Stupid Managers

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Nice catch phrase--how does it apply to this thread or my post?

Oh lighten up...For the record, short of causing me physical harm, I feel I have an obligation to do right by my employer no matter what they do, within the bounds of the law. But I can certainly see where one might be tempted to retaliate against an exploitive leadership who've pushed us out of the middle class in the pursuit of personal enrichment.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I'm sorry, I may be way out of line for saying this, but how can anyone with even an ounce of self-respect knowingly sabotage the operations of their employer?

If you worked here, you'd understand. But you don't, so you're talking nonsense. If UPS played the same kind of games with you, if you had even an ounce of self-respect, you would also try to fight back. We don't have a union to call BS on management, and they do whatever they want whenever they want to, and we are just supposed to take it.

You have no idea how coddled and pampered you are in terms of the management/labor relationsip, so put a sock in it until you have a clue, which you don't.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
If you worked here, you'd understand. But you don't, so you're talking nonsense. If UPS played the same kind of games with you, if you had even an ounce of self-respect, you would also try to fight back. We don't have a union to call BS on management, and they do whatever they want whenever they want to, and we are just supposed to take it.

You have no idea how coddled and pampered you are in terms of the management/labor relationsip, so put a sock in it until you have a clue, which you don't.

It would be one thing if you were doing the job to the best of your ability and had lates due to being overdispatched or delays on road beyond your control but to leave the building with the full intent of sabotaging the operation by purposely having lates is something I simply cannot comprehend.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
It would be one thing if you were doing the job to the best of your ability and had lates due to being overdispatched or delays on road beyond your control but to leave the building with the full intent of sabotaging the operation by purposely having lates is something I simply cannot comprehend.

I know you can't comprehend it. As someone else said, FedEx management sabotages us every day. In FedEx speak, it's called "Set-up to Fail". They fully expect you to work for free during your "breaks", and then discipline you when you bring back freight or have lates. It's every day, and it's planned. Like I said, you don't understand, because you have a union between you and abusive management. We don't, and they take full advantage of the situation. You're obviously an intelligent person, but it's equally obvious that you don't understand the way FedEx operates.

We're like Palestinians throwing rocks at the Israelis, because the only "weapon" we have is to make management look bad when they jerk us around. No steward, no grievance process, and no other options. You have no idea how good you've got it.
 

LTFedExer

Well-Known Member
I know you can't comprehend it. As someone else said, FedEx management sabotages us every day. In FedEx speak, it's called "Set-up to Fail". They fully expect you to work for free during your "breaks", and then discipline you when you bring back freight or have lates. It's every day, and it's planned. Like I said, you don't understand, because you have a union between you and abusive management. We don't, and they take full advantage of the situation. You're obviously an intelligent person, but it's equally obvious that you don't understand the way FedEx operates.

We're like Palestinians throwing rocks at the Israelis, because the only "weapon" we have is to make management look bad when they jerk us around. No steward, no grievance process, and no other options. You have no idea how good you've got it.
I work there and understand what you're saying. But, as UPSTATE said, to actively condone sabotage I would have thought to be even beneath you. Guess I was wrong. If you have lates and hit your SPH, so be it. But, to sit on a corner for 5, 6, 7 minutes just to prove a point is wrong no matter how you look at it and in the long run will accomplish nothing. This company has gotten away from the 2 things that got it where it is today....service and customer service, this I agree with. But, if you keep it up and your 'exit strategy' will come sooner than you think.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I'd just plug in a 28/29 around 1018-1028.
I take a lot of breaks before my 1200 P1 commit time.

I used to enjoy 10 minute paid breaks in Colorado but many, if not most, states don't offer that. And if you have a 1030 commit and decide to take a break, causing lates, you better have a medical emergency for the reason!
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I work there and understand what you're saying. But, as UPSTATE said, to actively condone sabotage I would have thought to be even beneath you. Guess I was wrong. If you have lates and hit your SPH, so be it. But, to sit on a corner for 5, 6, 7 minutes just to prove a point is wrong no matter how you look at it and in the long run will accomplish nothing. This company has gotten away from the 2 things that got it where it is today....service and customer service, this I agree with. But, if you keep it up and your 'exit strategy' will come sooner than you think.

