A Quote From Fred

[59 Dano]

We took it because there was no alternative (a union). Fred's money, and supporters like you created this reality we're stuck with, and the sheeple ensured that nobody would rock Smith's boat. Trouble is, flaks like you try and create the image that Fred did this because he had to, which is utterly false. He did it because he wanted to and because he could. Paying-off your political buddies with millions helps create a vise from which your employees cannot escape. How much has Fred spent on keeping the RLA over the years...$100M, $200M? My guess is that it's far more than that, but he's saved himself hundreds of millions by having the ability to screw us at will.

Excuses, excuses... In other words, you took it knowing that there was more to come, and you're still taking it, and you'll be around for more in the future.

If anyone else was as smart as you think you are and had the guts you say you have, they'd be long gone to greener pastures by now.

 

[MrFedEx]

Excuses, excuses... In other words, you took it knowing that there was more to come, and you're still taking it, and you'll be around for more in the future.

If anyone else was as smart as you think you are and had the guts you say you have, they'd be long gone to greener pastures by now.

Keep right on lying, flak-boy. Bottom line is that Smith bought himself an iron-clad RLA exemption. Unionization is nearly impossible given that reality. Union-busting is illegal, but not for FedEx. Why is that Dano?

 

[59 Dano]

A contractor (to use the generic term) has 5 drivers and 3 want union representation. That's not that hard to accomplish. You don't have to organize every driver in the building, just a few contractors' worth. You take 4 contractors with 4 drivers each and get those drivers unionized. If they strike there are 16 routes that will not be run completely, if at all, in that 1 facility.

That's very similar to the kind of organizing that would happen at Express if not for the RLA. No one expected Express to vote in a union for the company, but it didn't have to as long as a enough locations gained representation to disrupt operations via a strike.

If the Ground clowns would wake up and realize this, they could make some big waves.

 

[59 Dano]

Keep right on lying, flak-boy. Bottom line is that Smith bought himself an iron-clad RLA exemption. Unionization is nearly impossible given that reality. Union-busting is illegal, but not for FedEx. Why is that Dano?

It's not illegal to tell your employees, "I don't want you to join a union." You didn't know that?

 

[MrFedEx]

It's not illegal to tell your employees, "I don't want you to join a union." You didn't know that?

Actually, you are incorrect. Management is supposed to be neutral, which they most certainly are not. There isn't a more anti-union company out there.

 

[Ricochet1a]

It's not illegal to tell your employees, "I don't want you to join a union." You didn't know that?

Yes it is.

An employer can pay their employees to sit though "meetings" giving the employer's perspective on why not having a union is "better for the employees", but coming right out and stating, "I don't want you to join a union" is against the law and would subject the employer to potential sanction.

You need to have whoever is writing your talking points to run them first through legal... sloppy shilling going on.

 

[59 Dano]

Actually, you are incorrect. Management is supposed to be neutral

LOL!! On what planet?

 

[59 Dano]

Yes it is.

An employer can pay their employees to sit though "meetings" giving the employer's perspective on why not having a union is "better for the employees", but coming right out and stating, "I don't want you to join a union" is against the law and would subject the employer to potential sanction.

You need to have whoever is writing your talking points to run them first through legal... sloppy shilling going on.

The NLRB and the unions themselves are pretty clear with what is and is not acceptable behavior. I think I'll take their word over yours.

 

[Ricochet1a]

A contractor (to use the generic term) has 5 drivers and 3 want union representation. That's not that hard to accomplish. You don't have to organize every driver in the building, just a few contractors' worth. You take 4 contractors with 4 drivers each and get those drivers unionized. If they strike there are 16 routes that will not be run completely, if at all, in that 1 facility.

That's very similar to the kind of organizing that would happen at Express if not for the RLA. No one expected Express to vote in a union for the company, but it didn't have to as long as a enough locations gained representation to disrupt operations via a strike.

