Another way to look at the vote yes position

[BrownRecycler]

Well, 22.4s are for delivering packages, regions cover a large area. Any facility that would be close enough to deliver packages for another facility would, in most cases, be governed by the same supplemental.

The issue I'm talking about is that some regions or areas within regions have cover drivers that match the description of the 22.4 job, but get paid less, and don't get full time pension contributions. The 22.4 language is an upgrade for those areas. I don't know how diverting volume would even work, or apply to this situation.

If that was the case, what contractual language that pertain to these struggling region so it not abuse for other regions?

Could it be like, specifying the region in the contract to exclude the 22.4 language?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If that was the case, what contractual language that pertain to these struggling region so it not abuse for other regions?

Could it be like, specifying the region in the contract to exclude the 22.4 language?

My thinking is that the regions that have cover drivers that are not full time drivers should fix their language, rather than using the master to spread the problem nationwide. In my hypothetical a few posts back I was trying to speculate about the union's thinking while giving them the benefit of the doubt. The answers they are giving don't exactly add up, so I'm trying to fill in the gaps.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

My thinking is that the regions that have cover drivers that are not full time drivers should fix their language, rather than using the master to spread the problem nationwide. In my hypothetical a few posts back I was trying to speculate about the union's thinking while giving them the benefit of the doubt. The answers they are giving don't exactly add up, so I'm trying to fill in the gaps.

You're right. The problem isn't the language though, it's that they didn't enforce it. The bigger problem is that they accepted it and let it go for years. now, the amount of back pay is so huge that they know they'll never get it so they just want to eliminated it by getting rid of the language. The company saw the amount of money they were saving and want to take it to the national level. The two sides set out to "fix" their mutual problem.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You're right. The problem isn't the language though, it's that they didn't enforce it. The bigger problem is that they accepted it and let it go for years. now, the amount of back pay is so huge that they know they'll never get it so they just want to eliminated it by getting rid of the language. The company saw the amount of money they were saving and want to take it to the national level. The two sides set out to "fix" their mutual problem.

That just makes it sound worse. This is lala land, where we are assuming the union isn't corrupt or incompetent. Got any ideas on how to explain the union's actions based on the assumption that they are actually looking out for us?

 

[Mooseknuckle]

That just makes it sound worse. This is lala land, where we are assuming the union isn't corrupt or incompetent. Got any ideas on how to explain the union's actions based on the assumption that they are actually looking out for us?

I do not