Nyfarmer
Well-known member
PO has gotten around to advertise for ARCs.
'<span style="font-weight: bold">Functional Purpose</span>
Using dynamic route descriptions, delivers packages on Sundays and observed holidays. <span style="font-style: italic">May case, deliver, and collect mail</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">and packages on Saturday along a prescribed rural route using a vehicle.</span>'
As far as I can tell the PO will have to put the potential ARC though the same training as an RCA. Evidently not eligible to be a REG (Yet!). The ARC 'benefit' is that they need not be available for weekday work - freeing up the employee to find other work, be a student , or caregiver with out encumbrance during the week. The 'benefit' to the PO is that they will not offer healthcare insurance (such a position should not break the 30 hour healthcare mandate rule). Thereby 'cutting costs'. Theoretically the PO is supposed to utilize available RCA's for Saturday route work before using an ARC. A 'good' manger might only retain enough RCA capacity for weekday work and fill whatever extra necessary with ARC's for Saturdays and Holiday work - 'cutting' costs.
I find it doubtful that the PO will be anymore successful hiring ARC's than RCA's. Maintaining an ARC workforce will require more recruitment and training resources - as I would expect such employee's to be highly transient - more so than RCA's.
Apparently there are real problems finding and retaining relief carriers - I say 'apparently' - because going on two years as an RCA neither management nor the union puts much effort into assisting an RCA to be successful and to stay on the job. I was somewhat taken aback that there is no RCA committee at the State union meeting - more time on the floor was spent on where the State meeting is to be held two years from now !
BTW I want to thank this site - as it has helped me greatly.
'<span style="font-weight: bold">Functional Purpose</span>
Using dynamic route descriptions, delivers packages on Sundays and observed holidays. <span style="font-style: italic">May case, deliver, and collect mail</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">and packages on Saturday along a prescribed rural route using a vehicle.</span>'
As far as I can tell the PO will have to put the potential ARC though the same training as an RCA. Evidently not eligible to be a REG (Yet!). The ARC 'benefit' is that they need not be available for weekday work - freeing up the employee to find other work, be a student , or caregiver with out encumbrance during the week. The 'benefit' to the PO is that they will not offer healthcare insurance (such a position should not break the 30 hour healthcare mandate rule). Thereby 'cutting costs'. Theoretically the PO is supposed to utilize available RCA's for Saturday route work before using an ARC. A 'good' manger might only retain enough RCA capacity for weekday work and fill whatever extra necessary with ARC's for Saturdays and Holiday work - 'cutting' costs.
I find it doubtful that the PO will be anymore successful hiring ARC's than RCA's. Maintaining an ARC workforce will require more recruitment and training resources - as I would expect such employee's to be highly transient - more so than RCA's.
Apparently there are real problems finding and retaining relief carriers - I say 'apparently' - because going on two years as an RCA neither management nor the union puts much effort into assisting an RCA to be successful and to stay on the job. I was somewhat taken aback that there is no RCA committee at the State union meeting - more time on the floor was spent on where the State meeting is to be held two years from now !
BTW I want to thank this site - as it has helped me greatly.