If the Ground clowns would wake up and realize this, they could make some big waves.

Unions don't have the resources to attempt to organize a bunch of "packets" of drivers.

First of all, the "contractors" would each negotiate independently with a potential union. There are just too damn many of them to make it cost effective for a union to bother with (this contractor agrees to this demand, the other doesn't, none will agree to a master agreement - so do we strike???).

Second, any contractor which did have their employees organize, would merely lock them out, and get temps to operate their routes. Unions are effective due to their ability to shut down the ENTIRE company in contract negotiations - not by having a few small work units cause issues.

FedEx planned out the Ground model SOLELY to prevent unionization of the drivers. You might as well try stating that the drivers (non-owners) could organize if they all just got together and decided they were going to have a work stoppage one day....

That kind of coordination simply doesn't exist and FedEx knows it.

 

[Ricochet1a]

The NLRB and the unions themselves are pretty clear with what is and is not acceptable behavior. I think I'll take their word over yours.

I've had FedEx Express management types clearly violate federal law in telling wage employees what they cannot do with regard to organizing. If I had wanted, I could've forwarded a complaint to the NLRB and had an investigation launched. I choose not to, since in the end, the manager in question wouldn't have been terminated and it would've merely placed me and my workgroup (who were all witnesses to the violation of law), into the cross hairs of Express.

Have whoever writes your talking points review acceptable conduct for employers when it comes to union prevention efforts. Employers CANNOT come out and tell their employees, "I don't want you to join a union" - that is intimidation, and is clearly illegal (when an employer uses its authority to inform employees that it doesn't want them to engage in a legally protected activity, that is intimidation).

 

[59 Dano]

Unions don't have the resources to attempt to organize a bunch of "packets" of drivers.

First of all, the "contractors" would each negotiate independently with a potential union. There are just too damn many of them to make it cost effective for a union to bother with (this contractor agrees to this demand, the other doesn't, none will agree to a master agreement - so do we strike???).

Second, any contractor which did have their employees organize, would merely lock them out, and get temps to operate their routes. Unions are effective due to their ability to shut down the ENTIRE company in contract negotiations - not by having a few small work units cause issues.

FedEx planned out the Ground model SOLELY to prevent unionization of the drivers. You might as well try stating that the drivers (non-owners) could organize if they all just got together and decided they were going to have a work stoppage one day....

That kind of coordination simply doesn't exist and FedEx knows it.

They don't have to organize everyone. Just enough people to disrupt the operations at that facility. There's no need to shut down the entire company at this point. The 1st and foremost goal should be to organize to get a better deal for yourself, which is the whole point. If the employees of 3 or 4 contractors organize, that's enough to send a message.

If there's a strike for some reason they can cause a disruption to their employer, ACME Transfer or whomever. Granted, it would be more difficult to strike and significantly disrupt operations at the entire facility, but they don't work for the owner of the facility, they work for ACME Transfer.

 

[59 Dano]

I've had FedEx Express management types clearly violate federal law in telling wage employees what they cannot do with regard to organizing.

That's fine, but an employer telling his employees that he doesn't want a union in the workplace is hardly illegal.

Have whoever writes your talking points review acceptable conduct for employers when it comes to union prevention efforts. Employers CANNOT come out and tell their employees, "I don't want you to join a union" - that is intimidation, and is clearly illegal (when an employer uses its authority to inform employees that it doesn't want them to engage in a legally protected activity, that is intimidation).

You're saying that it's illegal for an employer to say that he doesn't want a union in his workplace, but it's legal for him to try and persuade the employees to not vote one in! LOL! Makes perfect sense. Tell your talking point guy that he's fired.

Like I said, I'll take the word of the unions themselves over that of an internet lawyer.

 

[Ricochet1a]

That's fine, but an employer telling his employees that he doesn't want a union in the workplace is hardly illegal.



