union question

[mudober]

Hello, I am a union operator. Here where working under the presidental agreement. My ? Is about machine switching a b a usually but not here. I stay on my machine and I don't switch unless someone is sick or otherwise not here. Also there maybe some instences where something unforseen happens and you need a different machine for awhile.
But what pisses me off is these guys that will change equiptment 4 or 5 or more times a- day and do it day after day. Case in point I have been watching two other subs. And there workers for about the last 3 or 4 mounths.
I don't understand why the contract would decied when it would be aproperiat to have that many equiptment changes.
Can someone tell me why we even have a presidental agreement?

 

[Turbo21835]

Contract spells out how many times you switch machines per day. If they are doing more than the contract, turn the company ass kissers in. A union operator lives by the contract and dies by the contract.

 

[mudober]

I agree, but what I keep hearing is that under this damm presidents agreement machine changes are unlimited. That is a bunch of crap I think, there has to be some stipulation to it.

 

[maddog]

unless you own the equipment why would you have any say over who operates it, when, where, how? just a question.

 

[Blacksmoke07]

^ I agree with maddog. I dont nessecarily agree with changin machines all like that, just because i know alot of people abuse the crap out machines when theyre in and out alot, and dont keep them clean.. but if that company wants to run things that way, why not?

 

[digger242j]

I'm going to step in early here, and remind everybody about HEF's policy on the issue of Union vs Non-union, which is that we are aggressively neutral.

There's nothing inherently wrong with one union guy asking his brothers a question here, but on this particular topic, I can see a strong potential for somebody to speak up and criticize a system that says an employee isn't allowed to do something he's willing to do. I think that would prove counterproductive, so I'll ask everybody to please stick very carefully to the topic on this one.

Thanks.

 

[cutting edge]

Hello, I am a union operator. Here where working under the presidental agreement. My ? Is about machine switching a b a usually but not here. I stay on my machine and I don't switch unless someone is sick or otherwise not here. Also there maybe some instences where something unforseen happens and you need a different machine for awhile.
But what pisses me off is these guys that will change equiptment 4 or 5 or more times a- day and do it day after day. Case in point I have been watching two other subs. And there workers for about the last 3 or 4 mounths.
I don't understand why the contract would decied when it would be aproperiat to have that many equiptment changes.
Can someone tell me why we even have a presidental agreement?

A question from Canada here,hope I dont cross any lines....

Are these guys supposed to just sit in their machines and wait for another guy to do what ever,or are they just being productive?

For instance,lets say a job requires 4 pieces of equipment,that will get 50% utilization through the day.

Wouldn't it make sense to have 2 or 3 guys there instead of 4?

Always remember that your job depends on a company's efficiency,wether its union or non union.

 

[cutting edge]

digger 242,

Your PM box is full

it was an honest question about how things work or dont work down there.

If it crosses the line,you can delete my post.

 

[digger242j]

Your PM box is full

Not now it isn't.

it was an honest question about how things work or dont work down there.

If it crosses the line,you can delete my post.

I had hoped so. And no, as an honest question it doesn't cross the line. I would however, like everybody to just stick to factual answers, because this is one of those topics where strong opinions prevail, and as soon as opinions enter into the discussion, it might go downhill. I'm sure everybody understands what I mean.

 

[maddog]

I did not mean to cross any lines with my question, I'm sure most everyone has opinion one way or the other about unions. My question was serious, when an employee feels the need to dictate{lack of a better word} how the company they work for runs its business are they asking thmeselves "if it were my company, I would_____?" Take the union factor completely out of the OP's post and just reword it a bit. I work for _____ and believe I should be the only operator of machine #__ no one else should touch it, would this truely be a productive way to run a business or would it just keep a few operators happy?
Sometime back, I worked for a trucking company, when they took delivery of new trucks the senior operators got them. I didn't have a problem with this concept, except for the fact that the new trucks had sleepers, the older models did not. My issue came into play because the senior operators did not have over night runs while others did, would it not make more sense for the overnight guys to have the sleeper trucks? Instead of taking a stance on productivity{company} they would have the over night runners get a motel so the senior drivers wouldn't raise a stink about seniority. This did not really hurt the company because they would just raise the rate to cover cost, which inturn forces the customer to pay much more for a product/service then what it is worth. Just a simple thought/example of how a pebble rolling down a hil can turn into a boulder{so to say}.

 

[maddog]

^ I agree with maddog. I dont nessecarily agree with changin machines all like that, just because i know alot of people abuse the crap out machines when theyre in and out alot, and dont keep them clean.. but if that company wants to run things that way, why not?

I do agree not everyone takes care or keeps up with maintenance, it was also my point that it is up to the company how THEY run THEIR business. I quess if a person only wants to run one machine and not allow others in it they could allways buy it then contract themselves out??????

 

[digger242j]

My question was serious, when an employee feels the need to dictate{lack of a better word} how the company they work for runs its business are they asking thmeselves "if it were my company, I would_____?" Take the union factor completely out of the OP's post and just reword it a bit. I work for _____ and believe I should be the only operator of machine #__ no one else should touch it,

That's not the issue though. It's not about operator preference.

First, I'll post the disclaimer that my only exposure to the union rules was a long time ago. And I'm sure one of our guys who is in the union can step in and correct me if I'm wrong. Things may be different now anyway.

What the OP (which is an abbreviation for "opening poster", lest anybody get confused and think it might mean "Operator"), was talking about is the union rule that an operator is supposed to operate one machine. I think the "a b a" reference was to the rule that the operator could start the day on machine "a", switch to machine "b", and then switch back to "a", but that's it. A,b,a,c,d,e,a wouldn't be permissible under the contract the union has. My recollection is that, back when I'm recollecting, the operator had to call in and report that they were switching machines too, and if the BA caught them on a machine they hadn't reported in on, they could be in trouble with the union.

Anybody that knows for sure want to tell me if I got it right or not?

 

[mudober]

Yes that is correct. My question is about the presidental contract. You see around here its not for every job usually just on the big ones like powerplant refinery work maybe steel mill. I was wondering what the fine print says about switching machines. Thanks dig

 

[maddog]

thanks Digger242j I missunderstood

 

[white-elephant]

When I was an apprentice operator, the rule was you can run two machines and switch three times. I don't think this was written in stone but the idea was that the contractor not try to use one man to run everything on the job. Even if he can. When I was an apprentice, I was put out on a job setting a string line for a trencher. The journeyman had ticked off the boss, who liked me, and once he found out I was capable of running the trencher, he fired the journeyman and had me run it AND set the stringline. With a trencher, I would let the machine run while I ran ahead to set the next stake and stringline. Why? Because I was told this is what the job was. Later, a Business Agent who observed this asked me if I thought this was safe. Hmmm, did not cross my little mind at the time. Just doing what you're told doesn't always make it right. Can't comment on the Presidential agreement but call your BA, that is what he is there for.