Yellow | Warning letters for no lunches

Posted by: Italian Style: They moved the jobs to 211, because YRC doesn't want Teamsters. They want the other kind of workforce, that break rules, and doesn't respect or follow a union contract.

you spend way too much time on that lift chair..you made need some air
 
[quote author=Italian Style link=topic=80104.msg831424#msg831424 date=1274372855]
[quote author=vwaggs link=topic=80104.msg831397#msg831397 date=1274362015]
[quote author=wishy-washy link=topic=80104.msg831391#msg831391 date=1274358355]
Adjusting the work rules!!!

Your going to open up a whole new can of worms with that statement
[/quote]

I'm not trying to. I'm trying to do my part to help foster the TEAM attitude needed to make the company competitive and bring back our Brothers.

Lets see.... If 25 years ago, the roads were so bad your grandpa local negotiated a 50 mph run time average, you think it should stay at that? As a product of the fatigue generated by the transmissions in those old trucks, work rules required a mandatory 30 or 60 minute breaks in addition to the run times.

That is the ideology that led to the great loss of jobs at 218. It was zealously enforced.

Outdated rules and enforced inefficiency are reasons YRC is having money problems as much as the actions of upper management. A dollar thrown away is a dollar. It does not matter who chose to throw it away.

Better rules would not mandate inefficiency, they would allow room for inefficiency as a workers right. (IE 1 hour lunch or extended run time is okay but not mandatory)

You don't have the right as a low level employee to complain about the inefficiency of upper management, when you also take efficiencies that could currently exist, intentionally make them inefficient, then promote the losses under threat of punishment. What you view as minimal when done once, when done tens of thousands of times can be JUST AS EXPENSIVE.

All I'm saying is we should ask ourselves if there are outdated or inefficient rules that would make the system work better and make us happier also. If we find those, we should work on changing them.
[/quote]They moved the jobs to 211, because YRC doesn't want Teamsters. They want the other kind of workforce, that break rules, and doesn't respect or follow a union contract.
[/quote]

From talking to some 211 drivers, they like the flexibility aspects better. They can be sitting at home relaxing if they choose to roll, while a 218 driver would still be on the same run.
Nuff Said on that logic!!! :thumbsup:
 
[quote author=vwaggs link=topic=80104.msg831397#msg831397 date=1274362015]
[quote author=wishy-washy link=topic=80104.msg831391#msg831391 date=1274358355]
Adjusting the work rules!!!

Your going to open up a whole new can of worms with that statement
[/quote]

I'm not trying to. I'm trying to do my part to help foster the TEAM attitude needed to make the company competitive and bring back our Brothers.

Lets see.... If 25 years ago, the roads were so bad your grandpa local negotiated a 50 mph run time average, you think it should stay at that? As a product of the fatigue generated by the transmissions in those old trucks, work rules required a mandatory 30 or 60 minute breaks in addition to the run times.

That is the ideology that led to the great loss of jobs at 218. It was zealously enforced.

Outdated rules and enforced inefficiency are reasons YRC is having money problems as much as the actions of upper management. A dollar thrown away is a dollar. It does not matter who chose to throw it away.

Better rules would not mandate inefficiency, they would allow room for inefficiency as a workers right. (IE 1 hour lunch or extended run time is okay but not mandatory)

You don't have the right as a low level employee to complain about the inefficiency of upper management, when you also take efficiencies that could currently exist, intentionally make them inefficient, then promote the losses under threat of punishment. What you view as minimal when done once, when done tens of thousands of times can be JUST AS EXPENSIVE.

All I'm saying is we should ask ourselves if there are outdated or inefficient rules that would make the system work better and make us happier also. If we find those, we should work on changing them.
[/quote] I don't think you understand how Mgt. thinks. Whenever one person bends or breaks a rule that becomes the new expectation. Even as you said (ok but not mandatory) sorry can't agree with you on that one. Your statement about being just as expensive is wrong also IMO. See we can only waste the wage we are being paid. They on the other hand have no limit on how much they can waste. Reminds me what I told the vice prez of CF one time. I can do nothing for 30 years and you can figure that based on my hours per week, cpm etc...., YOU on the other hand can waste more money with a single stroke of your pen than I could in 30 years ,for some reason he didn't like that?
 
Your statement about being just as expensive is wrong also IMO. See we can only waste the wage we are being paid. They on the other hand have no limit on how much they can waste.

