Are You Working Feb 14th?

[quadro]

It's hard for me to believe that you don't think FedEx is using the RLA to keep a Union out. If you were just any employee and you felt nothing should change at FedEx you wouldn't feel the need to dedicate this much time to fighting the RLA classification change on the web, it seems like you wouldn't care at all.

Most of our discussion has been about age discrimination, not the RLA so I'm really not fighting to keep the RLA classification. I'm certainly not against it but I'm not trying push for it either. My opinion is simply that the unions obviously don't think they can organize FedEx under RLA otherwise 1. they would, and 2. they wouldn't be pushing so hard for the change to NLRA. I also think FedEx wants to keep the RLA simply to stop a few stations, ramps, etc, from causing problems for the whole system. So it does serve to keep a union out in the same sense that you might close a window to keep out the cold but it also serves to keep the heat in. Just depends on your perspective.

If you are so knowledgeable about how performance standards are set at FedEx you should enlighten everybody.

I really don't know how they are set, I just know what they are and I know this because they are the same for everybody.

All the site you linked pointed out was that age discrimination is forbidden, it did not go into specifics defining what age discrimination was. So what exactly is your point here?

I don't know what else to tell you. That's the EEOC's page. You are not going to find a website that lists all the possible examples of age discrimination. However, to make it simple for you, here's a relevant part of the EEOC's page:
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual's genetic information

It should be obvious to anyone that if you push a 20 year old to his/her physical limits and you do the same to a 50 year old you are going to get more out of the 20 year old in most cases.

Look at the part I quoted. If you were a manager and said what you said at work, anyone over 40 would have a legitimate discriminatory complaint against you. You are making an assumption about the ability of someone based on their age (50). So to avoid this situation you simply don't make statements that involve age or any other protected class. That's exactly what FedEx does or in this case doesn't do. They don't make assumptions about someone's ability based on their age. They do this by making the requirements the same for everyone, regardless of age.

Look, let's just agree to disagree on the RLA thing, who I am, what I do, etc, etc. All that aside, do you see how what you are claiming FedEx should do with regards to older employees actually would be in violation of the law? We can agree that in general young people may have an easier time with the courier job than older people and that it would be nice if older people were treated differently to younger people but the law simply doesn't allow FedEx or any employer to make that distinction. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you want the law to protect you because of your age, you cannot then use your age to be treated differently.

 

[FedEx courier]

Most of our discussion has been about age discrimination, not the RLA so I'm really not fighting to keep the RLA classification. I'm certainly not against it but I'm not trying push for it either. My opinion is simply that the unions obviously don't think they can organize FedEx under RLA otherwise 1. they would, and 2. they wouldn't be pushing so hard for the change to NLRA. I also think FedEx wants to keep the RLA simply to stop a few stations, ramps, etc, from causing problems for the whole system. So it does serve to keep a union out in the same sense that you might close a window to keep out the cold but it also serves to keep the heat in. Just depends on your perspective.


I really don't know how they are set, I just know what they are and I know this because they are the same for everybody.


I don't know what else to tell you. That's the EEOC's page. You are not going to find a website that lists all the possible examples of age discrimination. However, to make it simple for you, here's a relevant part of the EEOC's page:
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual's genetic information

Look at the part I quoted. If you were a manager and said what you said at work, anyone over 40 would have a legitimate discriminatory complaint against you. You are making an assumption about the ability of someone based on their age (50). So to avoid this situation you simply don't make statements that involve age or any other protected class. That's exactly what FedEx does or in this case doesn't do. They don't make assumptions about someone's ability based on their age. They do this by making the requirements the same for everyone, regardless of age.

Look, let's just agree to disagree on the RLA thing, who I am, what I do, etc, etc. All that aside, do you see how what you are claiming FedEx should do with regards to older employees actually would be in violation of the law? We can agree that in general young people may have an easier time with the courier job than older people and that it would be nice if older people were treated differently to younger people but the law simply doesn't allow FedEx or any employer to make that distinction. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you want the law to protect you because of your age, you cannot then use your age to be treated differently.

