Sunday, October 4, 2009

Letter from the Committee

To our Membership,
In the early sessions of contract negotiations, the company introduced a written proposal on standby language. This proposal was later withdrawn, however, the company has recently attempted to reintroduce the proposal verbally. Remember that there have been no written proposals submitted by the company since April.
The companies original reason for this proposal was that the fatigue standard would prohibit 18 hour shifts, and that they needed a mechanism to cover vacancies.
Now their position has changed.
They believe it would be all right to work a limited number of 18 hour shifts, but just not too many. The fatigue standard excuse no longer rings true.
Operations has done a good job of covering these vacancies. There have been, by the companies own admission, no 18 hour shifts this year. And very few in previous years. It has been a rare occurrence. If it is a rare occurrence and if it is in fact o.k. to work an occasional 18 hour shift, then why is standby needed?
Either it is o.k. to work an 18 hour shift, or it is not. If it is o.k., the why is standby needed?
If we are covering these vacancies, despite the elimination of the utility operator, Lead operator, and the inadequate number of trained operators in some areas, they why should the operators be expected to perform standby? They have covered their jobs.
Your Committee