Ramp Agents Only (PLEASE!)

[Ramp Rogue]

For those hired between 1980 and 1995; They couldn't care less what seniority system is used for someone hired in 1996, they'll always be ahead of them in seniority regardless of the system used.

That is where you are wrong my friend. The dates of the following scenario are approximate, but hopefully you'll finally understand why DOH is the only fair way to go.

RSA #1 - Hired p/t on 1/1/1995 - went f/t on 1/1/2005 - has adjusted seniority date of 1/1/2000 for f/t
bidding

RSA #2 - Hired p/t on 12/27/1999 - goes f/t on 12/31/1999 -
has adjusted seniority date of 12/29/1999 for f/t
bidding

RSA #3 - Hired f/t on 12/28/1999 - seniority date for
bidding is 12/28/1999

With your method, seniority order for bidding would be;
1. RSA #3
2. RSA #2
3. RSA #1

RSA #1 has 5 years seniority on RSA #2 and RSA #3, there is no logical rationale where #2 and #3 should jump ahead of someone hired 5 years before them.

You stated above that no one hired 1996 and after would ever be ahead of someone hired between 1980 - 1995. The scenario above proves your theory wrong. It has happened many, many times with this unfair classification seniority system. DOH all the way.

 

[IAM1776PHL]

Class date.

If I'm remember correctly we had an agent who went part time after 16 years as a full timer, which gave him p/t classification seniority of 32 years. His p/t class date was very close to his birth date. If you didn't understand classification time it would appear that he was hired when he was two years old.
Does this still stand ?

 

[D M G]

With your method, seniority order for bidding would be;
1. RSA #3
2. RSA #2
3. RSA #1

RSA #1 has 5 years seniority on RSA #2 and RSA #3, there is no logical rationale where #2 and #3 should jump ahead of someone hired 5 years before them.

You stated above that no one hired 1996 and after would ever be ahead of someone hired between 1980 - 1995. The scenario above proves your theory wrong. It has happened many, many times with this unfair classification seniority system. DOH all the way.

You're right with your examples and I guess I haven't paid enough attention to how they worked things for those hired after 1996.

I asked someone about your scenario and the explanation was that you will have more classification seniority the sooner you go full time in some situations. So as in your example, the FSA with three days full time will have more class time than the FSA who stayed part time for ten years because of where his date falls when his time is cut. Personally I don't think that's fair at all. I feel you should get credit for the hours you were scheduled for, and this is how it was always done. I just assumedthat those hired after 1996 were always put behind those hired before if a situation occurs as you described.

In any case, I still feel that class date is the way to go and a part timer with 18 years should never be place ahead of the full timer with 10 years. As far as anyone hired after 1996, they should be stapled to the bottom of the seniority list, basically maintaining two lists.

 

[Ramp Rogue]

You're right with your examples and I guess I haven't paid enough attention to how they worked things for those hired after 1996.

I asked someone about your scenario and the explanation was that you will have more classification seniority the sooner you go full time in some situations. So as in your example, the FSA with three days full time will have more class time than the FSA who stayed part time for ten years because of where his date falls when his time is cut. Personally I don't think that's fair at all. I feel you should get credit for the hours you were scheduled for, and this is how it was always done. I just assumedthat those hired after 1996 were always put behind those hired before if a situation occurs as you described.

In any case, I still feel that class date is the way to go and a part timer with 18 years should never be place ahead of the full timer with 10 years. As far as anyone hired after 1996, they should be stapled to the bottom of the seniority list, basically maintaining two lists.

Thank you for finally understanding where I was coming from. You don't know how hard it is to bid behind someone that was hired years after you. It goes even deeper still.The RSA that was hired in 1995 had 2 or 3 weeks vacation time in 2000. The other 2 RSA's had 1 or 2 weeks vacation time. Guess who gets to bid their vacation first? The 2 with the least amount of time. X earns more vacation time then Y, but Y gets to bid vaction first.

In the example I showed you, if there is a furlough the one that was hired in 1995 gets furloughed first. With 10 years seniority he gets furloughed, while the ones with 1 week seniority keep their job. How crazy is that? I have many more real life examples of situations such as the ones I've explained to you. But I think you get the idea now of how screwed up things are.

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Also the way our seniority system plays out, if there is anyone mandatoried, junior agents go home while senior agents are forced to stay and work.