I have to acknowledge that you seem to respect differing opinions. I am really just stating what I have seen first hand. It is difficult for me to see how punishing an employee for something they aren't physically able to do because of their age isn't discrimination. I am not alone in this, as I said before go to google and type in fedex age discrimination in the search engine and see how many lawsuits there are.

You have continuously pointed out that I make assumptions about things going on across FedEx. Aren't you doing the same thing when you say that FedEx makes the requirements the same for everyone. You seem to have acknowledged before that some managers have a tendency to abuse situations like this. So I can only assume that what you mean is FedEx does not literally condone age discrimination but leaves such determinations up to local management. If company policy dictates that managerial decisions are up to individual operations, then if such discrimination occurs it would in fact be company policy.

I have to disagree with your statements about why FedEx wants to keep it's RLA status. It is obvious they don't want to have to provide benefits and a grievance process similar to that in a Union environment. I think FedEx knows it would spread like a virus and wouldn't be just a couple of stations. Managers would go from judge juror and executioners to actually having to abide by a set of rules.

 

[FedEx courier]

P.S.
The only reason I really brought up the RLA was because looking over your previous posts most of them dealt with that topic.

 

[quadro]

I have to acknowledge that you seem to respect differing opinions. I am really just stating what I have seen first hand. It is difficult for me to see how punishing an employee for something they aren't physically able to do because of their age isn't discrimination. I am not alone in this, as I said before go to google and type in fedex age discrimination in the search engine and see how many lawsuits there are.

I understand how it can seem that way but the fact of the matter is, it isn't discrimination. Somehow you're just going to have to wrap your mind around that fact. The law requires a company to apply the same standards no matter what a person's age. That's why there are job descriptions. To make it clear exactly what is required. There are jobs that are exempt from this (not sure if exempt is legally the correct term). Pilots, for example, have a mandatory retirement age which in effect says they cannot do the job because of their age. 99% of jobs aren't like that. It's up to the individual to decide if they are physically capable of doing the job. If they are not and do not change jobs, then their below par performance must be addressed. Here's the problem that is sometimes mistaken as age discrimination: An older employee at FedEx who's been around 25 years and is the nicest person in the world cannot do the job and worse case gets terminated. Everyone screams age discrimination. The problem is that if FedEx said "well, they're a long time employee and a great person, let's cut them some slack and let them keep their job" they now couldn't hold anyone accountable because they've ignored their own job requirements.

You have continuously pointed out that I make assumptions about things going on across FedEx. Aren't you doing the same thing when you say that FedEx makes the requirements the same for everyone.

I'm not making an assumption because the requirements are the same for everyone. Those requirements are outlined in policies and job descriptions. The job description and acceptable standards for a courier in Truth or Consequences, NM, are the same as for a courier in Walla Walla, WA.

You seem to have acknowledged before that some managers have a tendency to abuse situations like this. So I can only assume that what you mean is FedEx does not literally condone age discrimination but leaves such determinations up to local management. If company policy dictates that managerial decisions are up to individual operations, then if such discrimination occurs it would in fact be company policy.

I acknowledged that a manager could abuse their authority. I have no direct knowledge of one that has. FedEx has an anti-discrimination policy so the assumption is that they don't condone discrimination. Company policy does not dictate that managerial decisions are up to individual operations. The policies are there to ensure that managers are consistent in their decisions and don't discriminate.

Now in the real world, you are talking hundreds, if not thousands of managers making 10's of thousands of decisions. Managers are human and make mistakes. As long as there is a formal process for questioning a managers decisions then that's a good thing. FedEx has GFT, Open Door, ethics line, etc for doing that. Given the nature of this forum, most people here would likely say that those are worthless. That's their opinion and they are welcome to it. My personal experience says they are not worthless.

I have to disagree with your statements about why FedEx wants to keep it's RLA status. It is obvious they don't want to have to provide benefits and a grievance process similar to that in a Union environment. I think FedEx knows it would spread like a virus and wouldn't be just a couple of stations. Managers would go from judge juror and executioners to actually having to abide by a set of rules.

That's your opinion and I respect that. Keep in mind that managers aren't judge, jury, and executioner. Well at least not jury and executioner as a terminated employee can go through the three GFT steps and have their situation reviewed. The manager has no control over that.

