Part time to full time

[deliver_man]

"Deliver Man and Drooler: you are both right. The part-timers covered under the contract, whether union members or not, have the same rights as dues paying union part-timers."

proups, I appreciate your effort at being diplomatic, but if you scroll down to the 1st post and read from there, you will see that Drooler is clearly wrong. His contention was that a part-time worker, no matter their job, was considered to be an "off the street hire" for bidding purposes if they did not belong to the union. He further opined that any UPS worker who was not a union member was not covered under the CBA. He was wrong on both counts. Then he sort of back-pedaled and said something about the specific article (22.4)which covers part-time to full-time bidding being interpreted differently in different areas of the country. No surprise, he was wrong again. I was actually going to just let this thread die, but now he has returned, bereft of any arguments, to launch a personal attack. So I figured I would just sum the whole thing up in case anyone wonders why he is now calling me a "smile*house lawyer". Apparently in his world that term refers to someone who "knows what they are talking about". Cheers.

(Message edited by deliver_man on June 23, 2002)

 

[thedrooler]

Deliver Man

Please don't let this thread die, PLEASE! You're way too entertaining. As far as unions promoting mediocrity, I offer you as evidence. You blather on about the language in your contract. We can all read. Contract language has to be administered, not just read. If you don't believe me, just as your union steward.(of course if that person is you, you won't learn anything) Now please get back in your package car and help keep the value of our stock rising. Thank you so much.

Drooler

 

[deliver_man]

Well, it appears I have been on this board long enough to rate my own personal "troll" (A.K.A. thedrooler). Ahh, the benfits of seniority

 

[proups]

Deliver Man: maybe my2cents said it better than I did:

"Perhaps the best term to use is "bargaining unit employees." The term "union member" is a misleading legal term of art. For example, under the union security clause, "member in good standing" could mean a nonmember of the union, but is a bargaining unit employee. In a non-RTW state, a nonmember is commonly referred to as an "agency fee payer" or a "financial core member." I think the sole purpose of this Orwellian language is to keep people confused and uninformed"

Not trying to be diplomatic, just looking at two people's interpretation, reading them arguing with each other, and realizing they are saying the same thing!

 

[steward377]

Big Brown at least you have it right closed shop and right to work rules are different

 

[ok2bclever]

Drooler thinks everything he believes is fact and he will not produce the link your asking for delivery man simply because he can't. He just makes biased statements that he claims are facts to support his hate for unions.

The arguement used in this thread about unions allowing a scum to keep his job happens. It happens in reverse without unions also though. Ever heard of a company where a kiss ass or relative floats along in a better job or is promoted over the harder worker because of who he/she knows? That was one of the reasons unions came into being. Nothing is perfect.

Even in a non right to work state (and what a stupid and obvious anti-union propaganda label) you have the right to work a union job and not be in the union under certain conditions and you would have the right to go full time in seniority order. So Drooler is wrong, period. And that is a fact.

 

[thedrooler]

ok2bclever ???

Owwwch! Please stop! You're hurting me!

Drooler

 

[ok2bclever]

You are the missing link !

Have a good week anyway.