Take the case of P & D drivers being mandated to take a break between their 4th and 6th hours. My understanding is that making them take that break then, causes missed pickups and deliveries some days. Were they permitted the flexibility to take a 30 minute break at some time during their shift, when convenient, it could potentially result in hundreds of additional bills company wide some days. Even if my numbers are high, loss of customer goodwill would cause a long term hiccup equal to that easily. That increase in bill count and customer count would help the company dramatically over time.

The problem is you don't see the "Entire" big picture. I'm talking issues of one persons "dollars" multiplied by thousands of employees, on many days. I'm talking about accounts that won't be serviced by one visit, but by hundreds of drivers countrywide for years. I'm talking about tens of thousands of shipments delayed for an hour and a half every year because 5 out of 300 guys want a mandatory run time to "Protect" their wanting to hang out in a restaurant BS'ing or sleeping in a rest area.

You are hung on the Us VS Them thing.

I'd rather we became more efficient and get my 15% back than be a Teamster forced to take breaks or drive under the speed limit to protect a worn out 75 year old or a divorced 45 year old who partied last night, sleeping in a rest area.
 
there is not enough time in the day. They make it that way..the hustle factor is in play. If the company was concerned about 'not missing' they would have earlier starting times and more people on the street. Dispatchers have to answer for missed pick ups only. Deliveries have low priority :nono:..already in the system. They're not stupid. They just don't care-never did-never will
 
[quote author=vwaggs link=topic=80104.msg831492#msg831492 date=1274386855]

Your statement about being just as expensive is wrong also IMO. See we can only waste the wage we are being paid. They on the other hand have no limit on how much they can waste.

Take the case of P & D drivers being mandated to take a break between their 4th and 6th hours. My understanding is that making them take that break then, causes missed pickups and deliveries some days. Were they permitted the flexibility to take a 30 minute break at some time during their shift, when convenient, it could potentially result in hundreds of additional bills company wide some days. Even if my numbers are high, loss of customer goodwill would cause a long term hiccup equal to that easily. That increase in bill count and customer count would help the company dramatically over time.

The problem is you don't see the "Entire" big picture. I'm talking issues of one persons "dollars" multiplied by thousands of employees, on many days. I'm talking about accounts that won't be serviced by one visit, but by hundreds of drivers countrywide for years. I'm talking about tens of thousands of shipments delayed for an hour and a half every year because 5 out of 300 guys want a mandatory run time to "Protect" their wanting to hang out in a restaurant BS'ing or sleeping in a rest area.

You are hung on the Us VS Them thing.

I'd rather we became more efficient and get my 15% back than be a Teamster forced to take breaks or drive under the speed limit to protect a worn out 75 year old or a divorced 45 year old who partied last night, sleeping in a rest area.
[/quote] I am far from hung on the us vs them thing. Fact is they are, they continue to prove it every day. Or did is miss some thing like Zoloft Zollars taking a symbolic pay cut. I will agree with you on adjusting the break time for P&d drivers. It only makes sense. Again who is provoking the issue? They are by their actions. Giving a driver a little discretion to decide if a break is admitting defeat in their eyes not mine. You speak of drivers being late all the time with run times to protect that style of driving. Have you never been acussed of being late or lettered, or both because of a break down, shop time etc? I have more than once. If a driver is not doing his job there a plenty of options the company already has to address that. I am all for getting along always have been. But I refuse to be a scape goat for them. So that makes me a trouble maker in their eyes cause the next ever how many guys won't stand up for themselves.
 
I'm not advocating change or compromise on most issues. I only advocate reviewing work rules, based on the jobs evolution since the work rules were originally made, to see if there are some that are not as desirable, efficient or productive as they were when they were made.

Just because some of the work rules were state of the art in 1970 does not mean they are for Teamsters in todays work environment.
 
[quote author=vwaggs link=topic=80104.msg831560#msg831560 date=1274402482]
I'm not advocating change or compromise on most issues. I only advocate reviewing work rules, based on the jobs evolution since the work rules were originally made, to see if there are some that are not as desirable, efficient or productive as they were when they were made.

Just because some of the work rules were state of the art in 1970 does not mean they are for Teamsters in todays work environment.
[/quote] Until the cancer is removed from the top of this corporation, the problems will remain. The toxic blame the workers mantra is outdated as well. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. There are a lot of hard working people who want this thing to recover. I try to do my job to the best of my ability. I feel it is critical that a mass demand from all employees of this corporation of Zollars resignation be started. There is no confidence in his ability to lead and it is showing throughout the corporation. I hope he is removed soon, time is running out.
 
