Yellow | refuse the ot?

8andthegate

TB Lurker
Credits
0
What is the worst that could happen if you refuse the ot? A letter in your file? Article 61 section 2 states no dock,yard or any other city employee shall be required to work more than 10 hours in any one shift... Just asking.
 
What is the worst that could happen if you refuse the ot? A letter in your file? Article 61 section 2 states no dock,yard or any other city employee shall be required to work more than 10 hours in any one shift... Just asking.

Doesn't it also say the last 2 starting shifts are not covered by this ?

Try refusing to go back out at 9hrs and 55 mins!
You'll get canned for refusing work.
 
Sticking together!!

What is the worst that could happen if you refuse the ot? A letter in your file? Article 61 section 2 states no dock,yard or any other city employee shall be required to work more than 10 hours in any one shift... Just asking.

Maybe if there was protection in the contract that disallowed excessive overtime, the men laid off collecting unemployment, would be called back. Or at least be enforced.
Also if the working men would refuse some O/T, I'm not saying all O/T they would be forced to work more people!:duh:
 
As far a western pa the company can not force you more than 2 hours ot in consecutive days, But you can't refuse to work you just have to file a grievance.
 
I seen a dock clear at Holland (nashville) in 2007 .Forced OT being the big issue while guys where laid off.Howard B. (Piece of crap company butt kisser )From the hall came over the next day ,during the daily meeting and told everybody they could get fired for abandment of job.The 480 in Nashville would not support them(dock hands).Supposeably they were last shift but they wasn't ,there was a 1700 bid. Back a cat in a. Corner and you see what happens.Oh and if Howard B from local 480 might be checking this board out.Don't let your CDLs expire and watch them alleys.Yall have a good day.
 
I could work my 6th day at time and a half, and my 7th day at double time this week guaranteed.. I don't think so. I'm like number 30 on the laid off board. I very rarely work the 6th day. I did it once last year, just did it for the first time this year 2 weeks ago. My house payments are made for the next few months. I'm not greedy at all and want time off. Call in someone who needs it.
 
... it is mutually understood,however,that with respect to a cleanup shift,the last two scheduled start times of the day, the necessary number of employees on these shifts in reverse seniority order would be required to stay and protect the additional work requirement. Forced overtime shall be announced at least 1 hour before the end of the shift. There is no stated penalty for saying no to working overtime. The abandonment clause is for equipment. It is not abandoned if it is on company property. If people are really trying to get everybody back,perhaps saying no once in a while as a group might help.
 
Over time will always be a "sore subject"

I look at it like this.......a lot of people, before me, fought long and hard to get us the rights we have now. Over Time Pay was one of those rights. It should be a "perk", but because of the high cost to our union employers for health and welfare, it is now cheaper for them to lay off a junior man and work a senior man over time. What we have now is a situation of the "haves and the have nots"! Are the senior men working over time greedy? Yes. Have they earned that right? Yes.

Now before anyone accuses me of protecting my "senior position", I'm #65 on a 118 man board. We have a lay off to #98. I'm in the bottom third on our active seniority roster. I've worked 4 hrs over time this week. The senior man on our board will have 18-20 hrs over time. He also has 34 years, and has "paid his dues". Working conditions today aren't like they were when he started. We rarely get forced over time. The guys that don't want it leave after eight. If we all started refusing over time, the company will force it from the bottom, up. Guys that wanted to leave would then get forced.

This whole situation is a double-edged sword. Our managers know it divides us. What are ya' gonna' do?
 
Over time will always be a "sore subject"

I look at it like this.......a lot of people, before me, fought long and hard to get us the rights we have now. Over Time Pay was one of those rights. It should be a "perk", but because of the high cost to our union employers for health and welfare, it is now cheaper for them to lay off a junior man and work a senior man over time. What we have now is a situation of the "haves and the have nots"! Are the senior men working over time greedy? Yes. Have they earned that right? Yes.