When I was a swing in Florida I was doing a route for the first time that I thought was a really nice, easy route, very enjoyable. Next day the regular driver, who had a personal day, was furious with me as I got in almost 2 hrs before he normally did. Come to find out from his nearby coworkers that he would do a stop, sit by side of road and read for 4 or 5 minutes, then proceed to next stop. Our one mgr never did checkrides. We had another who drove 20 mins to his house, took 30 min break, then drove back to his rt. Before coming in he would drive back to his house and take another 30 mins. He typically got in 1830-1915 while swings covering him got in from 1630 to 1730. Finally there was the guy who got 44-46 hrs a week, never took a split, and yet most days when I covered him I took a split because the work just wasn't there. Glorified part-time rt. One week took one 1hr break, one 2hr break, and 3 3hr breaks! Mgr, his buddy, said if I was so good maybe I need to take more from others when I did that rt! One customer said that he would walk in, del pkg, get a cup of coffee and chat for 15 mins. Said they couldn't get rid of him! He defended himself by saying he drummed up business talking with his customers which the mgr, his buddy, said sounds reasonable. That courier is now a county jail guard.

Point of all this is while the company has been unfair with the pay, I suspect they believe they don't have to give more as many, if not most, are milking it. Now it looks like they've come up with a way to eliminate milking and those of us who do an honest job are getting unfairly squeezed by it. Whether in management, or in the frontline, way too many take advantage where they can and it hasn't been pleasant working with them. Those who screw the company see anyone doing an honest job as a threat. Geez I need to retire soon!
 

Mr. 7

The monkey on the left.
Yup,
2 guys in my loop have been with the company for a long time.
Any time they take vacation the swings crush their routes.
Does anything ever change, nope.
Meanwhile I'm busting my butt at ~15-17 sph. for much less pay.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Yup,
2 guys in my loop have been with the company for a long time.
Any time they take vacation the swings crush their routes.
Does anything ever change, nope.
Meanwhile I'm busting my butt at ~15-17 sph. for much less pay.

And when you look at what Ground guys get it's pretty clear we'll never make as much as our topped out coworkers. Thanks FedEx!
 

DS

Fenderbender
I think Mrfedex's rant was aimed more at the type of manager that every large company has one too many of.
In order to make the manager look bad,he misses service on days like he mentioned hoping to get him out of there.
It's the same at ups,if someone doesn't like you,they have tons of reports to bring up and focus on your least best attribute.
I honestly believe some of them are sadists.They have that Mona Lisa grin when they administer a 5 day suspension.
I try not to miss commits,but often get blamed for things beyond my control.They don't have to try to make things worse
for us,it's always bad as it is.Just for the record,nobody at ups has it easy.Where I am the union is next to having a concerned grandmother.
The only good thing about ups is that they love moving management around,but then again, every day is another round of Russian roulette.
 

Ricochet1a

Well-Known Member
If one looks at the history of organized labor and attempts to organize labor, there has always been a form of push back by labor against the employer - especially when that employer is being abusive towards its employees.

No one can honestly state that during a strike, that no "sabotage" of company processes or assets takes place.

It is all part of the reality of labor struggling against corporations who continually push and push for greater productivity while simultaneously dropping compensation bit by bit.

If volume gets delivered a bit late, a message is being sent. All the UPSers have constantly stated that the Express employees are going to have to pull their own weight when it comes to organizing and getting union representation certified - well, what do you think is part of the process?

When corporations push labor, labor has to push back.

Express employess have absolutely NO PROTECTION regarding their jobs, so they are at the mercy of Express for any little thing Express chooses to use against them.

So how do you "fight the machine"?

So if missorts go up, committment times begin to slip - its all part of the push back by the labor of Express against the abusive demands of the company.

When Express Couriers are constantly being threatened with their jobs being placed into jeopardy if they don't hit a productivity requirement which necessitates them speeding, working through unpaid breaks and being absolutely perfect in their execution of the job (robotic) over a very long day (hit one railroad crossing signal and you're cooked) - what do you expect?

In an environment where the employer RESPECTS their employees (not through just words but through rational work practices, compensation levels and productivity expectations), then there are no issues between management and labor.

Most UPSers have heard the phrase, "bleeds purple". It refers to employees of Express who believe that their treatment by the company (work expectations, compensation levels and ability to perform with a degree of creative expression) is so above par, that the employee will go the extra mile as a matter of reflex to further the performance of FedEx Express as a result of a feeling of intense personal loyalty being created by the employee-employer relationship.

Things have deteriorated so much within Express that individuals that are said to "bleed purple" are no longer held in high esteem by the rest of Express employees - they are viewed as having some form of mental illness, incapable of seeing what is going on around them. A "FedEx-er" is someone in the past who bled purple and "made things happen", but now is seen as someone who follows the company line so feverently, that they are blinded to how Express has changed and will actively engage in the process of employee abuse, just to maintain their own employment.

