OK I am going to weigh in on this whole part time issue, but first let me say that this is only my opinion and does not reflect any policy of the union or the employer. Also in no way does this indicate my personal opinion on the value of officers be they Full-time, Part-time or Contract. This is just my personal opinion of how I believe the Collective Agreement should be applied to this issue of Part-time scheduling. I apologize now for the length of this post.
The first thing that people need to remember is that seniority should be the overriding factor, in almost all applications of the collective agreement. The problem we see in our department is that seniority is used in the full time scheduling of shifts. When we do our shift bids it is done by seniority and that is how our days off are applied, that is how we get EO’s and book PTO and so on. In part time scheduling shifts are given out “as equitably as practicable using seniority”. The current method of distributing shifts equally from top to bottom so that all Part time officers have the same amount of shifts does nothing more than ignore seniority. The union and employer have interpreted this as being a “fair process”.
Let’s take a look at what this fair process really does. In my view shifts should be distributed from the top of the part-time seniority to the bottom giving the person at the top as many shifts as they can handle, to a max of 40 hours if they want them. Then the next person and so on all the way down the list until there are no shifts left. Will those at the bottom of the list be stuck for shifts? Yes they will. They should be no different than all the full time officers that are stuck on midnights, based on their seniority. In article 15.b of our CBA the operative term is seniority, not fairness. “Seniority” is recognized under the law, where as the employers idea of fairness is not. The biggest problem here is that seniority is applied differently for full time officers then it is for Part-time. If proper seniority were applied to part time scheduling, there would be no issue with lower seniority officers getting UI benefits. This is another area where they have successfully brought right in line with the rest of employers operation. They have brought us into the fold, something all of you indicated that you didn’t want, when we bargained our last agreement.
During bargaining the union and the employer both agreed that the preference would be for the creation of full time employment. That was clearly stated on more than one occasion. There for, it was clear in my mind, that if an opportunity for the creation of full-time employment was available, it would be considered.
Another side effect of this “Fair Process” is that it stagnates any movement in the full time ranks and prevents the Union pressing for more full-time jobs. If the union can show that there is a position available, and that it can be consistently filled with a Part-Time officer for an extended period of time, the union can then show that there is a position available for a full time officer. For example, if there is a part time officer that works 40 hours a week on a day shift for 20 weeks, the union would be able to prove on paper, that there is a position available for a full time officer. With the current scheduling process the union will never be able to show the necessity for the creation of full time jobs.
Also let it be noted that almost every other article in the collective agreement as governed by the proper application of seniority. As far as I can tell, the only one that doesn’t have seniority applied properly is the Scheduling Article.
There are many full-time officers out there that see this issue as strictly a part-time problem. I assure you, it is not. Let me point out, that if the “two for one language” were ever to be enacted and current full time officers find themselves in the part-time ranks. They would not be able to apply for UI benefits under the current method of shift distribution. If I went down to part time I would not be able to absorb the loss of 2 or 3 days per week. So by not getting behind these PT officers we are potentially harming ourselves in the long run. There are a number of articles in our Collective Agreement that should be used to their fullest extent possible to ensure that seniority for all members of the bargaining unit remains intact. All of us full-time officers would have serious objections if our seniority was not respected, so then how can we sit by and watch as a full third of our department is having their negotiated rights trampled.
7 comments:
iam full time and iv'e been saying for years that the scheduling of part time shifts should be on a senority basis and how many they want to work. then let the shifts make their way down to the bottom, with part timers being able to work either site if they choose.
the only other thing that i would argue is that for call ins and extra shifts available, they be scheduled to those who have lesser shifts first.
this whole 2 for 1 is a joke. also in many areas of the full time list we have senority problems due to people being out of place on the list along with their start dates.
example, someone who started on contract dec 14 2003 has lesser full time senority now than someone who started part time on january 6 2004. how does the union justify this?
why wasn't the officer who started on dec 14 2003 at least offered part time first? then of course their were people who were hired full time and started at a later date who are above alot of senority spots where they should not be.
apparently our union dues do not result in fairness and what is right. the full time senority list should be corrected to reflect start dates no matter if you were hired on contract and are now full time or not.
maybe opseu can finally show that it represents a real union and not hide in a corner waiting for the problem to leave.
2 for 1, give me a break, proof to me that opseu doesn't care.....
i would have to say that i am in agreement with your views on this issue. the way i see it is that as full-time officers we would be "cutting our own throats" by not getting behind the part-timers on this issue. nobuddy can predict the future and many things have changed for the negative with regards to our business levels and in turn security postions at both casino sites which one day could lead to the layoff language being implemented and therefore "full-time" officers falling victim to hours worked being slashed under the current system in place for distributing part-time hours.
Well because if you were hired as a contract officer and somebody was hired as a part time then that part time officer has more senority. It goes contract, part time and full time. Those are the order in which we always gone by. As far as the 2 to 1 layoff ratio goes most of us know its a joke, but the high senority people who this does not affect are the ones who said yues to this. Hey they were more concerned with a computer refund than this
Well the first thing is that seniority affects all of us and any one that doesn't see that is living with their head in the sand. The 2 for 1 language was an attempt to gain a ratio of full time officers to part time officers. It was in an effort to prevent the employer from making us all part time in the event of a layoff. Not saying that it is great language, it is what it is. As far as high seniority guys being more concerned about a computer reimbursement, I seriously doubt that is the case.
We all voted on the collective agreement, and we all voted with our own conscience. So to blame someone on why this got in or didn't get in is pretty pointless.
ok i see your point about the 2 for 1, but the full time senority list is still out of place in alot of areas.
i understand that senority is based on when you started paying union dues regardless if you were full time, part time or contract. the full time senority list needs to be looked at and corrected in a fair manner.
my next concern is why are the part time officers starving for shifts in the winter time while duals are working in our uniform? is this being addressed anytime soon?
we also need to seriously look at ways to create movement within our department. the way it is now we will only keep going backwards.
I agree with your points, I spoke to that issue at the last membership meeting on Feb. 9 2011. I made the point about part time sechedualing, as well as the issues surrounding the use of duals in place of parttime officers. As far as anything being done about it, I dont have the answer. I know what I would do, but I can not speak for the executive. My point of view is expressed in the original post "Part Time Sheduling".
Using seniority to schedule PT officers could go a long way to creating fulltime jobs.
Also Jack with regards to duals. Is it true that in the event of a layoff they would no longer be permited to work hours in our uniform?
In the paper today the company talks about not laying off non-unionized employees. So where does that leave us?
What needs to be done for the company to offer buyouts to our department?
This issue needs to be looked at the more they downsize and also who knows if one day CN closes for a certain amount of hours like the slots in FE. Less people would be probaly be needed on that shift.
Post a Comment