Now before anyone accuses me of protecting my "senior position", I'm #65 on a 118 man board. We have a lay off to #98. I'm in the bottom third on our active seniority roster. I've worked 4 hrs over time this week. The senior man on our board will have 18-20 hrs over time. He also has 34 years, and has "paid his dues". Working conditions today aren't like they were when he started. We rarely get forced over time. The guys that don't want it leave after eight. If we all started refusing over time, the company will force it from the bottom, up. Guys that wanted to leave would then get forced.

This whole situation is a double-edged sword. Our managers know it divides us. What are ya' gonna' do?

great post, now we know the rest of the story.
 
if some are complaing about ot and some are laidoff. it looks like this coo justwas not right.i blame the union for this one.How come most locals where not merged? Sups where laidoff, teamsters where laidoff. Was any bussiness agent laidoff?Did any union official take a 10 percent cut? I am not anti union. but they where the only ones unscathed from all this
 
Told our guy auto termination to refuse.
Who wants to stay out 6 weeks to test it.

That's BS. Nowhere in the NMFA does it say that (to the best of my knowledge anyway). If that's what a BA says then he should quit the union and get a management job.
 
Over time will always be a "sore subject"

I look at it like this.......a lot of people, before me, fought long and hard to get us the rights we have now. Over Time Pay was one of those rights. It should be a "perk", but because of the high cost to our union employers for health and welfare, it is now cheaper for them to lay off a junior man and work a senior man over time. What we have now is a situation of the "haves and the have nots"! Are the senior men working over time greedy? Yes. Have they earned that right? Yes.

Now before anyone accuses me of protecting my "senior position", I'm #65 on a 118 man board. We have a lay off to #98. I'm in the bottom third on our active seniority roster. I've worked 4 hrs over time this week. The senior man on our board will have 18-20 hrs over time. He also has 34 years, and has "paid his dues". Working conditions today aren't like they were when he started. We rarely get forced over time. The guys that don't want it leave after eight. If we all started refusing over time, the company will force it from the bottom, up. Guys that wanted to leave would then get forced.

This whole situation is a double-edged sword. Our managers know it divides us. What are ya' gonna' do?


My problem is there freezing the shift 2 or 3 hours everyday and we still have senior man working on there 6 and 7 day with guys laid off, now that's greed. :Flame-On:

I was laid off they call some of us back this week and I did my part. I work 40 hours and was force to work 8. But I'm not working on my 6 and 7 day because of my laid off brothers. I wish more would be like me. :shades:

I'm afraid if we get them caught up they will lay us off again.:realmad:
 
My problem is there freezing the shift 2 or 3 hours everyday and we still have senior man working on there 6 and 7 day with guys laid off, now that's greed. :Flame-On:

I was laid off they call some of us back this week and I did my part. I work 40 hours and was force to work 8. But I'm not working on my 6 and 7 day because of my laid off brothers. I wish more would be like me. :shades:

:realmad:

I certainly understand where you're coming from (I'm afraid if we get them caught up they will lay us off again.) This has been the way YRC tries to manage labor costs. What I don't understand: how can we provide service in a "SERVICE ONLY INDUSTRY" with all these people on lay off?

More, with less? More with only guys with at least 15 years? Bad backs, bad knees, and many with bad attitudes. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A REAL SOLID BUSINESS PLAN..........NOT!
 
:USA:In the south I put this all on the union who put it in our contract that the company could force you 3 hours a day for ot. It doesn't help when your BA who is making 90 plus thousand a year stops by and says "the company can do that". It all stinks!!!:Flame-On:
 
:USA:In the south I put this all on the union who put it in our contract that the company could force you 3 hours a day for ot. It doesn't help when your BA who is making 90 plus thousand a year stops by and says "the company can do that". It all stinks!!!:Flame-On:

I haven't been forced OT.........very rarely does anyone get forced in Valdosta. I will say, for the most part, we have a good group of dock supervisors. These guys will usually get enough people to volunteer for OT, to keep them from having to force it. However, I know all docks are not the same. If they were to force me OT, and I didn't want to be there, I imagine I wouldn't be very productive.......Know what I mean?
 
Top