 

[FedEx courier]

I understand how it can seem that way but the fact of the matter is, it isn't discrimination. Somehow you're just going to have to wrap your mind around that fact. The law requires a company to apply the same standards no matter what a person's age. That's why there are job descriptions. To make it clear exactly what is required. There are jobs that are exempt from this (not sure if exempt is legally the correct term). Pilots, for example, have a mandatory retirement age which in effect says they cannot do the job because of their age. 99% of jobs aren't like that. It's up to the individual to decide if they are physically capable of doing the job. If they are not and do not change jobs, then their below par performance must be addressed. Here's the problem that is sometimes mistaken as age discrimination: An older employee at FedEx who's been around 25 years and is the nicest person in the world cannot do the job and worse case gets terminated. Everyone screams age discrimination. The problem is that if FedEx said "well, they're a long time employee and a great person, let's cut them some slack and let them keep their job" they now couldn't hold anyone accountable because they've ignored their own job requirements.


I'm not making an assumption because the requirements are the same for everyone. Those requirements are outlined in policies and job descriptions. The job description and acceptable standards for a courier in Truth or Consequences, NM, are the same as for a courier in Walla Walla, WA.

I acknowledged that a manager could abuse their authority. I have no direct knowledge of one that has. FedEx has an anti-discrimination policy so the assumption is that they don't condone discrimination. Company policy does not dictate that managerial decisions are up to individual operations. The policies are there to ensure that managers are consistent in their decisions and don't discriminate.

Now in the real world, you are talking hundreds, if not thousands of managers making 10's of thousands of decisions. Managers are human and make mistakes. As long as there is a formal process for questioning a managers decisions then that's a good thing. FedEx has GFT, Open Door, ethics line, etc for doing that. Given the nature of this forum, most people here would likely say that those are worthless. That's their opinion and they are welcome to it. My personal experience says they are not worthless.

That's your opinion and I respect that. Keep in mind that managers aren't judge, jury, and executioner. Well at least not jury and executioner as a terminated employee can go through the three GFT steps and have their situation reviewed. The manager has no control over that.

The manager has no control over the review. That may be correct but what is stopping the manager from retaliating against that employee after the fact. That is the big flaw in the FedEx system. Your right most people who I have ever talked to who have filed one regard it as a joke. There is a fundamental flaw when you file a complaint to the same people you are complaining against. There is no neutrality or written in protection for the employee. From what I've been told by employees that used the GFT it has become such a joke that the managers and personel reps have begun blatantly working together against the employee right in front of them and not even caring.

 

[quadro]

The manager has no control over the review. That may be correct but what is stopping the manager from retaliating against that employee after the fact. That is the big flaw in the FedEx system. Your right most people who I have ever talked to who have filed one regard it as a joke. There is a fundamental flaw when you file a complaint to the same people you are complaining against. There is no neutrality or written in protection for the employee. From what I've been told by employees that used the GFT it has become such a joke that the managers and personel reps have begun blatantly working together against the employee right in front of them and not even caring.

Technically nothing is stopping the manager from retaliating. The big flaw you are referring to infers that every manager is corrupt and that simply isn't the case. If a manager were to truly retaliate, 99% of the time, using the GFT, Open Door, or calling the ethics line would resolve the issue. You can believe that or not, your choice but think about it. A manager retaliates and the senior manager, director, VP, Sr VP, HR, HR manager, HR director, HR VP, HR Sr VP,etc all turn a blind eye? That's some conspiracy theory.
And you really don't file a complaint to the same people you are complaining against. Most times your complaint is with your manager or sr. manager. Neither the GFT, Open Door, or ethics line goes to either one of those two people.
Whether it's GFT or a union grievance process, if your discipline is overturned, in your eyes it's a great process. If your discipline is not overturned, it's a joke. That's just humane nature. Ask yourself how many people have told you or have you heard about who went through the GFT process? And how many of those thought it was a joke? I'd venture a guess that it's certainly not all of them and typically you are not going to hear about the people who had discipline overturned. The most vocal are the ones that feel they've been wronged (whether they were or not cannot be determined here).