This is part of the issue that UPSers that haven't worked in a non-union environment will never understand - and why I'm still taking time even after having left Express to attempt to change things there.

There is no process to "grieve" a work requirement. Express determines what the expectation is and employees have three choices, do it, be disciplined for not doing it (leading to termination), or quitting. The work expectation can change at ANY TIME - at the whim of corporate management, or even station level management. There is no negotiation, no stopping to think about it, no nothing. Here's the expectation -meet it or else...

There is a process which Express holds so highly - the Guaranteed Fair Treatment process for it employees which have been subject to discipline. It is something that George Orwell had to have named for all the good it does the employee.

The "guarantee" is that Express HR and legal will review an disciplinary action (Warning letters only, OLCCs, and other "minor" changes in work requirements AREN'T subject to review) to ensure that Express won't be subject to any adverse legal action if the discipline is to stand. The "Fair Treatment" part of GFT is more a less a euphuism for "the management team which issued the Warning Letter has been cleared of any potential abuse of authority, and the issuance of said discipline is indeed "fair" to Express' interest". If an employee's receiving discipline does open Express to legal consequences, then Express will make the decision to either mitigate or recind the Warning Letter. There is no "steward" that can stand beside the employee when they are going through the process - they are against the machine, standing solo.

So what are employees of Express supposed to do, accept getting pushed under the bus further and further until they qualify for food stamps and public housing - or do something to push back against the abuse.

The smart Express employees look over to how FedEx compensates the delivery drivers of Ground, and don't want to end up there. There has to be push back. In the end, the only real solution is unionization - the road to get there will be very bumpy and unpleasant. Corporate America doesn't act responsibly unless there is a real threat of them losing profits, this is where labor starts to push back - unions help to keep corporations honest in their dealiings with labor.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Without a strong economy the company will do whatever is necessary to maintain a certain level of profitability. Thus the employees will suffer the consequences. And most of the employees aren't going to make waves in a bad economy because there's very little opportunity to replace this job. Only a strong economy with real alternatives will drive the company to raise compensation to stay competitive for employees. But that's the best time for existing employees to unionize, not now. Lose your job now and plenty will step forward to replace you. In a strong economy it'll be hard to replace you with quality applicants. So why unionize if the economy is strong? Because the company's strategy in a strong marketplace was to raise starting pay. Those of us in mid-range were left twisting in the wind. This is what the company should be worried about. So many of us feel we were screwed when things were good that we'll leave as soon as things improve. Or organize. If they're smart they'll set a reasonable timeline to reach top pay and enhance some benefits. Otherwise their chickens will come home to roost. They've firmly established themselves as a company that tells you one thing but the reality is very different. It's the information age and, to quote Abe Lincoln:"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time"(paraphrased).
 

Ricochet1a

Well-Known Member
Part 1:

Companies always do whatever they can to maintain as much profitability as they possibly can – regardless of the prevailing national or local economic conditions. Youseem to have missed the part where the employees take all the consequences and the company still keeps on generating a profit. Employees don’t make waves because they are scared – they are scared when the macro-economy is doing well, in that they’ll be forced to look for work if they screw up; they are scared whenthe macro-economy is struggling due to fear of how long it will take to find other employment if they are chopped. The one thing the UPS-ers here are correct about is that Express employees are going to need to overcome their fear and start using their heads if they want better compensation – it is as simple as that.

When it comes to “when to organize” – you have completely missed the boat yet again.Employees don’t feel compelled to organize when the national economy is doing well, since their employer most likely had to increased their compensation packages in order to maintain and recruit their workforce – thus employee satisfaction is relatively high. Employees feel scared regarding organizing when their compensation is being held stagnant while the national economy is struggling, since they believe that they’ll be put out of work if they make so much as a peep of dissatisfaction to the company.

So when is the time to organize? If you aren’t already organized and are working a wage job, it is time to organize. Again, simple as that…

If you choose to trap yourself in a “reality” that places you at the mercy of your employer (as vantexan has done), then there is nothing others can do for you; you have created your reality and despite how much you despise it, you live it.

