SatSouth wrote:
"I just don't get it. Why would anyone be opposed to the POVs and the COVs being treated equally"
You never will "get it" becuase you spend your time at a desk. Go spend this summer crawling under nasty houses & trailers or stumbling through attics with so much sweat dripping in your eyes you can see where your going or wht your doing. Try some of the low voltage electroshock treatments techs are exposed to everytime they are stuck having to work in the pouring rain, hooking up phone lines as water runs down their arms and hands.
No one is opposed to the POV's & COV's being treated the same. If you remember it was Bruister's management that chose to treat them differently last year when they brought in the COV's and instituted their hourly rates. If paying the COV's and POV's differently is not fair now then was it fair then? And if Bruister management has somehow suddenly had an epiphany and now feels paying them differently is wrong then why not pay them all piece rates and make the COV's pay the company rent for the use of the company truck? I know why, you see I do get it, because they wouldn't be able to cut the tech's pay further, that's why.
Satsouth wrote:
"Now, I realize that the hourly rate can, and probably will, always be debated, but it is hard to justify two different pay structures for basically the same type of employee doing the same type of work."
True, but that being the case, then what is the justification for lowering the POV's pay rates instead of raising the COV's rates?
SatSouth wrote:
"After all, both groups of employees work for the same company, doing basically the same type of work."
True, they do both work for the same money grubbing, penny pinching old ba$tard and they are both equal shat upon as well. So, what's your point here?
SatSouth wrote:
"Both groups are expected to work a minimum of 40 hours per week."
If you add up all the hours the piece rate tech were putting in while I was there you had guys working 60 or more hours a week. Adding up all the time spent doing installs, upgrades, service calls, going to houses where no one was home, cancellations where the tech never got notified, leaving home at 4am to make a 160 mile round trip drive to pickup equipment or attend a 15 minute meeting, the subjects of which could have been relayed via fax or email (if Bruister was a modern enough company to use this well established method which seems to work quite well for other companies) or doing company paperwork which seemed to change formats every other week, the tech put in a lot more than 40 hours a week, and a lot of those hours were never claimed on any time sheet because if they had there would not been enough hours out of the 40 we were alloted to work left for making our quota of installs.
SatSouth wrote:
"Both groups are eligible for the same benefits."
If you call paying $130 a WEEK for $2500 deductable (PER PERSON) per year a benefit then you need to think again pal. That policy can be purchase through most companies for $50 per month, it is a policy designed for people to use in conjunction with a healthcare savings account, not a stand alone benefit that Bruister tries to lead the employees to believe. And if it is such a great plan then why do the Bruister execs have a different plan which has much better coverage and much lower rates?
SatSouth wrote:
"Both groups must meet reasonable minimum production requirements to keep their respective jobs. Both groups can earn additional money if they produce more than their minimum production requirement."
When do you expect them to do this extra production? They are already working as much as 60 hours a week and only reporting 40 (because Bruister refuses to pay overtime in all but the busiest of times). They are doing all their paperwork and other tasks off the clock so when will they do this extra production? They spend little enough time with their families as it is what with being forced to work almost every holiday with Christmas Day being the only exception (and Herb would make them work them if he could).
SatSouth wrote:
"What it boils down to is that one group chooses to drive their own vehicle and the other chooses to drive a company vehicle."
Bruister already penalizes the POV's for using their own vehicles by giving the best routes and jobs to the COV techs so now they feel they have to take more form them. Again why not make the COV techs piece rate and charge them for the usage of the truck?
SatSouth wrote:
"Are POVs, just because they choose to drive their own vehicle inherently more valuable to the company and more deserving that the COVs?"
No, but what makes a POV or COV tech worth less today than a POV tech was worth this same time last year? I really want you to answer that question, but I know you won't, because that one question blows holes in everything you have said and you know it.
SatSouth worte:
"Actually, I suspect that even the union guys would support treating the COVs and POVs equally. They seem to support the notion of all employees being treated consistently."
Yes they do support employees being treated equally, but I don't think that means they would approve of Bruister's plan to equally screw both the POV and COV techs out of a fair wage does it? Treating employees equally and treating them equally and fairly are two different things.
SatSouth, you are right, you don't get it, you never have and you never will. But get this, no one is buying your bill of goods here. The only thing Bruister's plan will accomplish is to bring misery on the very people whose work keeps them in busuness. Any good techs Bruister has left will soon be looking for work elsewhere and that will leave Bruister with nothing but a bunch of $10 per hour hacks whose only experience in the world is sitting on mommy & daddy's sofa playing Nintendo or flipping burgers at Micky D's and whose only satellite installation training came from videos and someone who has been in the business a week longer than they have.
Re: One last blow to POV techs
Member #: 41567
Registered: 10/13/2005
Posted:
293
Name:
JD
Occupation:
installer
Location:
north Alabama
There is 1 reply to this message
