What's new

TForce | Article 5 sec 2

T

tanderson04

TB Lurker
Credits
0
Full time P&D are being laid off while casual employees are still working. The contract says any full time employee on lay off will work prior to casual or probationary employees at their home domicile. I was told if I take the layoff I can not work. I can only bump. In addition Are casuals to be laid off prior to full time guys. I have filed on both. Just curious whats going on elsewhere.
 
tanderson04 said:
Full time P&D are being laid off while casual employees are still working. The contract says any full time employee on lay off will work prior to casual or probationary employees at their home domicile. I was told if I take the layoff I can not work. I can only bump. In addition. Are casuals to be laid off prior to full time guys. I have filed on both. Just curious whats going on elsewhere.
Click to expand...

What's going on elsewhere is that the company is picking and choosing bits and pieces from different articles and sections and fitting them in to justify this action.
The part you've chosen is the simplest definition, and the most definitive on how to handle layoffs, in the entire contract.
They choose to ignore it.
I've used it repeatedly in grievance hearings with the regional labor guy.
He looks at me blank faced and does not respond at all to it.
I tell the aggrieved to completely reject their explanation and to let the grievance ride to the next level. Completely their decision of course.
Just another example of the old Overnite hacks mucking up the obvious solution and costing UPS money.
 
this is not ovnt mgmt, this is ups you can tell becuase this is going on everywhere. Coinceidence, I don't think so.
 
tanderson04 said:
Full time P&D are being laid off while casual employees are still working. The contract says any full time employee on lay off will work prior to casual or probationary employees at their home domicile. I was told if I take the layoff I can not work. I can only bump. In addition Are casuals to be laid off prior to full time guys. I have filed on both. Just curious whats going on elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I hear they are doing the same thing at other Service Centers, all I can say is File, File and File again!!!!!
 
The company will prevail in that they have the right to decide how many casuals and how many full-timers they need to run an efficient operation. Just because the contract says something doesn't mean that we can dictate to them that they have to lay off casuals and then be stuck with all full-timers. Another aspect of this is the issue of a driver who is laid off who bumps a casual, is he a casual now, or is he full-time? If he maintains full-time status then the company in effect would not have the ability to diminish their full-time staff until they have eliminated all casuals prior to doing so. Seems a little unreasonable to me. You need casuals and you need drivers. And the company ought to have the ability to control those numbers in order to keep us profitable.
 
upsf-driver said:
originals_bullshit1_ranndino.jpg
Click to expand...

Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Nik;

If the company does not have the ability to manage the number of full-time vs. part-time work force then they will not hire anymore full-timers unless they know it's 100% not going to bite them in the end. Every one of these supposed victories that we've attained has come at a price and they will protect themselves at all costs.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a system where when work gets slow the company can lay off 10 full-time drivers who are given the opportunity to collect unemployment or bump a casual and continue working at a lower rate. The alternative is that they can not lay off any of the full-timers and instead have to deplete their dock worker staff and fill it up with drivers who have no interest in even doing that work. It would wind up costing them more money and they'd get far less production.

Realize, my friend, that we lost a half of a BILLION dollars in just three months at the end of last year. Costs need to be cut and if you're suggesting handcuffing them in their ability to do that then we'll be here in a few months debating a 10% giveback from everyone. You have to think about both sides sometimes and the protection of your job is also contingent on this company being profitable. They're not going to let us all drive around in a truck if they're not making money while we're doing it.
 
upsf-driver said:
Nik;

If the company does not have the ability to manage the number of full-time vs. part-time work force then they will not hire anymore full-timers unless they know it's 100% not going to bite them in the end. Every one of these supposed victories that we've attained has come at a price and they will protect themselves at all costs.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a system where when work gets slow the company can lay off 10 full-time drivers who are given the opportunity to collect unemployment or bump a casual and continue working at a lower rate. The alternative is that they can not lay off any of the full-timers and instead have to deplete their dock worker staff and fill it up with drivers who have no interest in even doing that work. It would wind up costing them more money and they'd get far less production.

Realize, my friend, that we lost a half of a BILLION dollars in just three months at the end of last year. Costs need to be cut and if you're suggesting handcuffing them in their ability to do that then we'll be here in a few months debating a 10% giveback from everyone. You have to think about both sides sometimes and the protection of your job is also contingent on this company being profitable. They're not going to let us all drive around in a truck if they're not making money while we're doing it.
Click to expand...

So what are you suggesting here? We just throw the contract away? Maybe I will try that with my mortgage lender. Might as well try it with my car payment as well. While I'm at it, maybe I will void out my agreement with the college I send my kid to. After all, the price I pay for her to stay in the dorm is not conducive or flexible enough for my business needs. Teamster Elvis out....
 
upsf-driver said:
Nik;

If the company does not have the ability to manage the number of full-time vs. part-time work force then they will not hire anymore full-timers unless they know it's 100% not going to bite them in the end. Every one of these supposed victories that we've attained has come at a price and they will protect themselves at all costs.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a system where when work gets slow the company can lay off 10 full-time drivers who are given the opportunity to collect unemployment or bump a casual and continue working at a lower rate. The alternative is that they can not lay off any of the full-timers and instead have to deplete their dock worker staff and fill it up with drivers who have no interest in even doing that work. It would wind up costing them more money and they'd get far less production.

Realize, my friend, that we lost a half of a BILLION dollars in just three months at the end of last year. Costs need to be cut and if you're suggesting handcuffing them in their ability to do that then we'll be here in a few months debating a 10% giveback from everyone. You have to think about both sides sometimes and the protection of your job is also contingent on this company being profitable. They're not going to let us all drive around in a truck if they're not making money while we're doing it.
Click to expand...