Like manyothers, you (vantexan) don’t understand the processes behind how organize labor operates, how it benefits it members and why organized labor can operate in ANY economic climate. I’ll try to be brief and as simple as possible…

Let’s use an example of a recently organized workforce of a company that numbers 1,000 total employees, whose average compensation amount is $50,000 per employee per year. Competing companies have workforces that are compensated an average of $65,000 a year –which just happen to have unionized workforces. All these companies operate in the same economy, provide similar products or services and are virtually indistinguishable in terms of quality of product – they are all direct competitors.

The company employees which just have recently organized have had their requests for change in compensation and working conditions gathered and their union has analyzed the business model of the company in question and determined that an increase of compensation of $10,000 per year per employee is possible (total increase of labor cost to the company of $10,000,000 per year).

And yes,unions have MBAs, accountants and specialists in business planning and finance to determine exactly just how much can be asked for, and how much is too much.

The union has put forth its demands, and the company has to make a decision – whether or not to accept the demand or to lock out the workforce.

The company is faced with the following costs:

1) Recruitment of replacement employee - $5,000 average cost per employee. This is due to advertising, screening, recruitment, interviewing, testing. Not every applicant is hired, so there is definite cost to get a replacement.

2) Training –With all work there is specialized training needed in order for someone to be capable of operating with some degree of efficiency. Let’s assume $5,000 to train a new employee to be marginally productive.

3) Experience– New employees are able to operate to a certain degree of performance, but their productivity will take time to reach the level of a seasoned employee.This decreased productivity cost the company $10,000 over the course of the new employee’s first year of employment, and $5,000 during the second year of employment – after that time they have reached full productivity capability.

4) Attrition –The company has a natural turnover rate of 5 years. The average employee will stay with the company for 5 years before they leave. This means that with a workforce of 1,000 employees, the company will replace 200 employees a year –for a total annual cost of ($25,000 times 200), $5,000,000. This is already part of the cost of doing business, and is a cost already accounted for within the business plan.

So the company is looking at an increase of its labor expense of $10,000,000 per year if they agree to the union demand, or will need to lockout the union and begin looking to replace its workforce. There is a game of “chicken” that will go on, the company hoping that the union can be broken, while the union hopes the company fears loss of profit more than signing the contract.

What is the cost to the company to have a lockout and replace its workforce of 1000 employees?

1) It costs the company $25,000 per employee to get someone off the street and up to speed, multiplied by 1,000 employees - $25,000,000 to replace the workforce.

2) The company will lose profits during the time between the lockout starts and the replacement workforce is in place – let’s assume $15,000,000 as the annual profit margin, 4 months of lost business activity - $5,000,000 in lost profits due to having a lockout and replacing the workforce.

3) The company will lose goodwill with its customers due to the inability to provide its product and negative publicity for having a lockout. An intangible cost, but calculated at $5,000,000 the moment a lockout is done.

4) Loss of market share…. The company will lose market share to its competitors as aresult of a prolonged inability to provide its product. This will result in the loss of $5,000,000 in profits the first, year and $3,000,000 in profits the second year after a lockout. A cost of $2,000,000 will also be incurred in increased public relations expenses, advertising, price breaks and other attempts at restoring pre lockout market share to restore full profitability by the third year after a lockout. Total cost here is $10,000,000.

Total cost to the company to have a lockout: $45,000,000

Cost to the company to agree to the union demand: $10,000,000 per year

Profitability (pre-unionization): $15,000,000 per year

So you might be thinking, “Go ahead and have a lockout, the company would make back its cost of the lockout after 4.5 years and everything after that is gravy”. What makes you think that the replacement workforce wouldn’t unionize in time and place the company back into the same position, creating an ongoing cycle of lockouts and replacements every few years?

You might then think,“Well, if the company pays out an additional $10,000,000 per year in labor expense, their profitability will decrease to $5,000,000”. That would happen if the company continued to operate as it did pre-unionization. The company would naturally trim salaries of non-wage employees (and yes, it IS an “us versus them” situation), would trim support staffs, cut perks and benefits for top executives, extend the service utilization of equipment and manage other expenses with close scrutiny (the party is over). Profitability would jump from a pre “reorganization” business model/post unionization of $5,000,000 per year, to $7,500,000 per year. Definitely less than what they were making before, but still profitable.
 

Ricochet1a

Well-Known Member
Part 2:

But there is another boost to the company’s profitability – employee satisfaction.

The rate of turnover for the company drops to an average of 7 years – the employees are better compensated, so they stick with the job longer. For a company of 1000 employees, this means 57 fewer new hires each year, so a savings of $1,425,000 a year in recruitment/training expense – this goes directly to the bottom lineof the company, pushing up profitability up from $7,500,000 to $8,925,000. Still not the way it was pre-union for the company, but not Armageddon either (well maybe for the CEO and the top execs, they won’t be able to purchase anItalian sports car every three years).

