Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Undertow" data-source="post: 3596668" data-attributes="member: 4550">I ask myself that too with regard to the &quot;Why&quot;.&nbsp; It&#039;s a big country and not every building has the exact same circumstances but from everything I&#039;ve heard and read, there&#039;s many facilities like mine that simply have a constant and chronic shortage on most if not all shifts.&nbsp; I&#039;m not sure the company could attract anybody to start as a part timer on preload even if they offered something above minimum wage in conditions that bad.&nbsp; Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to work for 3 to 5 hours with some supervisor constantly yelling and complaining?&nbsp; The agreement looks like a trial balloon floated in order to pick off just enough of the older full timers who are fed up with the forced OT on one end and the newer part time employees who are stuck at a poverty level wage.Maybe enough focused on just those two priorities might cry &quot;Uncle&quot; and vote Yes, but I&#039;m not convinced just yet.&nbsp; Most part timers where I work have heard too many horror stories these past two years and now not only don&#039;t want but fear taking the driving job and knowing that they could be forced to go 70 hours with zero 9.5 protection certainly won&#039;t change that dynamic.&nbsp; Hoffa and the boardroom in Atlanta can post and recite numbers and data all they want and it&#039;s not going to change the fact that the constant crisis mode working conditions that have built up at this company over the last several years have really hardened the attitudes of what I suspect are a majority of the hourlies.&nbsp; Nobody wants more hours when the conditions just constantly suck and never run smoothly.&nbsp; Things barely worked before Saturdays and now there&#039;s just never a decent day.&nbsp; At best, the offer appears to be &quot;Wrong Place - Wrong Time&quot;.&nbsp; If the union and company were serious about using hybrids to ease the overloaded dispatch, then present a clause that has irrefutable 9.5 language on one end and iron clad protection forbidding exploitation of hybrids up to 70 hours on the other.&nbsp; Until that happens, I&#039;d refuse it right there regardless of whatever other issues they claim to have &quot;fixed&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Undertow, post: 3596668, member: 4550"] I ask myself that too with regard to the "Why". It's a big country and not every building has the exact same circumstances but from everything I've heard and read, there's many facilities like mine that simply have a constant and chronic shortage on most if not all shifts. I'm not sure the company could attract anybody to start as a part timer on preload even if they offered something above minimum wage in conditions that bad. Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to work for 3 to 5 hours with some supervisor constantly yelling and complaining? The agreement looks like a trial balloon floated in order to pick off just enough of the older full timers who are fed up with the forced OT on one end and the newer part time employees who are stuck at a poverty level wage. Maybe enough focused on just those two priorities might cry "Uncle" and vote Yes, but I'm not convinced just yet. Most part timers where I work have heard too many horror stories these past two years and now not only don't want but fear taking the driving job and knowing that they could be forced to go 70 hours with zero 9.5 protection certainly won't change that dynamic. Hoffa and the boardroom in Atlanta can post and recite numbers and data all they want and it's not going to change the fact that the constant crisis mode working conditions that have built up at this company over the last several years have really hardened the attitudes of what I suspect are a majority of the hourlies. Nobody wants more hours when the conditions just constantly suck and never run smoothly. Things barely worked before Saturdays and now there's just never a decent day. At best, the offer appears to be "Wrong Place - Wrong Time". If the union and company were serious about using hybrids to ease the overloaded dispatch, then present a clause that has irrefutable 9.5 language on one end and iron clad protection forbidding exploitation of hybrids up to 70 hours on the other. Until that happens, I'd refuse it right there regardless of whatever other issues they claim to have "fixed". [/QUOTE]

Verification