Holland | Loop Holes

If they are able to change this 25% rule, this contract will be the largest bait and switch contract that I can remember. They received a lot of YES votes over this one article. Guys that were on lay-off, near lay-off, and even getting nervous about their position, voted YES, thinking that this was an article that could either protect them, get them back to work, or even get them into a safer position on the board. If this article gets changed now, this would be a slap in the face for everyone that voted yes for this reason. I would not blame anyone for voting yes to try to protect their position. This was a huge article in this contract. If they are allowed to change this article and not be forced to bring you guys back, SHAME ON ALL OF THEM THAT ARE INVOLVED!:toxic:

This was alot of guys points on here. How can you vote YES to something with so many grey areas.

These are things we are hearing about. Wait till we see the coo.
 
The 25% is figured on the active senority list,vacation ,called in sick, 85% injured all go toward total hours.
Hang on now!! This is NOT accurate. I don't like correcting people, but, I also don't like bad info. Here is information that was faxed to our BA from a MEMBER OF THE FREIGHT COMMITTEE that was at the negotiations. This is how the language will be applied............The formula consists of the NUMBER OF CITY BIDS each week multiplied by forty (40) then multiplied by twenty-five percent (25%)
Note: The following employees are NOT factored into the formula and this formula only applies to employees working in the bargaining unit.
*Employees on vacation *Employees on temporary assignment due to an on-the-job injury. *Employees on any type of leave from the company. In addition, employees who choose to call in sick or not show for work will NEGATIVELY affect the hour's calculation for recall. I sincerely hope this helps to clear up the recent questions concerning the language. That is from the actual letter. Now this is my own comment... The "negatively affect" part can only mean that if you call in sick, your 8 hours pay will be counted in the formula. Which hurts the calculation because you didn't get ANY overtime. That will lower the percentage of overtime, per person. I hope this helps. NF
 
Hang on now!! This is NOT accurate. I don't like correcting people, but, I also don't like bad info. Here is information that was faxed to our BA from a MEMBER OF THE FREIGHT COMMITTEE that was at the negotiations. This is how the language will be applied............The formula consists of the NUMBER OF CITY BIDS each week multiplied by forty (40) then multiplied by twenty-five percent (25%)
Note: The following employees are NOT factored into the formula and this formula only applies to employees working in the bargaining unit.
*Employees on vacation *Employees on temporary assignment due to an on-the-job injury. *Employees on any type of leave from the company. In addition, employees who choose to call in sick or not show for work will NEGATIVELY affect the hour's calculation for recall. I sincerely hope this helps to clear up the recent questions concerning the language. That is from the actual letter. Now this is my own comment... The "negatively affect" part can only mean that if you call in sick, your 8 hours pay will be counted in the formula. Which hurts the calculation because you didn't get ANY overtime. That will lower the percentage of overtime, per person. I hope this helps. NF

That is how it was told to us also.
 
Our Tm was told this from our local as we went over the 25% on payroll and they told him the contract states ACTIVE SENORITY LIST he wanted to bring guys back. This maybe one of those cases where everone reads it different ant enforces it different.
 
Our Tm was told this from our local as we went over the 25% on payroll and they told him the contract states ACTIVE SENORITY LIST he wanted to bring guys back. This maybe one of those cases where everone reads it different ant enforces it different.

Same here.
They actually laid 5 more guys off last Friday.
Geeze why can't it work the same everywhere?
 
Same here.
They actually laid 5 more guys off last Friday.
Geeze why can't it work the same everywhere?
BP. Have you guys seen your O/T numbers yet? Is your O/T over the 25%? If it is over the 25%, and they have laid of 5 more, something is wrong with this picture. We are going to hold them to this 25% rule the best we can. Right now they are trying to hide all of the pertinent info. that we need for the calculation. We are accepting payroll info. from them only. Then we know it is accurate. They have already been informed that for every day that we have people setting home, and we are over the 25%, they will be getting grievances from the guys that are at home. Live up to the contract, that is all we ask.:1036316054:
 
BP. Have you guys seen your O/T numbers yet? Is your O/T over the 25%? If it is over the 25%, and they have laid of 5 more, something is wrong with this picture. We are going to hold them to this 25% rule the best we can. Right now they are trying to hide all of the pertinent info. that we need for the calculation. We are accepting payroll info. from them only. Then we know it is accurate. They have already been informed that for every day that we have people setting home, and we are over the 25%, they will be getting grievances from the guys that are at home. Live up to the contract, that is all we ask.:1036316054:

I personally have not seen the numbers.
I have heard third person(so take that for what it's worth) that the steward said we are nowhere hear the 25 percent because the company counts everyone on the seniority list.