And one other thing I just thought of. The GFT process is open to everyone and accessible easily online at FedEx. I'm not sure it works the same way with a union grievance process. I'm sure someone here can tell us but my understanding is that if you have a grievance you have to go through the shop steward and there's no guarantee that your grievance will even get heard. Again, not claiming that to be fact and would welcome accurate info on that.

 

[FedEx courier]

Technically nothing is stopping the manager from retaliating. The big flaw you are referring to infers that every manager is corrupt and that simply isn't the case. If a manager were to truly retaliate, 99% of the time, using the GFT, Open Door, or calling the ethics line would resolve the issue. You can believe that or not, your choice but think about it. A manager retaliates and the senior manager, director, VP, Sr VP, HR, HR manager, HR director, HR VP, HR Sr VP,etc all turn a blind eye? That's some conspiracy theory.
And you really don't file a complaint to the same people you are complaining against. Most times your complaint is with your manager or sr. manager. Neither the GFT, Open Door, or ethics line goes to either one of those two people.
Whether it's GFT or a union grievance process, if your discipline is overturned, in your eyes it's a great process. If your discipline is not overturned, it's a joke. That's just humane nature. Ask yourself how many people have told you or have you heard about who went through the GFT process? And how many of those thought it was a joke? I'd venture a guess that it's certainly not all of them and typically you are not going to hear about the people who had discipline overturned. The most vocal are the ones that feel they've been wronged (whether they were or not cannot be determined here).

And one other thing I just thought of. The GFT process is open to everyone and accessible easily online at FedEx. I'm not sure it works the same way with a union grievance process. I'm sure someone here can tell us but my understanding is that if you have a grievance you have to go through the shop steward and there's no guarantee that your grievance will even get heard. Again, not claiming that to be fact and would welcome accurate info on that.

I'm not saying that every manager is corrupt, I'm just saying that there is no protection in place for the employee. I'm honestly not trying to insult you but I have to try and remember that this is being discussed with someone who actually believes FedEx puts it's people before anything else. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here, just stating that the company is going to make a decision that benefits them before the employees. Even you have stated that in a round a bout manner. I've never heard that about a grievance never being heard again. Please enlighten me on that issue. Most people I have known to file a GFT unless they have been terminated know not to try it again because the threat of retaliation is too great. You will become a target and lose anyway so what does it matter?

 

[quadro]

I'm not saying that every manager is corrupt, I'm just saying that there is no protection in place for the employee. I'm honestly not trying to insult you but I have to try and remember that this is being discussed with someone who actually believes FedEx puts it's people before anything else. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here, just stating that the company is going to make a decision that benefits them before the employees. Even you have stated that in a round a bout manner. I've never heard that about a grievance never being heard again. Please enlighten me on that issue. Most people I have known to file a GFT unless they have been terminated know not to try it again because the threat of retaliation is too great. You will become a target and lose anyway so what does it matter?

But you are inferring that everyone in management is corrupt. By saying there is no protection for an employee your implying that the GFT process, Open Door, ethics line, etc, are just for show and that any member of management involved would not do the right thing. If you are not saying that, then there is protection for an employee because when their complaint comes to upper management's attention, if policy wasn't followed or not applied fairly across the board, then they would correct that.

It's not that decisions are made that benefit the company before the employees, it's that business decisions could be good or bad for the employees and you try to make a decision that is good for both. After all, no matter how good the decision is for the employees, if it's bad for business it ultimately becomes bad for the employees. For the record, we as a company do make bad decisions sometimes but we are, after all, human and make mistakes. I look more at the intent of the decision and even then, if I think the intent was wrong, I'll temper that with all decisions that I've seen. If and when the bad ones start becoming a larger percentage of all decisions, I would then re-evaluate my options. Just as I don't want my manager to judge me on one mistake, I don't judge others that way.

This whole retaliation thing is very anecdotal. Has it ever happened? I don't doubt it but I don't believe it is common or widespread. What I have seen happen is someone files a GFT and their discipline is overturned not because they didn't do anything wrong but because of some sort of technicality (don't know what those are as I'm not privvy to the details but in general conversation with managers and employees I put two and two together). Then what happens is that same employee either cannot correct the initial problem and their performance is still unacceptable or they get a little too full of themselves and believe they are untouchable and do something stupid. They then get disciplined again and rightly so, and claim that it's retaliation when it clearly is not. Lastly, if you believe it is common or widespread, then again you are implying that all managers are corrupt.

