is a need for a shuttle job, or to have an air driver on stand by.

If this happens a couple times a month, you know better. The Union will never make them put in a job, or have someone present, for an exception a couple times a month.



How do you know. Sounds like you only did this once.

Again, this is not an everyday occurrence.



Funny

It's really for "overmanaging". Glad it's funny. A steward came up to me and made the case for it and I had said nothing prior. It was my first grievance to file and I didn't initially even make the decision to file.

 

[Mugarolla]

It's really for "overmanaging". Glad it's funny. A steward came up to me and made the case for it and I had said nothing prior. It was my first grievance to file and I didn't initially even make the decision to file.

I still think it's funny, sorry.

An overworked grievance because you have to go up and down a ladder too many times. Again, sorry. That is funny.

Now I am really curious.

What article and section number is your Steward saying the company violated by overmanaging?