Newest Scare Tactic: Rural Service Cutbacks

Discussion in 'FedEx Discussions' started by MrFedEx, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Fred must be really scared, because now he's floating a new scare tactic. If we go union, FedEx will have to reduce service to rural areas because of higher costs. Let's think this through, OK? What political persuasion tends to be dominant in rural communities? Why that would be conservatism,of course, and pretending that Grandma won't get her Xanax and Grandpa won't get his Viagra is going to ruffle some feathers, and result in some pressure on politicians to prevent "service disruptions" and "damage" to our national economy. Never mind that FedEx has been aggressively expanding service areas because it is so profitable to do so.

    More hocus-pocus from the masters of BS, your friends at FedEx Express.
     
  2. ex fed exer

    ex fed exer New Member

    tell grandma and granpa not to worry. ups will pick up the slack. who neds fred smith anyway. bring on the union!
     
  3. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    They wouldn't want their meds delivered by a union company with Communist drivers who wear brown shirts. But you're right, if poor little penniless Fred doesn't want to serve East Bicycle Seat, Arkansas...someone else will. That's Fred's free market at work. God Bless America!!
     
  4. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    We will just outsource it to the Post Office with our Basic service.
     
  5. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Or Express would just outsource it to Ground.
     
  6. Cactus

    Cactus Just telling it like it is

    You wish.

    I'm sure your drivers really want those kind of stops.
     
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    They are probably heading that way anyway.
     
  8. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Express has aggressively been expanding service areas for several years. Given the FedEx penchant for profit, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a big money-maker. You can bet that the possibility of unionization was factored into the decision to expand. Another factor to consider is that transportation companies will continue servicing a rural area even if it is at a loss just so they can say they provide service to any point. This is a big deal for major shippers. If you take a loss on a few Amazon pkgs going to BFE, you'll more than make it up on the thousands of pkgs going to metropolitan ZIP codes.

    That's why this whole "argument" is a ruse on the part of FedEx. It's just an attempt to gin-up more support based on a fake issue.
     
  9. LTFedExer

    LTFedExer New Member

    And this information comes from where?
     
  10. LTFedExer

    LTFedExer New Member

    Ahh, thank you. MrFedEx has a habit of making statements without backing them up.
     
  11. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    I read the news source. My opinion is that it's a FedEx scare tactic based on what I saw. You have a habit of disgreeing with me just for the sake of doing so. Your tagline pretty much erases any ideas that you debate topics with an open mind. "Thin" profit margins are profits nonetheless, and what would FedEx have to gain by playing on the sympathies and politics of rural customers? Lots, so that's why they are conducting another misinformation campaign.

    I love the term "special status". Just using the word "special" conveys unique treatment and circumstances that do not exist in this case. FedEx air products move the same way UPS air products do, yet one organization is a "trucking company" and the other is an "airline".
    If you just shove all the BS aside it boils down to one thing, and one thing only. A "special" status for FedEx means that they probably don't have to deal with a union. Simple as that. Even someone with 3 brain cells can grasp that concept, can't you?
     
  12. Broke

    Broke Member

    It's amazing how Fedex gets away with claiming that the law change alone will cause all this chaos. Fedex has a choice, either self destruct or adapt to the change. The labor classification change will not cause the problems the company claims, all it will do is force them to acknowledge labor.
     
  13. upsyo

    upsyo Member

  14. vantexan

    vantexan Well-Known Member

    As I have worked as a domicile out west it appears to me that the only cost increase would be in payroll. Everything else would remain the same. Most stations in rural areas are small, and far between. And they aren't talking about discontinuing service, just trucking it in. So overall people would get their pkgs, but will have to wait an extra day. Hey, that'll create jobs for FedEx truck drivers! I'm guessing where there's alot of wealthy folk there will still be air service. Think Aspen, CO or Jackson, WY.
     
  15. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    I always check my sources. That's why my posts have a high degree of accuracy.
     
  16. Cactus

    Cactus Just telling it like it is

    Yeah Fedex has always been notorious for saying that "change is good" that is until it comes time for them to deal with issues they don't want (can you say union, Fred?) Time to eat your words with a fork and spoon.
     
  17. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Yep. Change is wonderful when it suits them. If a law were passed requiring us to never exceed $25 per hour in wages, FedEx would support it completely. Fred has had things his way for nearly 40 years, but now change is a bad thing. Funny how that works and equally funny that nobody in management wants to talk about the RLA any longer. Wouldn't a union be Fred's beloved "free market" at work? Since he isn't willing to pay a competitive wage, the labor "market" (us) is indicating that change is necessary, so he should embrace it in the true spirit of capitalism at work.

    If he loses the RLA fight, the threats will begin in earnest, but since "threatening" behavior isn't allowed it will be very interesting to see how they word things. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
     
  18. vantexan

    vantexan Well-Known Member

    OK, let's play deviil's advocate. Let's say that for all these years Fedex has been carrying the service in the rural areas of these 19 states, eating the cost, losing money. Does that mean that if they switch to P1 service on the morning of the 2nd day that it will enable them to pay us much better from the savings? If so let's do it. They could still offer 1st Overnight from ramp stations. People could still get same day service by requesting hold for pickup, get their pkgs later in the day. There are ways around the problem and those conservative folk in those areas tend to be pragmatic and understanding. If this is what it takes to get us better pay what are we waiting for? Sorry for those contractors who currently fly the freight, but we are talking about improving the pay of 10's of thousands of employees.
     
  19. LTFedExer

    LTFedExer New Member

    On the contrary. I take any information I read and come up with my own conclusion. I don't need anyone interpreting it for me (hence the line in my sig). You have your opinion and I have mine. Had you of posted the link a UPS employee posted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    My initial statement meant that you make claims, insinuations and accusations without proof. When asked to provide the proof, you give 1 reason or another why you can't and expect everyone to accept it as fact.

    You may now call me, or my ideas stupid, simplistic or any other word of the day. You're pretty good at that.
     
  20. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    The article in question points-out that Fedex has outspent UPS 2 to 1 and is running what is essentially a political campaign, with FedEx as the "candidate". Again, this is legislation that only benefits one company in the entire country....FedEx.

    And you are completely welcome to your opinion and to disagree with me at will. I'm kind of having a tough time figuring-out the logic behind your explanation, because I clearly said in the original post that it was my opinion, just as it always is.