What's The Driver's License For?

Call time was 9am, but we eventually got settled close to 10am, if not later. All the changes were made in the job description from the prior meeting, and both sides were hopeful that an agreement would be reached at this meeting. But again, that was just asking too much. There was always something that needed to be contested and disagreed upon. For this go-around, it was the inclusion of the driver's license requirement.

The union argued that the requirement of a driver's license was not inherent in the performance of the job, and, therefore, not necessary. On the other hand, management believed that it should be included because Desktop Support staff may be (and have been) required to transport equipment from one location to another, using either their personal vehicle or the company's. Thus, the need to have a driver's license.

During our caucus, I asked the managers from our team if it mattered to them how the equipment was brought from location to location. Some said it didn't matter to them, while the others said they wanted it transported by vehicle. As a consultant, I said that this requirement was not necessary in the fulfillment of their primary task of being a Desktop Support staff, and should not be included. However, the Labor Relations lawyer in the team thought otherwise. One argument that management had made was that they wanted to make sure that this "practice" (of driving) was continued (and grandfathered) and somehow captured in the job description.

I thought the more important word that was missing in the job description that needed to be clearly spelled out was "transporting" (of equipment) versus merely "moving", as currently written. "Transporting" meant "moving" from one facility to another, versus "moving" from one location (manager's office) to another (conference room). One may argue that it was all semantics, but one was more descriptive than the other. And in union job descriptions, you have to be more specific than vague.

Another issue on the job description the union has raised was the verbiage around Compliance. They were informed during the last meeting that changes could not be made because this was standard language that came from National Compliance, and was present in all KP job description, both union and non-union. The union rep didn't readily agree that this was present in union jobs, so he wanted to get a copy of an existing job description from us, while he checked his own resources.

Since the Compliance language contained reference to the use of "appropriate" federal and state licenses in the performance of the job, as necessary, management was willing to remove the driver's license requirement. However, no agreement was reached on the job description in its entirety, not until the union has verified the existence of the Compliance language in other union job descriptions.

Next on the agenda was the discussion about the contractors. Management provided the union with its counter-proposal. Management reiterated its desire to continue the current practice of using contractors for core projects, on a temporary basis, while other non-core projects were being created/assigned. It didn't seem like the union had any major heartburn about the counter-proposal except for the use of on-call staff. The union proposed it, but management didn't want it. But the ensuing discussions didn't result in anything final, as I recall it. I guess it's the union's move?

Another meeting is scheduled for next week, this time in sunny SCAL. The union rep requested that we continue discussing (and finalizing) the job description and the contractors. In addition, he wanted to talk about wages. This was where I come in.

It had been quite a productive meeting, but, as in the past, no agreement was made. We'll just have to move on and hope for it in the next one. As for the wages, since they brought it up, we'll have to see what they propose. Their ball.

Note: Author would like to acknowledge The Huffington Post (Katla McGlynn) for the illustration used on this post.