I Am going to try to catch up to someone today and find out first person what employees they are counting in the formula.
BTW.
Another rumor was that some folks "down south" got 60 people called back and upper management wanted 60 laid off in other places, that's why we got hit. They actually wanted 10 layed off, usually that means they get the other 5 next friday.
 
Hang on now!! This is NOT accurate. I don't like correcting people, but, I also don't like bad info. Here is information that was faxed to our BA from a MEMBER OF THE FREIGHT COMMITTEE that was at the negotiations. This is how the language will be applied............The formula consists of the NUMBER OF CITY BIDS each week multiplied by forty (40) then multiplied by twenty-five percent (25%)
Note: The following employees are NOT factored into the formula and this formula only applies to employees working in the bargaining unit.
*Employees on vacation *Employees on temporary assignment due to an on-the-job injury. *Employees on any type of leave from the company. In addition, employees who choose to call in sick or not show for work will NEGATIVELY affect the hour's calculation for recall. I sincerely hope this helps to clear up the recent questions concerning the language. That is from the actual letter. Now this is my own comment... The "negatively affect" part can only mean that if you call in sick, your 8 hours pay will be counted in the formula. Which hurts the calculation because you didn't get ANY overtime. That will lower the percentage of overtime, per person. I hope this helps. NF
Does this mean 10%ers don't count in caculations?
 
Does this mean 10%ers don't count in caculations?
Sorry hayseed. I do not have that answer for sure yet. But, here is what our thinking is. If the ten percenters are used, they are counted. If they are not used they are not counted. We can't let them count them for the full week like they do with a 90%. The goal is to have them calculated into the manpower on a DAILY basis, not weekly. The reason that we want them to be counted daily is because we want their O/T into the mix. Up here, our 10% ers get a lot of O/T. They get brought in early to replace senior guys, then at night they don't have the seniority to go home. However, if the company don't want to count them, we will just make sure that they don't count them as 8 hours either. That would lower our O/T. It is too soon for me to give you our results. I will keep you posted as I get info. :1036316054:
 
NF, My computer has been down for three days now. I have been waiting to reply to this.
Dont you take this as a an attack. First off. This information did not come from the BOYS at the terminal. Nor did come from the CB.
It came from our BA to our steward to us.

I know what the bidding procedure WAS or IS for a UE position.

Now. Unless that extra mile you took was driving directly to Hoffa or Tyson Johnson. I dont know what makes you think you are anymore RIGHT Than I am WRONG!!!!
Thats not saying you are right or wrong.
That is saying you got your information from your local. I got mine from my local.

Benny has already backed up what I posted. He was told the very same thing.

Just so there is no confusion between you and I again on Truckingboards. I do not and I will not post anything on here that I do not think has some credibility.
Although I do not need you to tell me this. I do check my sources. Good day:1036316054:

NF, I believe you were right. Maybe. This is funny...Our BA came over earlier this week telling us that the road can bid on the UE position, same as in the contract..Totally opposite of what they said a week ago or so.. However the proposal they layed on the table in the break room...If you read the language for bidding for a UE position....You could interpret that a city man can not bid for that position....Only a road man can bid on it...I dont know...Just my thoughts.

Did anyone else read it that way?
 
OB as you know I am a city driver. I was talking to the road steward and he also told me that the city would not be able to bid on UE work. Remind you that this is the same person that ends each sentence with "but I really don't know". To me that is opposite of whats written in the contract, but what do I know. Grizz
 
Well that would be just freakin amazing if they did not let city men bid on open city bids now wouldn't it. Whats next? cats and dogs living together? (movie quote form somewhere I can't rmember)

I don't think anyone around here (IN) really knows how this is going to shake out.
I would love to see this proposal. We haven't seen anything official.
They don't seem to think we are going to get any UE bids for a while.
 
OB as you know I am a city driver. I was talking to the road steward and he also told me that the city would not be able to bid on UE work. Remind you that this is the same person that ends each sentence with "but I really don't know". To me that is opposite of whats written in the contract, but what do I know. Grizz

Grizz, thanks for the reply. You ask me what lies...Well, this is one. I dont guess knowone else is being lied to. But, we are being told something differant every time we turn around and it gets really frustrating.
 
NF, I believe you were right. Maybe. This is funny...Our BA came over earlier this week telling us that the road can bid on the UE position, same as in the contract..Totally opposite of what they said a week ago or so.. However the proposal they layed on the table in the break room...If you read the language for bidding for a UE position....You could interpret that a city man can not bid for that position....Only a road man can bid on it...I dont know...Just my thoughts.

Did anyone else read it that way?
No, I didn't read it that way OB. You must be referring to the example that they use. (about a linehaul guy and NO RETURN RIGHTS) I read it as "both" can bid on it. Because that is in black and white. Here is the language....and CDL-qualified ROAD and LOCAL CARTAGE employees may bid for Utility Employee positions in accordance with established terminal bidding procedures. I am just amazed on the BAs lack of understanding of this contract. I would think that they could be on the same page. But, who am I to say. This has been a joke from the get go. Every BA and stewart says something different. I will guarantee one thing, where the contract does spell it out in black and white, I will FILE everytime my rights are violated. Unfortunately, most language is up for interpretation.:chairshot:
 
Well that would be just freakin amazing if they did not let city men bid on open city bids now wouldn't it. Whats next? cats and dogs living together? (movie quote form somewhere I can't rmember)

I don't think anyone around here (IN) really knows how this is going to shake out.
I would love to see this proposal. We haven't seen anything official.
They don't seem to think we are going to get any UE bids for a while.
We will see our new bids on Monday. One of our drivers asked the TM if there will be any UE jobs on there, he wouldn't answer. Why? YRC is probably making that decision for him. Stay tuned.
 
Well that would be just freakin amazing if they did not let city men bid on open city bids now wouldn't it. Whats next? cats and dogs living together? (movie quote form somewhere I can't rmember)

I don't think anyone around here (IN) really knows how this is going to shake out.
I would love to see this proposal. We haven't seen anything official.
They don't seem to think we are going to get any UE bids for a while.

USF Holland will place UE which will operate as outlined in article 3 section 7 of the NMFA in forty seven facilites.This is right out of UE COO May 2008, and no IN will not get EU, EV is only on in the state. And 12 next daysort centers BU,YT,HA.RD,CN,NA,AT,SL,KC,DS,RI,OW
 
No, I didn't read it that way OB. You must be referring to the example that they use. (about a linehaul guy and NO RETURN RIGHTS) I read it as "both" can bid on it. Because that is in black and white. Here is the language....and CDL-qualified ROAD and LOCAL CARTAGE employees may bid for Utility Employee positions in accordance with established terminal bidding procedures. I am just amazed on the BAs lack of understanding of this contract. I would think that they could be on the same page. But, who am I to say. This has been a joke from the get go. Every BA and stewart says something different. I will guarantee one thing, where the contract does spell it out in black and white, I will FILE everytime my rights are violated. Unfortunately, most language is up for interpretation.:chairshot:

NF, i saw this in the proposal they brought over for us to read. I am not talking about the NO RETURN RIGHTS.
It says we are to get 6 UE positions...The way it reads, you could interpret it to say only road men can bid on a UE position.
I am in know way saying that is what it says...

I wish they would put this in " WORDS FOR DUMMIES "
I think it would be alot easier on our local to understand. and myself
 
NF, i saw this in the proposal they brought over for us to read. I am not talking about the NO RETURN RIGHTS.
It says we are to get 6 UE positions...The way it reads, you could interpret it to say only road men can bid on a UE position.
I am in know way saying that is what it says...

I wish they would put this in " WORDS FOR DUMMIES "
I think it would be alot easier on our local to understand. and myself

The USF Holland COO May 2008 States "This UE COO will create 198 new local cartage postions.
All UE postions would be bid terminal by terminal and all ROAD employees may bid to these new postions by senority at his/her present domicile.
 
Top