From my prior postings over time, you know we agree on your last statement about removing the cancer. Where we can agree to disagree is whether or not replacing the empty oxygen bottle will save the patient, while we argue trying to get the doctor replaced.
 
the lunch is contractual..he that cannot obey will have
teamsterlogo.jpg
your future. Tell you and you will forget..teach you and you will remember..give you a warning letter and you will learn.
laughs_8.gif
 
[quote author=vwaggs link=topic=80104.msg831676#msg831676 date=1274448531]
From my prior postings over time, you know we agree on your last statement about removing the cancer. Where we can agree to disagree is whether or not replacing the empty oxygen bottle will save the patient, while we argue trying to get the doctor replaced.
[/quote] Well said! We both want the same thing, it is nice to know there are people like you who care a lot about YRC and its people.
 
[quote author=Unknown Trucker link=topic=80104.msg829387#msg829387 date=1273750561]
Other than greed or for the love of $$ why would U not take your lunch?
[/quote]
I can tell you why as a line driver for another company and based in Calif. where by law, lunches are mandatory, even a second lunch after 12 hours.
I'm already sitting on my butt and the last thing I want to do is sit in that truck an aggregate total of an additional 10 days a year. However, I have no problem with an additional 10 days worth of naps.
 
We are an extended, end of the line terminal here. Sometimes we don't get all of our drivers on the street early enough to get all of their deliveries off before 5:00 pm. Although I never "skip" my lunch, I do, occasionally, delay it. This is an issue that the company would be better off to just keep the blinders on when they notice someone taking a late lunch when it is for servicing the customer. We don't have a product to sell. All we have is service for a product. I'm not going to have service failures, just to stay between my 4th and 6th hour. Like I said earlier, if they bust my chops for servicing the customer, it should be a interesting hearing.

I have a pretty strong feeling that if we all had an equal commitment to servicing the customer, we wouldn't have so many people on lay-off. Over these last few years, we sure have witnessed a **** poor commitment to service from the top down!
 
To all the city drivers out there,if you are not told to work without lunch , take it ,nuff said. You know you are screwing the contract if you do'nt take your lunch, why are we even having this debate
 
Im some states it is not flexible. The comp. is requiered to force a lunch break between the 4thand 5th hr. It isnt a union or comp.ule, but state law. i know that some guys dont like it, but the comp. is forced to enforce it or face big fines and or a lawsuit. Check with your local state for clarification. but it is just easier for the comp. to enforce it system wide than state by state. JMO. truck safe.
 
Cosmo you are right up to a point about State law but there is exemptions .

1. A Union contract may supersede State law since the State recognizes the fact that employees where able to vote on it . I'm not talking safety !

2 . Contact carriers ( and sub) may also be exempt ,example the company does not have to provide workers comp .

3 . Right to work States .
 
[quote author=R-14Driver link=topic=80104.msg831938#msg831938 date=1274534296]
Cosmo you are right up to a point about State law but there is exemptions .

1. A Union contract may supersede State law since the State recognizes the fact that employees where able to vote on it . I'm not talking safety !

2 . Contact carriers ( and sub) may also be exempt ,example the company does not have to provide workers comp .

3 . Right to work States .
[/quote]Right to work states, are modern day slavery jobs. Where a worker has no rights.
 
[quote author=pilot108 link=topic=80104.msg831876#msg831876 date=1274516712]
To all the city drivers out there,if you are not told to work without lunch , take it ,nuff said. You know you are screwing the contract if you do'nt take your lunch, why are we even having this debate
[/quote]It is like what you posted on another thread. Mismanagement is the key word. Management is trying to give themselves a name by writing letters and starting profiles on people. That is their only job security they have, sad but true.
 
The contract does state that lunch should be takes between the 4th and 6th hour. If your barn says they will give you a warning letter for not taking your lunch at this time, then take your lunch at that time. A warning letter is the company's way of building a case against you to get you fired. If you have time criticals, appointments, or pick ups during this time, contact your dispatcher and let him or her know the situation. Let the dispatcher make the decision on what to do. Put it back on the company and cover your ass. :shift:
 
Top
AdBlock Detected