What's new

Holland | Why No Part-time Drivers?

Triplex said:
Really, save your jobs? Whose job is being saved when two 4 hour part time workers are used to replace one full time 8 hour worker?
Click to expand...
Jobs are saved when companies are profitable. Successful companies equal job security. Those two 4 hour part timers cost considerably less than a full time 8 hour employee.
 
wongway said:
Gotta luv them 'Casual " shorts or is that Casual Friday shorts ?? :lmao:
06032011.jpg
Click to expand...
At least he’s wearing socks and shoes
 
Razorblade said:
Jobs are saved when companies are profitable. Successful companies equal job security. Those two 4 hour part timers cost considerably less than a full time 8 hour employee.
Click to expand...

This is who you claim to be in another thread:

"Well yeah. I think 18 years as steward in 3 different locals, recording secretary at 261, JC 40 delegate, organizer and contract negotiator gives me more knowledge than most."

And here you advocate replacing full time employees with part-timers? Seems to me you're a disgrace to organized labor.
 
Triplex said:
This is who you claim to be in another thread:

"Well yeah. I think 18 years as steward in 3 different locals, recording secretary at 261, JC 40 delegate, organizer and contract negotiator gives me more knowledge than most."

And here you advocate replacing full time employees with part-timers? Seems to me you're a disgrace to organized labor.
Click to expand...
I never met a union officer at any level that was not pro company. Everyone knows that it's the employer, not the union that writes the paychecks. Freight is not a constant business. We own nothing on the truck. The business depends on waiting for the phone to ring. We do not control when and how much is shipped. Transportation services must be flexible and efficient. That means having enough labor to handle peak business levels but not paying expensive benefits for full time extra employees who work less than a full week in slower times. The shipper demands on time, damage free service at the lowest possible cost. If YRC is going to have freight on it's trucks, YRC must be competitive. To be competitive, unionized companies must reduce operating costs. What is a service company's largest expense? It's labor.
 
Razorblade said:
I never met a union officer at any level that was not pro company. Everyone knows that it's the employer, not the union that writes the paychecks. Freight is not a constant business. We own nothing on the truck. The business depends on waiting for the phone to ring. We do not control when and how much is shipped. Transportation services must be flexible and efficient. That means having enough labor to handle peak business levels but not paying expensive benefits for full time extra employees who work less than a full week in slower times. The shipper demands on time, damage free service at the lowest possible cost. If YRC is going to have freight on it's trucks, YRC must be competitive. To be competitive, unionized companies must reduce operating costs. What is a service company's largest expense? It's labor.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your comments that the employer writes the checks not the union. However I would first advocate modifying restrictive work rules and giving the company more flexibility that way before looking to replace full time employees with part timers.

PS - And I apologize for my "disgrace" comment earlier. That was uncalled for on my part.
 
Razorblade said:
I never met a union officer at any level that was not pro company. Everyone knows that it's the employer, not the union that writes the paychecks. Freight is not a constant business. We own nothing on the truck. The business depends on waiting for the phone to ring. We do not control when and how much is shipped. Transportation services must be flexible and efficient. That means having enough labor to handle peak business levels but not paying expensive benefits for full time extra employees who work less than a full week in slower times. The shipper demands on time, damage free service at the lowest possible cost. If YRC is going to have freight on it's trucks, YRC must be competitive. To be competitive, unionized companies must reduce operating costs. What is a service company's largest expense? It's labor.
Click to expand...
Agree and if they would let retired guys work part-time it would benefit the company and its employees as a whole !
 
wongway said:
Agree and if they would let retired guys work part-time it would benefit the company and its employees as a whole !
Click to expand...

Casual work is fine, but part time (less than a normal 8 hour day or road tour of duty) is not a good thing. Be careful what you ask for. Lots of retired people work as casuals.
 
Triplex said:
Casual work is fine, but part time (less than a normal 8 hour day or road tour of duty) is not a good thing. Be careful what you ask for. Lots of retired people work as casuals.
Click to expand...
Must only be at some barns , because we have had at least 5 or 6 drivers that wanted to work part-time after they retired and was told NO ? again every barn & local have there own little set of silly rules .
 
wongway said:
Must only be at some barns , because we have had at least 5 or 6 drivers that wanted to work part-time after they retired and was told NO ? again every barn & local have there own little set of silly rules .
Click to expand...

