Four Take Leave - Four Releaved 0 Comments
Tags: ATU 757, Bid, furlough, GOOD NEWS, Lay-offs, Seniority, The District, Union Members, Vacation BoardAs Four Operators Take The Furlough - It Allowed Four Other Operators Jobs to Be Saved
Without a doubt the Furlough program was a success. There was a minor problem that can be corrected I will mention later in this post. The first three were gone before day one of the bid was complete and the 4th closed the offer after a handful of people bid on the second day. Those that bid the summer furlough seemed very happy to be able to do so while keeping benefits and seniority rank while the 4 that in turn were able to keep employment at least until we cross the next bridge are somewhat relieved they do not have to search for a Job in this unforgiving Lane County job market.
I have heard from many of you that it would be nice if this was a regular offer and that many more of you would have accepted the leave had it made it to your seniority level. I agree, and I will be working with the District to explore our options in the future-layoffs or not. It may be something we look to get added either before or during Contract talks. I will keep the membership informed but I see this as a possible way the District can save some money and the Membership can take a few months off
One flaw was detected on the last day of bid week that was brought o my attention by someone that had bid vacation board and was waiting to select which weeks to sign for. Basically those who took furloughs also had bid vacation weeks for the summer back in March. Because these operators had the took the furlough, the days off were undetermined but it was reasonable to assume that as the 4 nearly always bid Sat and Suns as their days off-it would stay that way. So their names were posted as taking the furlough, but, days off were not posted as with other bidders at the time the vacation board operators signed up for the VACO board. Those considering bidding the Vacation Board have a very good idea how many weekends are to be available due to the fact that the operators scheduled for vacation that week have already picked a run showing their days off or have routinely pick the same days off in the past. So when any operator signs for the VACO board they sort of gauge what they see other operators s have taken for vacation during that bid and sign up, or don't sign up accordingly. If the four furlough takers listed normally take Sat and Sun off for their normal week it would be a reasonable assumption that that those days off would remain constant even during a furlough. When the District designated bid room personnel made the choice to change those consistent days off from Sat and Sun to other combinations of Days off they did so after the bid began and after the vacation board operators signed up for the Vacation board. While they have the right to do this they needed to notify all operators considering to sign for the vacation board so to ensure proper warning. Instead it became an unfair practice and because it made what vacation board bidders use as a long standing practice for making their choice of work it the ATU will likely request a Vacation Board rebid. I will be asking we restart the process of selection of VACO weeks based on this. The process should take only 8 hours but those hours will be broken up over the course of 4 or 5 days. I will conduct the sign up personally in an effort to save the District the cost. In addition I will try to do so in the without mark off by catching up with drivers before and after their scheduled run. So with this section of the bid being conducted by the ATU at almost no cost tot he district, the request for VACO Board rebid with the appropriate days off reset, shouldn't be denied.
What I will say about this oversight is that being the Furlough program was a ground breaking, one these types of anomalies are inevitable. But as the District bid personnel deliberately changed the days off and failed to properly notify the Operators or the Union before operators had signed up-the request to rebid is based on the principle of unfair notice. While I check over the run cut thoroughly before the bid is posted and before it begins, it makes it harder to stop the train after the bid is underway. Lets hope the District does the right thing here.
Without a doubt the Furlough program was a success. There was a minor problem that can be corrected I will mention later in this post. The first three were gone before day one of the bid was complete and the 4th closed the offer after a handful of people bid on the second day. Those that bid the summer furlough seemed very happy to be able to do so while keeping benefits and seniority rank while the 4 that in turn were able to keep employment at least until we cross the next bridge are somewhat relieved they do not have to search for a Job in this unforgiving Lane County job market.
I have heard from many of you that it would be nice if this was a regular offer and that many more of you would have accepted the leave had it made it to your seniority level. I agree, and I will be working with the District to explore our options in the future-layoffs or not. It may be something we look to get added either before or during Contract talks. I will keep the membership informed but I see this as a possible way the District can save some money and the Membership can take a few months off
One flaw was detected on the last day of bid week that was brought o my attention by someone that had bid vacation board and was waiting to select which weeks to sign for. Basically those who took furloughs also had bid vacation weeks for the summer back in March. Because these operators had the took the furlough, the days off were undetermined but it was reasonable to assume that as the 4 nearly always bid Sat and Suns as their days off-it would stay that way. So their names were posted as taking the furlough, but, days off were not posted as with other bidders at the time the vacation board operators signed up for the VACO board. Those considering bidding the Vacation Board have a very good idea how many weekends are to be available due to the fact that the operators scheduled for vacation that week have already picked a run showing their days off or have routinely pick the same days off in the past. So when any operator signs for the VACO board they sort of gauge what they see other operators s have taken for vacation during that bid and sign up, or don't sign up accordingly. If the four furlough takers listed normally take Sat and Sun off for their normal week it would be a reasonable assumption that that those days off would remain constant even during a furlough. When the District designated bid room personnel made the choice to change those consistent days off from Sat and Sun to other combinations of Days off they did so after the bid began and after the vacation board operators signed up for the Vacation board. While they have the right to do this they needed to notify all operators considering to sign for the vacation board so to ensure proper warning. Instead it became an unfair practice and because it made what vacation board bidders use as a long standing practice for making their choice of work it the ATU will likely request a Vacation Board rebid. I will be asking we restart the process of selection of VACO weeks based on this. The process should take only 8 hours but those hours will be broken up over the course of 4 or 5 days. I will conduct the sign up personally in an effort to save the District the cost. In addition I will try to do so in the without mark off by catching up with drivers before and after their scheduled run. So with this section of the bid being conducted by the ATU at almost no cost tot he district, the request for VACO Board rebid with the appropriate days off reset, shouldn't be denied.
What I will say about this oversight is that being the Furlough program was a ground breaking, one these types of anomalies are inevitable. But as the District bid personnel deliberately changed the days off and failed to properly notify the Operators or the Union before operators had signed up-the request to rebid is based on the principle of unfair notice. While I check over the run cut thoroughly before the bid is posted and before it begins, it makes it harder to stop the train after the bid is underway. Lets hope the District does the right thing here.
Visitors
