Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Superteeth2478" data-source="post: 3596733" data-attributes="member: 73024">That right there tells you what their intent was with these 22.4 workers. They were never really meant to be &quot;hybrid&quot; workers in the first place who do 4 hours of preload and 4 hours of driving. They say they&#039;ll not be allowed to be used in lieu of displaced RPCDs, but they don&#039;t even mention penalties for when it occurs.And at any rate, we all know that the company spits on penalties as it is...they would rather just pay 9.5 grievances and supervisors working grievances than actually just stop violating the contract. Why would not allowing them to have 9.5 protection even be necessary language if they weren&#039;t meant to be used to displace RPCDs and take away overtime from drivers who want it?Look at what they do with TCDs (using them year-round to avoid creating full-time jobs) in some buildings and the language that needed to be created to keep that abuse from occurring...there&#039;s no way that they don&#039;t fully intend to ignore any penalties that are in place for abusing 22.4 workers and using them instead of RPCDs. They&#039;re counting on the simple reality that most people are too much of a bunch of pansies to file grievances on contractual violations...and to the company, if there aren&#039;t any grievances, &quot;It isn&#039;t happening&quot;.And yes, this is clearly creating a second-class citizen workforce, especially with the language that gives them no 9.5 protection. It&#039;s really sad that the union is supporting this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Superteeth2478, post: 3596733, member: 73024"] That right there tells you what their intent was with these 22.4 workers. They were never really meant to be "hybrid" workers in the first place who do 4 hours of preload and 4 hours of driving. They say they'll not be allowed to be used in lieu of displaced RPCDs, but they don't even mention penalties for when it occurs. And at any rate, we all know that the company spits on penalties as it is...they would rather just pay 9.5 grievances and supervisors working grievances than actually just stop violating the contract. Why would not allowing them to have 9.5 protection even be necessary language if they weren't meant to be used to displace RPCDs and take away overtime from drivers who want it? Look at what they do with TCDs (using them year-round to avoid creating full-time jobs) in some buildings and the language that needed to be created to keep that abuse from occurring...there's no way that they don't fully intend to ignore any penalties that are in place for abusing 22.4 workers and using them instead of RPCDs. They're counting on the simple reality that most people are too much of a bunch of pansies to file grievances on contractual violations...and to the company, if there aren't any grievances, "It isn't happening". And yes, this is clearly creating a second-class citizen workforce, especially with the language that gives them no 9.5 protection. It's really sad that the union is supporting this. [/QUOTE]

Verification