This is true. I have filed grievances about it. I was not one of the carriers. Boy were those carriers mad.
However I was able to file the grievances even though I was not ordered(???) to work.
Overtime MOU going away Feb 21st
- Thread starter Jjf133
- Start date
This is true. I have filed grievances about it. I was not one of the carriers. Boy were those carriers mad.
However I was able to file the grievances even though I was not ordered(???) to work.
Dominator
Well-known member
Not a single new RCA hire has hung around for more than a week. Have not had a single day covered by an RCA in almost a year. There are none available. From the many surrounding rural offices. Area is littered with under worked CCA’s that know nothing about RRECS. I’d rather take all the overtime available than hand another craft a penny.
Dominator
Well-known member
The NRLCA doesn't want to touch national craft-crossing grievance with a 100-foot pole!
All they'd have to do is pull up the breadcrumbs of non-rural employees in rural territory, match the logged employee ID on the scanner, and that's all she wrote.
Instead, they want the employee (who doesn't have Article 31.2 access) to fire a shot without evidence in-hand, yet don't call it bad-faith argumentation.
Give me 50cc's of cognitive anesthesia, STAT!
When another craft works a Rural Route are they truly another craft?
Other than the 90 day wonders substitutes come from a contractual agreement. Does a union have the ability to set rules outside of its craft?
Is it possible to pursue paying CCA’s 3 times over time rate to work a Rural Route? If this is not really happening then it should not be a problem. If substitutes for us are not being hired it is a penalty. Possibly winnable in arbitration?
Other than the 90 day wonders substitutes come from a contractual agreement. Does a union have the ability to set rules outside of its craft?
Is it possible to pursue paying CCA’s 3 times over time rate to work a Rural Route? If this is not really happening then it should not be a problem. If substitutes for us are not being hired it is a penalty. Possibly winnable in arbitration?
Dominator
Well-known member
Yes. They do not become a member of a different craft whenever management assigns them to work belonging to a different craft.
Employees are classified by designation code (See Article 7). The designation code is associated with the craft to which they belong.
Dual appointments (See ELM 348) were once a thing, but to my knowledge, no longer coexist with any rural designation (7x).
Bargaining unit work is determined to the appropriate bargaining unit (union). That workload is then protected by inclusion and exclusion causes within no less than Article 1 of all national agreements.
The union cannot negotiate rules for other bargaining units, but it is the gatekeeper for who can perform its bargaining unit's work as well as what labor its bargaining unit members can perform.
For example, for the NRLCA:
1) City employees performing rural work is a violation against NRLCA because that workload and the wages/hours/benefits that result from processing that workload belong to NRLCA bargaining unit members, not NALC bargaining unit members.
2) Rural employees performing city work is a violation against NRLCA because that workload and the wages/hours/benefits that result from processing that workload have not been negotiated by the NRLCA. In this case, the employer is unilaterally sidestepping the union's right to bargain by assigning wages and benefits to that rural employee who is crossing crafts.
The NRLCA is mistaken when they argue that only the NALC can grieve when rurals cross craft lines. A violation of #1 for NRLCA is a violation of #2 for the NALC, just as a violation of #2 for the NRLCA is a violation of #1 for NALC.
If this weren't the case, then management is not sincerely bound to either union's Article 1, "union recognition" clauses.
Whatever number their golden goose pops out is immaterial. While the employer will choose whatever amount they unilaterally deem justified, rights to the workload were never surrendered and the wage was never negotiated by the bargaining unit recognized at the national level.
One route the union could go to stop craft crossing is agree to allow non-craft employees to do the work, but only at the national minimum wage.
How many city employees would vault the craft line at $7.25 an hour?
I'd hope that the NRLCA could defend a simple definitional bargaining unit work argument, but since they can't even follow simple certified correspondence requirements within their own constitution, I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited:
Then it is possible to restructure the agreement so that it is self reinforcing. Violation could become their problem more than our problem.
We may also be able to offer a supportable argument in arbitration for taking such action.
It costs us much more to hunt down and prove such violations than the violations are worth. With a proper agreement allowing a violation will cost them more than us.
We may also be able to offer a supportable argument in arbitration for taking such action.
It costs us much more to hunt down and prove such violations than the violations are worth. With a proper agreement allowing a violation will cost them more than us.
I think what you write it true. I also think we are likely to have the standard in the contract vote brings all MOU’s into the contract. It will then be included automatically
D
Deleted member 7264
Guest
As I understand it, there was no way for management to pay regular carriers for helping on other routes prior to the MOU. At least this is what my OJI told me when I started 6 years ago.
Dominator
Well-known member
Well... There is and there isn't a way to pay.
The MOU suspends the "no Sunday work for regular carriers" restriction (Art. 8.1) and the general "regulars can't work on other routes" restriction. (30.1.P).
Since an "access to work" prerequisite is required before a "pay for that work" result can exist, a general payment mechanism for paying regulars for performing that work doesn't exist independently of the MOU.
However...
In a postal world where money heals all wounds, a lump sum GATS payment (i.e. grievance payment) can bridge a solution when an 8.1 and/or 30.1.P violation exists.
Your bank account won't be able to tell the difference.
Dominator
Well-known member
Dominator
Well-known member
Since NRLCA goes limp when management uses CCA's to cover rural, it's no wonder why USPS would suck up that cheap labor.
Bonus that CCA's not entering all of the RRECS flags is collaterally reducing averages which can cut wages of all carriers of the route.
Way to go!USPS gettin' that "service with a smile"
PapahSmurf
Well-known member
I guess this only proves the evaluated system is an incentive based compensation…
stillfirstclass
Well-known member
when i helped on another route, not ever paid by the way, i was slower than nasal drip in the klondike.. specially with grouped mail boxes not marked and darkness....
Rogtar
Well-known member
i spent 20 minutes in a neighborhood in the dead of night looking for boxes before i found them. Would ask the locations to be marked on the case but i never saw the case...
Can we all say the same thing? When I was RCA if I knew I was over 40 or splitting route I would drag my feet too.
Wonder why???? I'm not a very smart man but I bet it has to do with how route is paid.
Yep 100%.
Right here the last part. If regular doesn't take care of route how am i suppose to know where things go so it slows everyeone down. I mean I got my route all marked, numbers on boxes, arrows to houses (unless obvious), CBUs label andmarked, and clean case yet I still can barely find people to run my route on my X days.
Last edited:
