Current Language: Article 61(G) "In lieu of time off, employees, at their discretion, may take the pay for said weeks. However, the employee must notify the Employer during September of each year of this request." Proposed Language: Article 46, Section 6(A) "Package car drivers who do not hold a bid route will have the opportunity to bid any route(s) that will be vacant for the entire following week. The vacant routes will be posted on Tuesday and completed by Thursday. If a bid driver returns to work mid-week, they will be placed on their route at their next scheduled start time. If a package car driver is pulled from their bid route to cover another route, a package car driver would be entitled to a two (2) hour penalty payment at his/her straight time rate of pay." Our local tends to ignore violations of Article 61 G (Top) by letting drivers work during their scheduled (not sold) vacation. Right now there is no strong penalty for this violation, but 'm hoping that new language (second from top) will prevent it. But the language is definitely open to interpretation. Specifically the last two sentences. Under the current language (Top) we are supposed to select how we want to use our option days AND how many vacation weeks we want to sell. That process is supposed keep those that wish to work from selecting and potentially blocking out vacation weeks for people that actually want those weeks off. That language should be more than enough to stop the violations but without any real penalty it doesn't. The last two sentences are the problem. These loopholes and weak language are the main reasons I always vote no on both the National and Southern Supplement. But I'm still hoping the new language helps. For example: A bid driver has selected Spring Break 2019 for a vacation week. His/her route will be put up for bid the week before and an unassigned driver will win the bid and essentially be the bid driver the following week. The normal driver decides to come in on Wednesday and work. Will they be sent home? If not could the driver that bid their route grieve it and cite the new language to get the two hour penalty payment and cite Article 61(G)? Thats how I interpret it. Or does "...they will be placed on their route at their next scheduled start time" mean they can work but will not be on their route until the following Monday? If they are scheduled to be on vacation that week then logic says that they are not scheduled to work until the following Monday. But there's still that pesky Article 61(G). But it usually doesn't stop anyone anyway so.... Thoughts?