You're saying that it's illegal for an employer to say that he doesn't want a union in his workplace, but it's legal for him to try and persuade the employees to not vote one in! LOL! Makes perfect sense. Tell your talking point guy that he's fired.

Like I said, I'll take the word of the unions themselves over that of an internet lawyer.

Well Dano boy, put up your citation that proves your talking point.

"The word of the unions"....

I'm waiting for a citation from a union created piece that states that employers are allowed to intimidate their employees into not joining a union...

Your Lord and Master won't come out and say, "We don't want our employees to join a union" - he knows better than to violate the law like that.

He states, "We prefer to have a direct relationship with our employees". And, "Our employees have the right to organize if they so choose, so far, they have chosen to not use a third party in their relationship with FedEx".

Give it up stooge, you're talking out of your exhaust manifold and can't justify your blind devotion to your Master - all while attempting to belittle the wage employees who make it possible for you to collect your salary from your Master.

 

[bbsam]

Unions don't have the resources to attempt to organize a bunch of "packets" of drivers.

First of all, the "contractors" would each negotiate independently with a potential union. There are just too damn many of them to make it cost effective for a union to bother with (this contractor agrees to this demand, the other doesn't, none will agree to a master agreement - so do we strike???).

Second, any contractor which did have their employees organize, would merely lock them out, and get temps to operate their routes. Unions are effective due to their ability to shut down the ENTIRE company in contract negotiations - not by having a few small work units cause issues.

FedEx planned out the Ground model SOLELY to prevent unionization of the drivers. You might as well try stating that the drivers (non-owners) could organize if they all just got together and decided they were going to have a work stoppage one day....

That kind of coordination simply doesn't exist and FedEx knows it.

It isn't the drivers they should try to organize, it's the contractorrs. But we are mercenaries at heart and we know which side our bread is buttered on. Show us a side with butter and jam, we might just listen.

 

[Ricochet1a]

It isn't the drivers they should try to organize, it's the contractorrs. But we are mercenaries at heart and we know which side our bread is buttered on. Show us a side with butter and jam, we might just listen.

You're not an employee, you are an "Independent Owner"...

Who are you going to organize against???

Are you suggesting that you need an even bigger cut of the pie?

If you don't like the deal Fred is offering, you are always free to say, "No". Get enough of your fellow "Independent Owners" to say no, and you might have something.

That is even less likely to occur than the Couriers of Express organizing at some point in the future.

 

[bbsam]

N

You're not an employee, you are an "Independent Owner"...

Who are you going to organize against???

Are you suggesting that you need an even bigger cut of the pie?

If you don't like the deal Fred is offering, you are always free to say, "No". Get enough of your fellow "Independent Owners" to say no, and you might have something.

That is even less likely to occur than the Couriers of Express organizing at some point in the future.

Ah. But for a nondisclosure agreement, we would have much to discuss here on BC.

 

[vantexan]

It isn't the drivers they should try to organize, it's the contractorrs. But we are mercenaries at heart and we know which side our bread is buttered on. Show us a side with butter and jam, we might just listen.

"We hate ourselves and we're not going to take it anymore"!!!

 

[bbsam]

"We hate ourselves and we're not going to take it anymore"!!!

Go find a Ground ISP and talk to him. Then come back and maybe you can post intelligently. Maybe not though.

 

[vantexan]

Go find a Ground ISP and talk to him. Then come back and maybe you can post intelligently. Maybe not though.

You said the "contractorrs" should organize. Since you're the boss, wouldn't you be organizing against yourselves? Forgive my riff on the great line from "Network": "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore"!!

 

[bbsam]

You said the "contractorrs" should organize. Since you're the boss, wouldn't you be organizing against yourselves? Forgive my riff on the great line from "Network": "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore"!!

I said we are mercenaries of a sort. There were contractors in Michigan who organized years ago. Just depends on whether the risk is worth the reward. I don't know if we ever would or not. More doable than trying to organize the drivers of 5000 different contractors though.