In addition, employee satisfaction will increase, meaning there will be less wear/abuse of equipment (what was once “bleeding purple” in Express) – the employees will have a “connection” to the company, a sense of loyalty which will show in reduced costs for the company in other areas. Product quality will improve since the workforce is going to be more satisfied with their working for this company. Employees will know they are getting a good deal, so they will take an interest in keeping their “gravy train” rolling.

So what goes on here is that 1000 employees (should the company take the logical course of action and agree to the contract demands) will have their lives improved, there will be that ever sought for “income equity” resulting between labor and remaining management and the customers will receive a better product. The shareholders will lose some profits; the upper management will definitely lose along with some cubical dwellers losing. You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

So what to do if the economy takes a turn for the worse and the company hits a rough patch after they have already agreed to a union workforce? When the contract expires, the union will look at what the company can manage in terms of compensation, and alter its requests for compensation for its members.

What many don’t understand, is that when a wage workforce operates without the benefit of a union, they are competing with every single unemployed individual out there for the job they are performing. If the national economy is doing well, unemployment is low and the pool of replacement workers is low. So workers will be compelled to leave for greener pastures – the company responds with increasing compensation – free market theory. This theory works really well for employers, since they don’t have to compensate based off what they can potentially compensate employees, but rather what the level of desperation is in the labor market – and bid the lowest wage they can to fill the jobs they have.

Corporate America LOVES a moderate unemployment rate – they can bid down their wages and still get the job done if they are non-union. The only downside to a situation of moderate unemployment (for corporations) is that the unemployed don’t consume, so that cuts down on potential customers. If the company sells to a non-consumer market or an export market – they don’t care.

What unions do is to remove a company’s workforce from having its members compete with the unemployed, and rather act as a single entity to negotiate with the employer the highest compensation possible. They present themselves as a unified whole, that if the company chooses to lockout, the company will incur some VERY high costs in terms of replacing the entire workforce. An individual doesn’t have a prayer against the corporate machine – they are operating in the labor free market which results in the lowest wage possible for the employee given the supply of available labor. Unions change the dynamic to that of what the employer can reasonably bear – with the very real possibility that if they don’t act “fairly”, they will incur the expenses of bringing in a new workforce.

Some may call it legalized extortion – it is merely bargaining between equals. As an individual (non-union), you are receiving the “low end” of the range of possible compensation packages – you have competed with the unemployed and have met the minimum requirements of the employer for the lowest wage the market would beart o have those requirements met – have you ever thought that you were being offered TOO MUCH for a non-union job you accepted, or just enough for you to take it?

As a union member, you are receiving the “high end” of the range of possible compensation packages – you have competed NOT with the unemployed, but rather against the business model of your employer. The employer’s business model has certain fixed costs, which are used as leverage by the employees of the company to push their compensation levels up from the “free market” rate, to the “union rate”. If the company can reduced their fixed costs of employee replacement, they gain bargaining power. If the fixed costs of employee replacement increase for the company, a union is able to take advantage of that fact and get better compensation for the employees who do choose to stay and not subject the company to a high turnover rate.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Yada, yada, yada. All that and yet we have no union and none on the horizon. When times improve and yet our situation doesn't we'll see a drive for a union if it ever happens. You can tell us now's the time, get over your fear, blah, blah, blah. We won't get over our fear, but anger at being screwed again will motivate those who have stuck with it. We're the ones who didn't quit. And with more and more topped out, fat and happy seniors retiring there are more and more of us. We'll see...
 

franknitty

Well-Known Member
If one looks at the history of organized labor and attempts to organize labor, there has always been a form of push back by labor against the employer - especially when that employer is being abusive towards its employees.

No one can honestly state that during a strike, that no "sabotage" of company processes or assets takes place.

It is all part of the reality of labor struggling against corporations who continually push and push for greater productivity while simultaneously dropping compensation bit by bit.

If volume gets delivered a bit late, a message is being sent. All the UPSers have constantly stated that the Express employees are going to have to pull their own weight when it comes to organizing and getting union representation certified - well, what do you think is part of the process?

When corporations push labor, labor has to push back.

Express employess have absolutely NO PROTECTION regarding their jobs, so they are at the mercy of Express for any little thing Express chooses to use against them.