As for the grievance point, as I said, I'm far from familiar with it and would welcome input from someone more knowledgeable than I.

 

[FedEx courier]

But you are inferring that everyone in management is corrupt. By saying there is no protection for an employee your implying that the GFT process, Open Door, ethics line, etc, are just for show and that any member of management involved would not do the right thing. If you are not saying that, then there is protection for an employee because when their complaint comes to upper management's attention, if policy wasn't followed or not applied fairly across the board, then they would correct that.

It's not that decisions are made that benefit the company before the employees, it's that business decisions could be good or bad for the employees and you try to make a decision that is good for both. After all, no matter how good the decision is for the employees, if it's bad for business it ultimately becomes bad for the employees. For the record, we as a company do make bad decisions sometimes but we are, after all, human and make mistakes. I look more at the intent of the decision and even then, if I think the intent was wrong, I'll temper that with all decisions that I've seen. If and when the bad ones start becoming a larger percentage of all decisions, I would then re-evaluate my options. Just as I don't want my manager to judge me on one mistake, I don't judge others that way.

This whole retaliation thing is very anecdotal. Has it ever happened? I don't doubt it but I don't believe it is common or widespread. What I have seen happen is someone files a GFT and their discipline is overturned not because they didn't do anything wrong but because of some sort of technicality (don't know what those are as I'm not privvy to the details but in general conversation with managers and employees I put two and two together). Then what happens is that same employee either cannot correct the initial problem and their performance is still unacceptable or they get a little too full of themselves and believe they are untouchable and do something stupid. They then get disciplined again and rightly so, and claim that it's retaliation when it clearly is not. Lastly, if you believe it is common or widespread, then again you are implying that all managers are corrupt.

As for the grievance point, as I said, I'm far from familiar with it and would welcome input from someone more knowledgeable than I.

Because there is not system of protection in place for the employee then I would guess most employees would be reluctant to file a GFT against a manager. If FedEx wanted to correct that problem then they would put such a system in place.

 

[quadro]

Because there is not system of protection in place for the employee then I would guess most employees would be reluctant to file a GFT against a manager. If FedEx wanted to correct that problem then they would put such a system in place.

Ok, I promise this is the last time I'll say this in this discussion because the horse is dead.

If you assume that there is no protection, then you are implying the whole GFT process is broken. For that to be true, everyone from the manager up through the Sr. VP would have to be in cahoots and corrupt. That is very naive and closed-minded. Neither the manager nor the sr. manager makes decisions on GFT's. The decisions are made either 1, 2, or 3 steps away from that.

How many GFT's have been filed in your station in the last 12 months? I have no idea how many were filed in my station and I'm guessing you don't either. It's easy to say not many because people are concerned about retaliation but in reality you probably don't know how many have been filed and the truth may be as simple as people felt they were getting a fair shake and didn't need to file. Very simplistic view, I know but the point is, we, as humans, tend to hear what supports our view and ignore the rest. Just food for thought.

 

[FedEx courier]

Ok, I promise this is the last time I'll say this in this discussion because the horse is dead.

If you assume that there is no protection, then you are implying the whole GFT process is broken. For that to be true, everyone from the manager up through the Sr. VP would have to be in cahoots and corrupt. That is very naive and closed-minded. Neither the manager nor the sr. manager makes decisions on GFT's. The decisions are made either 1, 2, or 3 steps away from that.

How many GFT's have been filed in your station in the last 12 months? I have no idea how many were filed in my station and I'm guessing you don't either. It's easy to say not many because people are concerned about retaliation but in reality you probably don't know how many have been filed and the truth may be as simple as people felt they were getting a fair shake and didn't need to file. Very simplistic view, I know but the point is, we, as humans, tend to hear what supports our view and ignore the rest. Just food for thought.

You admitted yourself there isn't any protection from retaliation.

So you are saying you don't have a clue and neither do I. I am going by my experiences the same as you claim to be. You state things as fact over and over again but can't back any of it up other than from what you claim to be your experiences. You claim that people only hear what supports their views but yet you do exactly the same, so again what is your point with that. Good luck at getting people to buy into your misinformation campaign, I for one can say you haven't convinced me of anything by just regurgitating propaganda.

 

[quadro]

You admitted yourself there isn't any protection from retaliation.

So you are saying you don't have a clue and neither do I. I am going by my experiences the same as you claim to be. You state things as fact over and over again but can't back any of it up other than from what you claim to be your experiences. You claim that people only hear what supports their views but yet you do exactly the same, so again what is your point with that. Good luck at getting people to buy into your misinformation campaign, I for one can say you haven't convinced me of anything by just regurgitating propaganda.

I'll end with this. I never said that there isn't protection from retaliation. In fact, quite the opposite. And I said I don't have a clue about how many GFT's were filed. Doesn't mean I don't understand and comprehend the GFT process or anything else for that matter.

Show me something I've stated as fact which is not a fact and show me something I've stated which is misinformation. I always attempt to make it very clear when I'm stating something which is my opinion. As most of what we've discussed is anecdotal on both sides, a lot of it is our own opinions. What I've tried to do is just give you some food for thought. If you don't want to consider it and especially if you keep misreading and misinterpreting what I write, then I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything.

 

[Washu234]

Man I love how we stay on topic on our own forums. Who's our moderator? MrFedEx? Ha.

Anyway I was going to start a new topic but anyway - just to stir the pot a little:

Is UPS really that great - no paid sickdays or getting told off about taking a sick day? Sure I get the sob story from MGMT when I call-in but I still get paid. What's going on with so many in Brown replying 'no sick days in my region'!?
http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/new-sick-days-policy.299378/
http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/new-sick-days-policy.299378/

FedEx Benefits over Brown so far -

Paid Sick Days (Including those not used)
401k Match
Quicker Benefits activation (3 months verses 6 months/1 year)

UPS Benefits over Purple (and Orange)-

Better Pension
Better Pay
Better Representation

UPS still wins overall don't get me wrong. But it seems the teamsters aren't all that great in some districts. Seriously - I make it to work with a cold but if I'm vomiting I don't wanna 'hold it in' just to stay on budget for the week.

 

[Washu234]

You, FedExer267, and Washu234 apparently don't understand the 34 hour rule. Might want to "think it through". All that rule does is reset the total hours under the 60/70 hour rule.

Ha what you talking about Quadro. My example was just showing one example of how to use the hour rule for Mon-Fri's. I know we can work 60/hours in 7 days (or 70 in 8 days) and the reset can be whenever but to reset over the weekend is key to our 'big' accounts. Every one of my stops flips out when I take a day.

Use of Tuesday - Sat's for Sunday could be used to with as long as they went home early enough Sunday.

I doubt hours of service will be a big deal with this umm deal. My workgroup did have a meeting with our senior manager this past week where he talked about Valentines and reminded us all of hours of service rules.

 

[quadro]

Ha what you talking about Quadro. My example was just showing one example of how to use the hour rule for Mon-Fri's. I know we can work 60/hours in 7 days (or 70 in 8 days) and the reset can be whenever but to reset over the weekend is key to our 'big' accounts. Every one of my stops flips out when I take a day.

Use of Tuesday - Sat's for Sunday could be used to with as long as they went home early enough Sunday.

I doubt hours of service will be a big deal with this umm deal. My workgroup did have a meeting with our senior manager this past week where he talked about Valentines and reminded us all of hours of service rules.

My apologies. In re-reading your original post, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. Your example was right. Not sure it's necessary to do it that way but certainly a valid example. Tue-Sat could work all day Sunday and not really have an issue. Assuming they start as early as 0500 on Tues, as long as they are off by 1900 on Sunday, they get a restart.

Some stations might have an issue but I agree with you that for the most part, it probably won't be an issue.

 

[FedEx courier]

I'll end with this. I never said that there isn't protection from retaliation. In fact, quite the opposite. And I said I don't have a clue about how many GFT's were filed. Doesn't mean I don't understand and comprehend the GFT process or anything else for that matter.

Show me something I've stated as fact which is not a fact and show me something I've stated which is misinformation. I always attempt to make it very clear when I'm stating something which is my opinion. As most of what we've discussed is anecdotal on both sides, a lot of it is our own opinions. What I've tried to do is just give you some food for thought. If you don't want to consider it and especially if you keep misreading and misinterpreting what I write, then I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything.

You are stating there being protection from retaliation as fact, if that is the case how is this protection enacted. Say I file a GFT and win, the manager is upset that I made them look bad. They choose to harass me until they get enough trumped up to get me fired. How would I be protected from retaliation in such a case.

 

[quadro]

You are stating there being protection from retaliation as fact, if that is the case how is this protection enacted. Say I file a GFT and win, the manager is upset that I made them look bad. They choose to harass me until they get enough trumped up to get me fired. How would I be protected from retaliation in such a case.

Protection from retaliation is not an absolute. A rogue manager could try to retaliate so yes, it is a fact that there is protection but not an absolute certainty.
With that said, using your example, if your manager was to retaliate in some way, then the GFT process that worked for you the first time because you won, would give you (not someone speaking on your behalf) the opportunity to present your case to the same director, vp, etc that agreed with you the first time.
One other thing, again using your example. Let's now say that you do have union representation and a grievance process. You go through it the first time and win, just like the GFT. Your manager now retaliates against you. In this scenario, based on UpstateNYUPSer's comments, your grievance would have to go through the shop steward who would sit down with the center manager and discuss your complaint. Now your complaint is being judged by your manager's manager along with maybe several other complaints. If necessary, it then gets passed on up the chain and you may or may not be part of the process.

Which sounds better to you?

 

[FedEx courier]

Protection from retaliation is not an absolute. A rogue manager could try to retaliate so yes, it is a fact that there is protection but not an absolute certainty.
With that said, using your example, if your manager was to retaliate in some way, then the GFT process that worked for you the first time because you won, would give you (not someone speaking on your behalf) the opportunity to present your case to the same director, vp, etc that agreed with you the first time.
One other thing, again using your example. Let's now say that you do have union representation and a grievance process. You go through it the first time and win, just like the GFT. Your manager now retaliates against you. In this scenario, based on UpstateNYUPSer's comments, your grievance would have to go through the shop steward who would sit down with the center manager and discuss your complaint. Now your complaint is being judged by your manager's manager along with maybe several other complaints. If necessary, it then gets passed on up the chain and you may or may not be part of the process.

Which sounds better to you?

I couldn't find the comment you were referring to, but I would certainly rather have the Union process. As Mr. Fedex pointing out the Union doesn't work for the company, it is an outsider organization, you are twisting it to make it sound like in that case your manager is the one that decides the verdict. I would certainly rather go through a shop steward than are personel rep who work for the company, you have to be joking right? For a person who claims not to know very much about a grievance process in a Union you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about it. Just an observation.

 

[quadro]

I couldn't find the comment you were referring to, but I would certainly rather have the Union process. As Mr. Fedex pointing out the Union doesn't work for the company, it is an outsider organization, you are twisting it to make it sound like in that case your manager is the one that decides the verdict. I would certainly rather go through a shop steward than are personel rep who work for the company, you have to be joking right? For a person who claims not to know very much about a grievance process in a Union you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about it. Just an observation.

It's in the other thread that we've hijacked.

I didn't say that the manager decides the verdict. Doesn't the shop steward work for the company? And I really don't know so that's not a rhetorical question. I'm not making any assumptions. I'm going by what UpstateNYUPSer said.
So just to be clear, you would rather someone state your case for you than state it yourself?

 

[FedEx courier]

It's in the other thread that we've hijacked.

I didn't say that the manager decides the verdict. Doesn't the shop steward work for the company? And I really don't know so that's not a rhetorical question. I'm not making any assumptions. I'm going by what UpstateNYUPSer said.
So just to be clear, you would rather someone state your case for you than state it yourself?

Can't say that I'd like to walk into a courtroom without a lawyer representing me so I would have to say yes.