Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Yes. A significant one actually. Almost 12% over 4 years.
|
That’s the previous offer that was rejected, I don’t believe they’ve moved since then. At least not publicly. 12% over 4 years is pretty low offer in my opinion.
Quote:
|
That is not and never has been what this dispute is really about though.
|
Money is definitely an issue in this but as you mentioned in your other post a major sticking point is the flexibility for the company to employ part time instead of full time so that they can provide more weekend coverage without paying overtime. Or at least that’s my understanding based on what I’ve heard. But if that’s accurate then it’s obviously a monetary issue as well because people will lose overtime.
If I had to guess, right now both sides probably realize that there is going to be some change in that regard. The business will struggle moving forward if they can’t provide steady 7 days a week delivery service. But if they expect the union to agree to reduce the current number of full time positions(I’m just basing that on your post, haven’t heard much about that) to accommodate that then this will probably go on for a while or until they are legislated back to work.
To me this seems like a case where a bump in the raise being offered to say 16-20% over 4 years in exchange for the flexibility of having a small fixed percentage of part time workers to cover weekends without a reduction from the current number of full time positions gets this done.
There’s a lot of other options they could potentially look at, like going from scheduling 5 8 hour shifts to 4x10s or 3x12s to reduce both overtime and the need to have more part time jobs instead of full time. But I don’t know how practical those options would be for that business specifically and if they haven’t discussed it yet they’re probably way too late in the game to even consider that now.