The biggest danger is to each and every hourly employee who in all likelihood could least afford to put their job at risk. Fred will survive with a mutated FedEx or even without FedEx. Unionization may very well turn out to be a good thing for Express employees as long as it is at a national level where everyone has a say, I don't know for sure. However, local unions would mean that a minority of employees can cause serious issues for the majority. The fact that unions aren't willing to invest the time and money to make an attempt to unionize under RLA tells me that they are not sure they can get the votes. They're apparently not really interested in trying because they're more concerned about how much it would cost them to even try. If they are not willing to go out on a limb for me now, why should I believe that they'll look out for me later? If they had even made a halfhearted effort to earn my business over the years, I might have a different point of view about them now.
Unions know that under the RLA they don't have a shot at unionizing. FX could easily weed out any vocal, pro-union employees and nothing could be done about it. FDX knows it too, that's why there is such a wild outroar against the classification change. I don't know why you think it's so easy to unionize under the RLA. FEDx has a system in place now which allows them to weed out anyone they want. We are just talking about a classification change here, voting for the Union is a different deal. That's where you lose a lot of credibility quadro. You keep claiming that FX's classification shouldn't be changed but in the same breath you spout out about the evil's of labor unions. Which one is it, do you really believe FEDx is an airline or does that argument serve your needs for being anti-union at any cost?
Why do unions know that under the RLA they won't have a shot? If most employees want a union then it would get voted in. Why does the voting population have to be divided into small groups? Divide and conquer, is that the argument? The classification and voting really aren't different deals. The classification change is to make the voting easier and less costly for the unions.
Because under the RLA, Fedex can target the larger market locations and give those locations better pay and treatment. Then those of us at the smaller locations will continue to get screwed and there won't be enough of us to vote a union in. I tried to make it as simple as I could for you.
So what I'm hearing from both of you is that the majority wouldn't vote in a union and if FedEx took care of the major markets, i.e. the majority of the employees, then the minority of the employees wouldn't get what they want. So you want local representation so that the minority of the employees could potentially create issues for the rest of the employees who don't want a union. And FedEx staying under the RLA prevents that from happening. Surely I'm misunderstanding.
That's about the response I expected to hear from you. If the RLA status is removed, then each location can decide whether or not they're getting a fair shake.
I was only repeating what you said. At least under the RLA the majority of the employees get to decide what happens. And after all, isn't that what collective bargaining is about, getting what is best for the majority of employees not just the majority of the employees at a minority of the locations? Local unionization has the potential to cause serious issues for the majority. I'm not saying it will but it is possible and something that people need to understand and consider when making a decision.
Well then lucky for you you aren't in danger of being arrested.
So your saying that its right for the employees in say NYC to decide whats best for the majority of employees at my facility? If so, then I don't think that's the definition of collective bargaining.
No. I believe that's what you are saying. Maybe I've misunderstood you but you talked about smaller locations being able to vote in a union. Just for arguments sake, let's say there are 600 locations and 10% vote in a union. Those 60 locations can bargain for themselves or, possibly depending on a number of things, bargain as a whole. Those 60 locations might have 2000-3000 employees. That's not an insignificant number but it's also less than 10% of the couriers. It is enough, however, that should they decide to take some type of action (and it's been said many times around here that a strike could happen) more than 10% of FedEx customers might choose to not ship while a strike is on or imminent. Some of those customers might not ever come back to FedEx. So now those <10% of the employees at 10% of the locations have in effect decided what is best for the other 90% of the employees. Even if it's 49% vs. 51% the 49% should not decided what's best for the 51%. I realize that many businesses and employees are under NLRA and there are work actions that don't have the impact I'm suggesting could happen but how many of those businesses are global corporations that rely on national coverage the way FedEx does?
Look, working conditions and pay vary from region to region. It doesn't make since for the Northeast or Southwest regions to decide whats best for the rest of the country or vice versa. There are snowstorms in the Northeast, wildfires in the Southwest, and hurricanes on the Gulf coast all of which has an impact on service in those individual areas. Does this disrupt the entire network? Hell no, and neither would a local strike if it ever came to that.
Check with the UPS aircraft mechanics with that. After it goes to an arbitrator, it's still not done. Get all your facts first.
Um. No. If you look into the Local 2727 Update thread on this site maybe you could educate yourself on company/union relations. There's no reason to wonder how contract negotiations would go at Fedex, just watch the proceedings at UPS and you'll get a feel for it.
