![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Nothing can be easy...
When I was hired in this job I have (which I totally and completely love) it was under the condition that the position I was hired in (as the third of three administrative assistants) was only guaranteed through December, and I took it knowing that because I needed a job and I've been working temp jobs anyhow. This one at least was with the county and carried county benefits.
Well, Vee, one of the other administrative assistants retired a couple of weeks back and my boss said that they were going to have the "sunset" provision on my job and it would be permanent.
I was thrilled and have been working with the thought that I will finally have a job I can rely on.
Well, today the other gal I work with, B, was talking to someone in the other department, P (who used to work in the UW Extension where I am now). Anyhow, P said that there is no way that can happen because the position needs to be posted to the union in order to be filled.
Which will effectively put me out of a job, because union rules state that the job needs to go to senior most union member who applies. Which will be any one other than me, since I was just hired a month ago.
Now, when I was hired, the position I was hired in (the temp one) had already been posted to the union and, when no one applied, was advertised out to the general public. I'm sure the "sunset" provision on it made it a much less appealing position and I don't see too many people giving up a permanent position to take a temp one.
The only good point: I don't think taking the "sunset" off of the position that I'm currently in, falls under the union rules of a "job vacancy". My boss has made it perfectly clear that the office is not filling the vacancy left by Vee's retirement.
And since I got the position I'm in by following all the rules, it can't be said that the rules weren't followed the first time.
I have a copy of the union labor agreement and it clearly states that a "vacancy" is created by the creation of a new position or the terminated employment of a current employee. That's not the case here.
At least, I don't think it is. Except it could be argued that the only reason that the sunset is going to be lifted is because of the vacancy caused by Vee's retirement. And if P talks grievence or causes a problem, I am so out of luck.
God help me, I really just wanted everything to fall into place. I am so very sick of this temp life. I know people live it all the time, and I know I always had a job when I really needed one, and I know that we always had just enough to get by...
Of course, my boss was out today and will be out tomorrow too, so there is no resolution to this. Since I have to wait until a committee meeting on July 9th to have the sunset removed (or not removed as the case may be) I doubt there will be a resolution anything soon.
At least I'm good at making it up as I go along.
Well, Vee, one of the other administrative assistants retired a couple of weeks back and my boss said that they were going to have the "sunset" provision on my job and it would be permanent.
I was thrilled and have been working with the thought that I will finally have a job I can rely on.
Well, today the other gal I work with, B, was talking to someone in the other department, P (who used to work in the UW Extension where I am now). Anyhow, P said that there is no way that can happen because the position needs to be posted to the union in order to be filled.
Which will effectively put me out of a job, because union rules state that the job needs to go to senior most union member who applies. Which will be any one other than me, since I was just hired a month ago.
Now, when I was hired, the position I was hired in (the temp one) had already been posted to the union and, when no one applied, was advertised out to the general public. I'm sure the "sunset" provision on it made it a much less appealing position and I don't see too many people giving up a permanent position to take a temp one.
The only good point: I don't think taking the "sunset" off of the position that I'm currently in, falls under the union rules of a "job vacancy". My boss has made it perfectly clear that the office is not filling the vacancy left by Vee's retirement.
And since I got the position I'm in by following all the rules, it can't be said that the rules weren't followed the first time.
I have a copy of the union labor agreement and it clearly states that a "vacancy" is created by the creation of a new position or the terminated employment of a current employee. That's not the case here.
At least, I don't think it is. Except it could be argued that the only reason that the sunset is going to be lifted is because of the vacancy caused by Vee's retirement. And if P talks grievence or causes a problem, I am so out of luck.
God help me, I really just wanted everything to fall into place. I am so very sick of this temp life. I know people live it all the time, and I know I always had a job when I really needed one, and I know that we always had just enough to get by...
Of course, my boss was out today and will be out tomorrow too, so there is no resolution to this. Since I have to wait until a committee meeting on July 9th to have the sunset removed (or not removed as the case may be) I doubt there will be a resolution anything soon.
At least I'm good at making it up as I go along.
no subject