The freight division lost $500,000,000 in 3 months?
 
freight would have made money but ups hit us with an "impairment charge" of 500 million. It is a made up number so ups can say they lost money.
 
:USA:Being that you have a contract it should be about seniority. Everyone works in seniority order. Lay-offs done last man hired is first one layed-off. Casuals should never work with regular man sitting home. Remember this is YOUR work not the casual's.
 
upsf-driver said:
Nik;

If the company does not have the ability to manage the number of full-time vs. part-time work force then they will not hire anymore full-timers unless they know it's 100% not going to bite them in the end. Every one of these supposed victories that we've attained has come at a price and they will protect themselves at all costs.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a system where when work gets slow the company can lay off 10 full-time drivers who are given the opportunity to collect unemployment or bump a casual and continue working at a lower rate. The alternative is that they can not lay off any of the full-timers and instead have to deplete their dock worker staff and fill it up with drivers who have no interest in even doing that work. It would wind up costing them more money and they'd get far less production.

Realize, my friend, that we lost a half of a BILLION dollars in just three months at the end of last year. Costs need to be cut and if you're suggesting handcuffing them in their ability to do that then we'll be here in a few months debating a 10% giveback from everyone. You have to think about both sides sometimes and the protection of your job is also contingent on this company being profitable. They're not going to let us all drive around in a truck if they're not making money while we're doing it.
Click to expand...
UPSF-Driver,
I hope you are joking about this?? You are saying “that the company should have the right to lay-off full time employees, but still maintain the same amount of part timers”, is this correct? If I am correctly quoting you, let me run some facts by you!!!

1. UPS did not loose $500 million dollars, UPS plays with their numbers to justify why they do not or could not abide by the contract. They have done this for years on the Package Side!

2.If UPS needs to cut cost, first thing they should have done is laid-off the part timers. Part timers are hired to work over flow; we do not have over flow at this time!

3. Why, is it ok to cut a full timers pay just to save a few bucks when we have brothers who are laid-off sitting at home not working, but the brothers who are working is getting 10 to 15 hours of over time! How about cutting the over time to allow other brothers to work? By the way UPSF-Driver how many hours of over time are you getting a week or extra miles?

4. If the company needs to save money, why did they hire individuals off the street to work the "Zone Centers". We have brothers that are laid-off, who would have moved to one of these centers, UPS could have saved a lot of money on training if they would have allowed some of our brothers on lay-off to move to one of these locations!!!

5. South Holland has at least a thousand loads a month moved by Contractors or outside carriers, while we have brothers sitting at home!

These are just a few facts, about the company who you believe should have the right to lay-off full time employees, and keep their causal employees!!!!!
I pray you are just joking about this issue?
 
These type of comments are why we are not united together, the company agreed to a contract that no casual can be working if you layoff a fulltimer just because we are in a recession doesnt mean we have to take it lying down. We work for the largest transportation company in the world and we as fulltimers give them all the hours we can legally work so yes they need to layoff part timers first who sometimes also have other part time work elsewhere. Tell me how many fulltimers have multiple jobs. I bet when the time comes that you are laid off when a casual is still working you will have a different tone unless you are already management and just hiding on this board as a driver. I would respect the management more if they would come on this board and admit they are management rather than try and stir us up with negative commments on how the company need concessions from us. You need to save money then cut the overtime common sense for many other companies.
 
WE WILL NEVER, EVER, BE 100% UNITED. That is a pipe dream. If you have 30% hardcore support, almost all others will stand with the union zealots. Why? Because there is no unity in non-union.:duh:
 
getpaid said:
upsf-driver,
i hope you are joking about this?? You are saying “that the company should have the right to lay-off full time employees, but still maintain the same amount of part timers”, is this correct? If i am correctly quoting you, let me run some facts by you!!!

1. Ups did not loose $500 million dollars, ups plays with their numbers to justify why they do not or could not abide by the contract. They have done this for years on the package side!

2.if ups needs to cut cost, first thing they should have done is laid-off the part timers. Part timers are hired to work over flow; we do not have over flow at this time!

3. Why, is it ok to cut a full timers pay just to save a few bucks when we have brothers who are laid-off sitting at home not working, but the brothers who are working is getting 10 to 15 hours of over time! How about cutting the over time to allow other brothers to work? By the way upsf-driver how many hours of over time are you getting a week or extra miles?

4. If the company needs to save money, why did they hire individuals off the street to work the "zone centers". We have brothers that are laid-off, who would have moved to one of these centers, ups could have saved a lot of money on training if they would have allowed some of our brothers on lay-off to move to one of these locations!!!

5. South holland has at least a thousand loads a month moved by contractors or outside carriers, while we have brothers sitting at home!

These are just a few facts, about the company who you believe should have the right to lay-off full time employees, and keep their causal employees!!!!!
I pray you are just joking about this issue?
Click to expand...

amen!!!!!!
 
upsf-driver said:
The company will prevail in that they have the right to decide how many casuals and how many full-timers they need to run an efficient operation. Just because the contract says something doesn't mean that we can dictate to them that they have to lay off casuals and then be stuck with all full-timers. Another aspect of this is the issue of a driver who is laid off who bumps a casual, is he a casual now, or is he full-time? If he maintains full-time status then the company in effect would not have the ability to diminish their full-time staff until they have eliminated all casuals prior to doing so. Seems a little unreasonable to me. You need casuals and you need drivers. And the company ought to have the ability to control those numbers in order to keep us profitable.
Click to expand...



UPS would use this to make nearly everyone part-time that's currently full time. Its a easy way to get rid of fulltime employee's that make over $22 a hour and replace them with employees that will make half that with no benefits..
If UPS could get away with it they would give everyone a $1 for a day's work and still talk smack because you didn't bust your tail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top