Do you mean "casual" when you say "part time"? There is a difference. Casual means full day's work on an occasional basis and part-time means less than 8 hours per shift/day. Which is it exactly?

There are many retired guys who work on a casual basis. Some locals limit the number of hours they can work if they are collecting a pension. Once you reach 70-1/2 years old there is no limit to how much you can work and still collect pension. Lots of retired guys whose pensions have been cut are working casual to make up the difference.
 
Triplex said:
Do you mean "casual" when you say "part time"? There is a difference. Casual means full day's work on an occasional basis and part-time means less than 8 hours per shift/day. Which is it exactly?

There are many retired guys who work on a casual basis. Some locals limit the number of hours they can work if they are collecting a pension. Once you reach 70-1/2 years old there is no limit to how much you can work and still collect pension. Lots of retired guys whose pensions have been cut are working casual to make up the difference.
Click to expand...
Not me, when my wife fails to maintain my lavish lifestyle, I'll find her a job!
 
Triplex said:
Do you mean "casual" when you say "part time"? There is a difference. Casual means full day's work on an occasional basis and part-time means less than 8 hours per shift/day. Which is it exactly?

There are many retired guys who work on a casual basis. Some locals limit the number of hours they can work if they are collecting a pension. Once you reach 70-1/2 years old there is no limit to how much you can work and still collect pension. Lots of retired guys whose pensions have been cut are working casual to make up the difference.
Click to expand...
Ok, all of our past retiree guys was told No to being a casual or part-time , and don't make sense when they can't hire drivers , why not let a guy work a few days a week in the city running loads ? Agree each local & barn is different rules .
 
wongway said:
Ok, all of our past retiree guys was told No to being a casual or part-time , and don't make sense when they can't hire drivers , why not let a guy work a few days a week in the city running loads ? Agree each local & barn is different rules .
Click to expand...
Does it have to do with drawing a pension and working a Teamster job? I think the unions position might be that once you retire, it allows a younger worker to take your place.
 
almost13ranch said:
Does it have to do with drawing a pension and working a Teamster job? I think the unions position might be that once you retire, it allows a younger worker to take your place.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think Union officials are too stupid for their own good. Many locals have relaxed their restrictions on retirees working in view of the driver shortages. Finally dawned on them that a company without enough employees to do the work may not have that work available in the future. In addition, a retiree working on a Teamster job is really a win/win for the Union financially. A working retiree is still having contributions made by the company on his behalf to the pension funds even though the retiree accrues no additional retirement benefits from those contributions. In other words this is "free" money being paid into the pension fund on behalf of someone who will not accrue additional benefits because of those funds. What's not to like about that arrangement?
 
Triplex said:
Sometimes I think Union officials are too stupid for their own good. Many locals have relaxed their restrictions on retirees working in view of the driver shortages. Finally dawned on them that a company without enough employees to do the work may not have that work available in the future. In addition, a retiree working on a Teamster job is really a win/win for the Union financially. A working retiree is still having contributions made by the company on his behalf to the pension funds even though the retiree accrues no additional retirement benefits from those contributions. In other words this is "free" money being paid into the pension fund on behalf of someone who will not accrue additional benefits because of those funds. What's not to like about that arrangement?
Click to expand...
A lot of people call me part time, because I run at 46 mph, and am in the garage getting mirrors replaced weekly.
 
Triplex said:
Sometimes I think Union officials are too stupid for their own good. Many locals have relaxed their restrictions on retirees working in view of the driver shortages. Finally dawned on them that a company without enough employees to do the work may not have that work available in the future. In addition, a retiree working on a Teamster job is really a win/win for the Union financially. A working retiree is still having contributions made by the company on his behalf to the pension funds even though the retiree accrues no additional retirement benefits from those contributions. In other words this is "free" money being paid into the pension fund on behalf of someone who will not accrue additional benefits because of those funds. What's not to like about that arrangement?
Click to expand...
Actually in my fund a retiree that is working as a casual does end up having an adjustment to his pension. It isn't much but it does increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top