So how do you "fight the machine"?

So if missorts go up, committment times begin to slip - its all part of the push back by the labor of Express against the abusive demands of the company.

When Express Couriers are constantly being threatened with their jobs being placed into jeopardy if they don't hit a productivity requirement which necessitates them speeding, working through unpaid breaks and being absolutely perfect in their execution of the job (robotic) over a very long day (hit one railroad crossing signal and you're cooked) - what do you expect?

In an environment where the employer RESPECTS their employees (not through just words but through rational work practices, compensation levels and productivity expectations), then there are no issues between management and labor.

Most UPSers have heard the phrase, "bleeds purple". It refers to employees of Express who believe that their treatment by the company (work expectations, compensation levels and ability to perform with a degree of creative expression) is so above par, that the employee will go the extra mile as a matter of reflex to further the performance of FedEx Express as a result of a feeling of intense personal loyalty being created by the employee-employer relationship.

Things have deteriorated so much within Express that individuals that are said to "bleed purple" are no longer held in high esteem by the rest of Express employees - they are viewed as having some form of mental illness, incapable of seeing what is going on around them. A "FedEx-er" is someone in the past who bled purple and "made things happen", but now is seen as someone who follows the company line so feverently, that they are blinded to how Express has changed and will actively engage in the process of employee abuse, just to maintain their own employment.

This is part of the issue that UPSers that haven't worked in a non-union environment will never understand - and why I'm still taking time even after having left Express to attempt to change things there.

There is no process to "grieve" a work requirement. Express determines what the expectation is and employees have three choices, do it, be disciplined for not doing it (leading to termination), or quitting. The work expectation can change at ANY TIME - at the whim of corporate management, or even station level management. There is no negotiation, no stopping to think about it, no nothing. Here's the expectation -meet it or else...

There is a process which Express holds so highly - the Guaranteed Fair Treatment process for it employees which have been subject to discipline. It is something that George Orwell had to have named for all the good it does the employee.

The "guarantee" is that Express HR and legal will review an disciplinary action (Warning letters only, OLCCs, and other "minor" changes in work requirements AREN'T subject to review) to ensure that Express won't be subject to any adverse legal action if the discipline is to stand. The "Fair Treatment" part of GFT is more a less a euphuism for "the management team which issued the Warning Letter has been cleared of any potential abuse of authority, and the issuance of said discipline is indeed "fair" to Express' interest". If an employee's receiving discipline does open Express to legal consequences, then Express will make the decision to either mitigate or recind the Warning Letter. There is no "steward" that can stand beside the employee when they are going through the process - they are against the machine, standing solo.

So what are employees of Express supposed to do, accept getting pushed under the bus further and further until they qualify for food stamps and public housing - or do something to push back against the abuse.

The smart Express employees look over to how FedEx compensates the delivery drivers of Ground, and don't want to end up there. There has to be push back. In the end, the only real solution is unionization - the road to get there will be very bumpy and unpleasant. Corporate America doesn't act responsibly unless there is a real threat of them losing profits, this is where labor starts to push back - unions help to keep corporations honest in their dealiings with labor.
 

franknitty

Well-Known Member
Ricochet1a ? You said something very important that I all Fedex Express couriers need to understand ASAP: "Express employess have absolutely NO PROTECTION regarding their jobs, so they are at the mercy of Express for any little thing Express chooses to use against them" ! I have no love for this company, because of the corporate games they play with their employees. I do the best I can within the rules, but I refuse to break their so called rules, along with city, state, and federal laws in order obtain 100% goals.

As far as lates are concerned, I've been employed with this company for almost 20 years, and drivers intentionally having lates has been going on for years. I recall a senior manager our station had in the late 90's, and how the majority of drivers in our station no longer cared for this guy, and guess what started happening ? Many of these drivers intentionally started having numerous late deliveries and pickups. Eventually, this particular senior manager realized that many of the couriers at the station were against him, and he ultimately transferred to South Carolina and became an ops manager. So the point I'm trying to make is, drivers having lates on purpose have been going on for years here !

And one final thought, if you are an employee who's topped out, there's a bullseye on your back, a managerial bounty on your head ! You my friend, are costing this company a lot of money, with your topped out pay and benefits ! You my friend are stealing from their bottom line, which is their cash ! Unless you do what they want you to do, "By Any Means Necessary", you're on their radar, and they're coming for you ! And if you're not topped out, the chances are that you'll never be ! So keep chasing after that dream, and see where that'll get you !
 
Top