Boy! you got that right.

Hope somebody gets an answer to this tomorrow.

One thought I've had all along about them though.  You can't have

some of one kind and some of another////some employees and some

SEs.

That's where they keep getting onto the hot seat.  At least with an employee you have control - with SE you have no control.

I realize they want to be able to squeeze people out and not have to pay unemployment when the spirit moves them and when they lose accounts and don't want to worry about paying UNEMPLOYMENT for not having any work for an "employee" but it just won't ever work to have a mixture of SE and employees.

I get real tired of not having any work at the end of a pay period because the hogs climbed up to the trough who hadn't shown up the first week and now suck out all the work the last 3-5 days.  Basically if you are a person who shows up for your schedule, unless you do double-duty that first week, you don't have a Chinaman's chance of making your lines if you stick to your schedule thinking you can work 2 weeks and make your lines.

But they allow it to keep going on so we others keep getting stung. 

• Does MQ have STATUTORY EMPLOYEEs anymore under new plan???? - ??????????????????
  • They better have SE because no way is my insurance riding on the BS they pull with no work all the - MQMT
    • Boy! you got that right. - too much BS to get 12,000
  • they will be offering some pto time for se - yes
    • That is incorrect... no PTO for SE - no name
    • It does not mention statutory anything in my letter dated 9/2/05. - where are you seeing that?
      • ditto, no SE mentioned in 9/2 letter - nana23
      • full time, part time, statutory - no name
        • Letter - MQSE
      • super told me to meet lines of 12000 or be dropped to SE - i was told all employees who do not meet 12000 min
        • 12,000 AND 40 hours - no name
        • MQ-letter and 12000 lines - Tiki
          • from amherst - tonya wimberly-huger
        • If you don't mind could you clarify with her what she means? - I'd appreciate it so much
          • coming from corporate - from amherst ofc
            • Interesting - what is date on that? and does this newest memo from - Barbato override it
              • i do believe the barbato memo is the newest - same date - sept 2
                • Huh? you mean your letter and my memo from Barbato - are both Sept 2?
                  • i do believe that is correct, same memo - yes
                    • oops sorry - thought you had a - separate memo dated 9/2
      • my CSC person told me there is FT and SE - my misunderstanding then
  • no letter or memo to me yet - abc
    • Good point re: insurance, but also...sm - HomeMT
      • Not every SE is a "hog" - MT should have flexibility too
        • It is not the SE's, but rather the IC's - MQ'ers that HOG up the work
          • SE's vs IC's? - MQr
          • Not the SE's, but the IC's hogging the work. - Confused
          • MTs choose to be ICs for a reason... - wondering
          • Please, stop the Blame Game - MT naively hoping for solidarity?
      • Isn't MQ saving a kazillion$$$ by not - using 1-800 numbers
        • Don't you just love it when MQ expects the MT's to return - MQ Supes want you to call them back --
          • The supes just love it, because - MQ supes can "charge off" their long distanc
    • "Thinking" and "knowing" are 2 entirely different things. Actually I could see them doi - SE to get more control of

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu