Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1148060" data-attributes="member: 17969">I would agree with you that &quot;everyone&quot; would like the &quot;same old&quot; contract vs the one presently in front of us.&nbsp; But, that has nothing to do with the strength of the last contract and more do to with knowing the devil your sleeping with.The last contract was still a joke in many respects.&nbsp; In our locals jurisdiction, despite the locals claims, over 55 people were discharged for GPS related issues.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most were overturned in arbitrations and such, but the company took a good run at using article 6 to take people out.&nbsp; I was the first at both the contract hearing in 2008 and in the yards to recommend a NO VOTE on this issue and it was brother Phillips who stood in front of this membership to tell everyone that I was wrong and the new article 6 language and technology was only going to be used for &quot;SAFETY PURPOSES&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; That was what the company told them, and thats what &quot;they&quot; believed at the time.We saw otherwise over the last 8 years.&nbsp; The company did its trial run with article 6 and found that it lacked clarity and they were losing cases.&nbsp; As they attempted to perfect their use of the language over the 8 years, they ran into problem after problem.&nbsp; The company introduced &quot;production violations&quot; into the article 6 language.&nbsp; Using things like &quot;SPARKS&quot;.. &quot;GPS&quot;.... &quot;MAPPING&quot;...&quot;TELEMETRY&quot; and the good ole&#039; &quot;IN THE HOLE&quot; standards to write people up all the way to discharge solely based on technology.Now, in this new contract, the union conceeded to the companys demands for a &quot;REWRITE&quot;.&nbsp; They removed four words ( on a first offense ) and replaced that with five words ( any intentional act or ommision) .Any intention act?&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you know how many package drivers will open an air stop at 10:29am with one minute to go and close it on the wrong street because they have to go 2 blocks?&nbsp; This happens ALL THE TIME and by using todays GPS mapping, the company can see this immediately.Now, of course, no one should be doing this, but it happens.&nbsp; Now, lets say we have such a driver and when he gets back in, they talk to him and ask him if he got his air done on time.&nbsp; He says yes, they ask, did you have any problems?&nbsp; he says No.&nbsp; They ask, so everything came off ok?&nbsp; he says YEAH.Well, under this new article 6 language, they got him on both counts.&nbsp; &quot;An intentional act&quot; and an &quot;ommission&quot; for lying about the delivieries.&nbsp; In arbitration, this would seal this drivers fate.&nbsp; Under the current contract, he would have been protected by the &quot;first offense&quot; wording but not anymore.&nbsp; The company by inserting these two factors have made it easier to prove dishonesty.Now, we dont know where we will end up, as getting people to vote is the hardest thing of all.&nbsp; I speak to people in several yards everyday, and the apathy is ridiculous.&nbsp; Most want everyone else to do the work.Time will tell if our voices fell on deaf ears.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1148060, member: 17969"] I would agree with you that "everyone" would like the "same old" contract vs the one presently in front of us. But, that has nothing to do with the strength of the last contract and more do to with knowing the devil your sleeping with. The last contract was still a joke in many respects. In our locals jurisdiction, despite the locals claims, over 55 people were discharged for GPS related issues. Most were overturned in arbitrations and such, but the company took a good run at using article 6 to take people out. I was the first at both the contract hearing in 2008 and in the yards to recommend a NO VOTE on this issue and it was brother Phillips who stood in front of this membership to tell everyone that I was wrong and the new article 6 language and technology was only going to be used for "SAFETY PURPOSES". That was what the company told them, and thats what "they" believed at the time. We saw otherwise over the last 8 years. The company did its trial run with article 6 and found that it lacked clarity and they were losing cases. As they attempted to perfect their use of the language over the 8 years, they ran into problem after problem. The company introduced "production violations" into the article 6 language. Using things like "SPARKS".. "GPS".... "MAPPING"..."TELEMETRY" and the good ole' "IN THE HOLE" standards to write people up all the way to discharge solely based on technology. Now, in this new contract, the union conceeded to the companys demands for a "REWRITE". They removed four words ( on a first offense ) and replaced that with five words ( any intentional act or ommision) . Any intention act? Do you know how many package drivers will open an air stop at 10:29am with one minute to go and close it on the wrong street because they have to go 2 blocks? This happens ALL THE TIME and by using todays GPS mapping, the company can see this immediately. Now, of course, no one should be doing this, but it happens. Now, lets say we have such a driver and when he gets back in, they talk to him and ask him if he got his air done on time. He says yes, they ask, did you have any problems? he says No. They ask, so everything came off ok? he says YEAH. Well, under this new article 6 language, they got him on both counts. "An intentional act" and an "ommission" for lying about the delivieries. In arbitration, this would seal this drivers fate. Under the current contract, he would have been protected by the "first offense" wording but not anymore. The company by inserting these two factors have made it easier to prove dishonesty. Now, we dont know where we will end up, as getting people to vote is the hardest thing of all. I speak to people in several yards everyday, and the apathy is ridiculous. Most want everyone else to do the work. Time will tell if our voices fell on deaf ears. Peace TOS [/QUOTE]

Verification